—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007 of 18 September 2007 establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel (1) (the ‘Eel Regulation’),

—

having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular Articles 3, 4, 11, 38, 39 and 43 thereof,

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC (2),

—

having regard to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (3),

—

having regard to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (4),

—

having regard to Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) (5),

—

having regard to Appendix II to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora,

—

having regard to the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals,

—

having regard to the Commission evaluations of the Eel Regulation in 2014 (COM(2014)0640) and in 2020 (SWD(2020)0035),

—

having regard to the evaluation report of 2019 contracted to Poseidon by the Commission,

—

having regard to the recommendations of 4 May 2022 of the Baltic Sea Advisory Council on management measures for eels,

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EU) 2023/194 of 30 January 2023 fixing for 2023 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters, as well as fixing for 2023 and 2024 such fishing opportunities for certain deep-sea fish stocks (6) and Council Regulation (EU) 2023/195 of 30 January 2023 fixing for 2023 the fishing opportunities for certain stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Mediterranean and Black Seas and amending Regulation (EU) 2022/110 as regards the fishing opportunities for 2022 applicable in the Mediterranean and the Black Seas (7),

—

having regard to the statement by Denmark, France, Italy, Greece, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Sweden on eel in respect of Council Regulation (EU) 2023/194,

—

having regard to its position of 16 May 2006 on the proposal for a Council regulation establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of European Eel (8),

—

having regard to the report of 30 May 2022 issued by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) on the workshop for the Technical evaluation of EU Member States’ Progress Reports for submission in 2021 (WKEMP3),

—

having regard to the advice of 3 November 2022 issued by the ICES on the European eel (Anguilla anguilla) throughout its natural range,

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 21 February 2023 entitled ‘EU Action Plan: Protecting and restoring marine ecosystems for sustainable and resilient fisheries’ (COM(2023)0102),

—

having regard to Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure, as well as to Article 1(1)(e) of, and Annex 3 to, the Decision of the Conference of Presidents of 12 December 2002 on the procedure for the granting of authorisation to draw up non-legislative reports,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries (A9-0353/2023),

A.

whereas the Eel Regulation lays down an obligation for Member States to develop national eel management plans (EMP), with a uniform objective and an internationally coordinated, triannual monitoring and evaluation process;

B.

whereas 19 Member States have adopted EMPs for almost 90 Eel Management Units, covering around 1 880 actions; whereas six Member States (Cyprus, Malta, Austria, Romania, Slovakia and Hungary) are exempted from preparing an EMP; whereas Slovenia and Bulgaria (for its river systems outside the Black Sea) have not prepared their EMPs; whereas Croatia is currently developing its EMP;

C.

whereas only one Member State has so far amended its EMP; whereas, however, Member States are taking action and are implementing their EMPs in different ways based on their national administrative traditions; whereas more action is needed in terms of implementing measures and, where necessary, updating of EMPs;

D.

whereas, at present, there is only one transboundary plan recognised by the EU, which is in the Minho River basin (Spain and Portugal); whereas, according to the ICES (2022), while it is recognised that cooperation between Member States and non-EU countries through other mechanisms exists, there are still waterbodies that would benefit from improved coordination of management measure implementation;

E.

whereas distributed control under central coordination is a feature of the Eel Regulation; whereas eel stock management is too complex for a one-size-fits-all approach; whereas the Eel Regulation gives flexibility to Member States to adjust their national EMPs to local circumstances and national priorities so as to allow for the recovery of the stock;

F.

whereas there is no eel-specific platform at EU level for exchanging information, discussions among stakeholders and follow-up of feedback;

G.

whereas reporting by Member States has often been incomplete and non-standardised; whereas, according to the 2019 Poseidon report, 18 out of 19 Member States reported in 2012, 14 out of 19 Member States reported in 2015 and 15 out of 19 Member States reported in 2018; whereas according to the ICES (2022), only 13 out of 19 Member States reported in 2021;

H.

whereas the Commission evaluated the overall implementation of the Eel Regulation and the national EMPs in 2014, concluding that the implementation of EMPs had resulted in restrictions on fisheries, while more attention should be given to management measures related to non-fishing anthropogenic mortality factors, the majority of which had only partially been implemented by Member States;

I.

whereas the Commission evaluated whether the Eel Regulation was fit for purpose in 2020, concluding that it was relevant and fit for purpose, while adding that further ambition was needed to implement the Regulation with a greater focus on non-fisheries related measures;

J.

whereas the eel is at the moment still classified as ‘critically endangered’ under the IUCN red list; whereas the recruitment of glass eel and yellow eel has stabilised over the past decade and is improving; whereas it is widely recognised that the recovery of the European eel will take many decades, given the long life-span of the species;