Henrik Svedäng.

At the Council meeting on 11-12 December, EU fisheries ministers decided on conservation measures for the endangered European eel. Among other things, they agreed on a six-month closure period for all eel fishing (including glass eel fishing) in all EU waters: from 15 September 2024 to 15 March 2025. 

The reason given is to encourage eel migration from the Baltic Sea and to the Sargasso Sea. However, this argument is at odds with the actual consequences of the decision, which is a deterioration of the eel's ability to escape the Baltic Sea. The decision means that eel fishing will be stopped during the part of the year when very little eel fishing takes place – during during this period the eels are more or less dormant.

Difficult to understand

Charles Berkow. Foto: Lisa Bergqvist

Earlier this year, the European Commission proposed a fishing ban from 1 August to 31 January. This would have benefited eels more. Why the ministers now choose to move the closure period to the time of year when it is least beneficial to the survival of the eel is difficult to understand from a conservation point of view. 

There is a possibility for the Baltic Sea countries to close the eel fishery for a different period than that decided by the Council of Ministers. However, this requires the countries to coordinate their closure periods and announce a joint decision by 1 March next year at the latest. 

It is highly unlikely that the countries would agree on a different period, which would seriously affect fishing and favour eels. Especially since the Council of Ministers has now weakened the closure period and thus sent a clear political signal, which reduces the pressure on the member states to develop a new and better period.

Going against science

Furthermore, it is unfortunate that the Council of Ministers takes decisions that so blatantly contradict scientific advice. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) is very clear in its advice: all fishing on all life stages of eels (glass eels, eel fry, yellow and silver eels) must be stopped to ensure the survival of eels. 

The failure of fisheries ministers to take a decision to end eel stocking is also contrary to scientific advice. A ban on glass eel fishing would automatically result in an end to eel restocking – which according to ICES would probably benefit the eel stock. There is no robust evidence that eel restocking is an effective conservation measure. On the contrary, continued restocking allows countries to maintain a fishery that would otherwise close due to the increasing scarcity of growing eels. At the same time, it contributes to a reduction in the density of eels in the younger life stages, especially in France, to critical levels as single-sex stocks emerge.

Calls for new research on eel replacements

In a press release following the Council decision, the government announced that Sweden, together with Germany and others, is requesting that the European Commission, prior to the next negotiations, produce scientific data on how glass eel fishing affects European eel management. The question is why they are prepared to adopt such new scientific knowledge while so obviously ignoring the scientifically substantiated knowledge that already exists.

The eel is a unique species that has existed for over 40 million years. The recent decision by EU ministers on the eel is irresponsible and shows a lack of concern for the importance of biodiversity for functioning ecosystems. On the whole, it signals that they are more interested in protecting fisheries than in protecting eels. 

Text: Henrik Svedäng and Charles Berkow