ICES WKEELCITES REPORT 2015ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication Reports/Expert Group Report/acom/201… ·...

ICES WKEELCITES REPORT 2015 ICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE

ICES CM 2015/ACOM:44

Report of the Workshop on Eel and CITES (WKEELCITES)

10–12 March 2015

Copenhagen, Denmark

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer

H. C. Andersens Boulevard 44–46 DK-1553 Copenhagen V Denmark Telephone (+45) 33 38 67 00 Telefax (+45) 33 93 42 15 www.ices.dk [email protected]

Recommended format for purposes of citation:

ICES. 2015. Report of the Workshop on Eel and CITES (WKEELCITES), 10–12 March 2015, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2015/ACOM:44. 57 pp.

For permission to reproduce material from this publication, please apply to the Gen-eral Secretary.

The document is a report of an Expert Group under the auspices of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and does not necessarily represent the views of the Council.

© 2015 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea

ICES WKEELCITES REPORT 2015 | i

Contents

Executive summary ................................................................................................................ 1

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Purpose of the Workshop .................................................................................... 3 1.2 Organization of the meeting ............................................................................... 3

1.3 Structure of the report .......................................................................................... 4

2 The life history and stock assessment of European eel .......................................... 5

2.1 The Eel life history: its distribution, biology and anthropogenic impacts ................................................................................................................... 5 2.1.1 Fisheries and international trade ........................................................... 6

2.2 The status of the stock ........................................................................................ 10 2.2.1 ICES advice on the status of the stock ................................................. 10

2.3 The management framework of eel ................................................................. 10

3 The eel in CITES .......................................................................................................... 12

3.1 Eel listing in CITES ............................................................................................. 12 3.2 Definition of Non-detriment Finding .............................................................. 13

3.3 CITES Resolution Conf. 16.7 Non-detriment findings .................................. 14

3.4 Examples of NDF guidance for other species ................................................. 16

4 Considerations for an NDF-assessment for eel ...................................................... 20

4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 20 4.2 Are there Criteria and thresholds for a future NDF-assessment? ................ 20

4.2.1 Introduction to criteria .......................................................................... 20 4.2.2 Eel Criterion A – CITES Appendix I considerations ......................... 22 4.2.3 Eel Criterion B – ICES framework for advice based on stock

biomass and mortality rates ................................................................. 23 4.2.4 Eel Criterion C – Recruitment Indices ................................................. 26 4.2.5 Eel Criteria D - Eel management plans ............................................... 30 4.2.6 Considerations of the application of criteria ...................................... 32

4.3 The spatial scale for developing an NDF and its consequences for stock recovery...................................................................................................... 32 4.3.1 The spatial structure of the stock ......................................................... 33 4.3.2 Reasons for making an NDF-assessment for parts of the

stocks ....................................................................................................... 33 4.3.3 An NDF-assessment for the whole or for parts of the stock ............ 34 4.3.4 An NDF-assessment for the whole stock ............................................ 35 4.3.5 An NDF-assessment for a substock ..................................................... 36 4.3.6 Conclusions on the spatial scale for developing an NDF-

assessment .............................................................................................. 36

4.4 Possible conditions associated with an NDF .................................................. 37

ii | ICES WKEELCITES REPORT 2015

5 Summary conclusions ................................................................................................. 39

Annex 1: Terms of Reference for WKEELCITES ............................................. 41

Annex 2: Agenda .................................................................................................... 42

Annex 3: Participants............................................................................................. 43

Annex 4: References .............................................................................................. 45

Annex 5: Glossary of terms and acronyms ........................................................ 48

Annex 6: Reviewers’ reports ................................................................................ 51

ICES WKEELCITES REPORT 2015 | 1

Executive summary

The Workshop on Eel and CITES met at the ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen from 10th to 12th March 2015, under the chairmanship of Alan Walker (UK). The Workshop was attended by seven experts in eel assessment and management, two experts in CITES, plus observers from eel industry and CITES Scientific Authorities, and one independ-ent reviewer. A second reviewer participated by correspondence.

The European Eel (Anguilla anguilla) is listed in CITES Appendix II and in Annex B to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 since 13 March 2009. Since that date, the CITES Scientific Review Group (SRG) has been monitoring whether a “Non-Detriment Find-ing” (NDF) could be made for the species, i.e. whether exports from and imports into the EU would have a harmful effect on the conservation status of the species. This has been done on the basis of SRG guidelines (http://ec.europa.eu/environ-ment/cites/pdf/srg/guidelines.pdf). In December 2010, the SRG came to the conclusion that the situation of the stock was too critical to be able to find that international trade could be permitted without detriment to the survival of the species. Exports from and imports into the EU of Anguilla anguilla have therefore been suspended since that date.

In that context, ICES is requested to provide scientific information and advice on the following issues:

1 ) What criteria (and if possible, what thresholds) that could be used to make a Non-Detriment Finding in the future.

2 ) An assessment of the scale that could be used to make a Non-Detriment Finding.

3 ) An assessment of possible conditions that could be used in association with a Non-Detriment Finding (e.g. quota, or size of specimens, or any other con-dition).

The Workshop reviewed the current European eel stock assessment approaches used to support ICES stock advice and recent developments in that topic, as well as elements of the eel life history that can support the NDF-assessment process; and the CITES NDF process, and examples of where eel and other species have been considered for NDF.

The Workshop concluded that it was possible to identify a number of indicators, with thresholds suggested for some of these, which could be used to guide an NDF-assess-ment of international trade in European eels, and that suggested indicators could in-clude the following:

population indices should be above levels at which the species might qualify for listing in Appendix I of CITES; for European eel this level was adjudged to be 15% of historical baseline, and recruitment time-series are the longest and most reliable data that could constitute an index of abundance;

a modified precautionary framework considering both anthropogenic mortalities and biomass reference points (40% of pristine biomass and the corresponding mor-tality rate);

indices indicating that recruitment is trending positively, reflect a recovering popula-tion, and are within confidence limits of reference baseline; and

the implementation of effective eel management plans (or their equivalents).

2 | ICES WKEELCITES REPORT 2015

All the suggested indicators should be considered together, where data are available; criteria a) and the implementation of an eel management plan (d) were seen as essential first steps, after which the other indicators could be assessed. The indicators rely on data that are of variable quality and completeness and so a precautionary approach should be taken in cases of uncertainty or where data quality are poor.

With respect to the spatial scale on which an NDF might be assessed, in the absence of decisive evidence on what part of the continental stock successfully contributes to re-production, the precautionary approach is to assume that any or all parts of the conti-nental stock might contribute to reproduction. Taking this point into account, it may be feasible to undertake an NDF-assessment at smaller spatial scales than the entire population (and there could be valid reasons for doing so) but the risks and benefits need to be considered.

Noting that it does not matter to the status of the recovery of the European eel stock whether eel are consumed inside or outside Europe, because both circumstances re-move specimens from the spawning-stock biomass, it is not possible to define condi-tions for any proportion of exploitation less than the whole: the key condition is that the exploitation is at a level that is sustainable. In addition, general conditions regard-ing the robustness of supporting evidence, documentation and traceability of trade were proposed.

This was a short meeting to consider the criteria that might be relevant to anyone to consider in developing an NDF-assessment for European eel. Our findings could be further developed into a step-by-step guidance framework, including testing with case studies, along the lines previously implemented for NDF-assessment of sharks, but it was recognised that this full process took many months, and included several interna-tional meetings.


1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the Workshop

The European Eel (Anguilla anguilla) has been listed in CITES Appendix II and in An-nex B to Council Regulation No 338/97 since 13 March 2009. Since that date, the Scien-tific Review Group (SRG) has been monitoring whether a “Non-Detriment Finding” (NDF) could be made for the species, i.e. whether exports from and imports into the European Union (EU) would have a harmful effect on the conservation status of the species. This has been done on the basis of SRG guidelines (http://ec.europa.eu/envi-ronment/cites/pdf/srg/guidelines.pdf, see Attachment A therein).

In December 2010, the SRG, after reviewing the status of the stock, decided that it was not possible to be able to find that international trade could be permitted without det-riment to the survival of the species, and exports from and imports into the EU have been suspended since that date.

At the 69th meeting of the SRG in September 2014, the situation concerning the trade of European eel from, and into, the EU was reassessed. It was agreed that the status of the European eel remained critical and that it was still not possible to determine that international trade could be undertaken without detriment to the wild population. It was agreed that the SRG would reassess the situation when significant new infor-mation became available.

Noting the recent ICES reports (ICES 2013a; 2014a) which identify an increase in Euro-pean eel glass eel recruitment indices, albeit to levels still less than 15% of 1960–1979 reference period, it is now timely to determine if, and under what conditions, an NDF-assessment could be made so that some level of trade in European eel into or out of the EU could resume.

In that context, ICES was requested to provide scientific information and advice on the following issues:




1.2 Organization of the meeting

The Workshop on Eel and CITES (WKEELCITES) met at the ICES Headquarters, Co-penhagen from 10th to 12th March 2015, under the chairmanship of Alan Walker (UK). The Workshop was attended by seven experts in eel assessment and management and two experts in CITES, plus observers from eel industry and CITES Scientific Authori-ties, and one independent reviewer. A second reviewer participated by correspond-ence.

The Workshop adopted the draft Agenda (Annex 2). The Workshop met in plenary to review the framework of eel stock assessment developed to support ICES stock advice and the EC Eel Regulation (Recovery Plan), the CITES and NDF processes in general and specific to eels, and a presentation describing a recent French examination of NDF criteria for the European eel.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/srg/guidelines.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/srg/guidelines.pdf


After presentations, the group agreed the workplan in plenary, and then split into two subgroups to consider (1) the potential criteria and thresholds for European eel, using the resource assessment methodologies suggested by the CITES Resolution Conf 16.7, and (2) the options, benefits and risks of conducting an NDF-assessment at various spatial scales, before resuming plenary to review and agree the draft report. The final draft report and draft advice for the ICES Advisory Committee (ACOM) were com-pleted after the meeting.

1.3 Structure of the report

This report provides an introduction to European eel biology and the current stock assessment approaches used to support ICES stock advice for the European eel and recent developments in that topic (Chapter 2), an introduction to the CITES NDF pro-cess, and examples of where eel and other species have been considered for NDF (Chapter 3), followed by consideration of the criteria that could be considered in an NDF-assessment for European eel, a conceptual discussion of the various spatial scales at which that NDF-assessment could be considered, and suggestions of conditions that could be applied during the management of trade associated with an NDF (Chapter 4). The main body of the report ends with summary conclusions and recommendations for further developing this area (Chapter 5). Standard ICES report details are reported in a series of Annexes, including a glossary of terms and acronyms.


2 The life history and stock assessment of European eel

2.1 The Eel life history: its distribution, biology and anthropogenic im-pacts

The European eel (Anguilla anguilla) is distributed across the majority of coastal coun-tries in Europe and North Africa (Table 2.1), with its southern limit in Mauritania (30°N) and its northern limit situated in the Barents Sea (72°N) and spanning all of the Mediterranean basin. Commission Decision 2008/292/EC of 4 April 2008 established that the Black Sea and the river systems connected to it did not constitute a natural eel habitat for European eel for the purposes of the Regulation establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel (Reg 1100/2007: European Union, 2007).

Table 2.1. Range state countries of the European eel, depicting those that are EU (according to http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/member-countries/, accessed 24-03-2015) and therefore subject to the EU Eel Regulation, and those that are non-EU and therefore not subject to this regulation.

COUNTRY EU / NON-EU COUNTRY EU / NON-EU

Austria EU Romania EU

Belgium EU Slovakia EU

Bulgaria EU Slovenia EU

Croatia EU Spain EU

Cyprus EU Sweden EU

Czech republic EU Albania Non-EU

Denmark EU Algeria Non-EU

Estonia EU Bosnia-Herzegovina Non-EU

Finland EU Egypt Non-EU

France EU Georgia Non-EU

Germany EU Israel Non-EU

Great Britain EU Lebanon Non-EU

Greece EU Libya Non-EU

Hungary EU Moldavia Non-EU

Ireland EU Montenegro Non-EU

Italy EU Morocco Non-EU

Latvia EU Norway Non-EU

Lithuania EU Russia Non-EU

Luxemburg EU Syria Non-EU

Malta EU Tunisia Non-EU

Netherlands EU Turkey Non-EU

Poland EU Ukraine Non-EU

Portugal EU

http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/member-countries/


The life history of the European eel is complex and atypical among aquatic species, being highly migratory, long-lived, semelparous and a widely dispersed stock. Alt-hough latitudinal gene selection occurs in some circumstances, the shared single stock is genetically panmictic and data indicate the spawning area is in the Sargasso Sea and therefore outside European Union Waters. The newly hatched leptocephalus larvae drift with the ocean currents to the continental shelf of Europe and North Africa where they metamorphose into glass eels and enter continental waters. The growth stage, known as yellow eel, may take place in marine, brackish, or freshwaters. This stage may last typically from two to 25 years (can exceed 50 years) prior to metamorphosis to the silver eel stage and maturation. Yellow eel growth and metamorphosis to the silver eel stage varies according to temperature (latitude and longitude), ecosystem characteristics, and density-dependent processes. The European eel life cycle is shorter for populations in the southern part of their range compared to the north. Silver eels leave continental waters and migrate to the Sargasso Sea where they spawn and die, neither act yet witnessed in the wild.

The number of glass eels arriving in continental waters has declined dramatically since the early 1980s, although there have been increases from 2011 to 2013 (see Section 2.2.1). The causes of this decline are uncertain but may include overexploitation, pollution, non-native parasites and other diseases, migratory barriers and other habitat loss, mor-tality during passage through turbines or pumps, together with oceanic-factors impact-ing migrations. These factors will have been more or less important on local production throughout the range of the eel, and could potentially have cumulative and/or syner-gistic effects. Therefore, in the planning and execution of measures to ensure the pro-tection and sustainable use of the European eel stock, management has to take into account the diversity of conditions and impacts.

2.1.1 Fisheries and international trade

Through the regulation of international trade, the aim of CITES is to manage the ex-ploitation (here the fisheries) of the species toward a sustainable level. In light of this aim, this chapter describes our knowledge of fisheries and international trade of Euro-pean eel, particularly before the entry into force of the CITES listing.

Figure 2.1 shows the share of landings between country as collated by the EI-FAAC/ICES/GFCM Working Group on Eel, hereafter WGEEL (ICES, 2013a).

Fisheries exploit the phase recruiting to continental waters (glass eel), the immature growth phase (yellow eel) and the maturing phase (silver eel). While yellow and silver eel fishing are found all over the stock distribution area, the glass eel fisheries are mainly done in the Biscay area (Dekker, 2003) extending north to the Bristol Channel. Fisheries are prosecuted by registered and non-registered vessels, methods not linked to vessels such as fixed traps, fixed net gears, mobile (bank-based) net gears, and rod and line. The exploited life stage and the gear types employed vary between local hab-itats, rivers, countries and international regions. These fisheries are usual small scaled and scattered, but in total employ about 25 000 people across Europe (Moriarty and Dekker, 1997).


Figure 2.1. Total landings (all life stages) of European eel; missing data for non-reporting countries have been filled in by a generalized linear model (GLM) for the common trend (ICES, 2013a).

Yellow and silver eel fisheries are mainly for consumption, either locally or after export to neighbouring countries (e.g. from French lagoons to Italy, from Lough Neagh, Northern Ireland to the Netherlands or Germany, from Sweden to Germany), and in most cases within the EU even prior to the CITES listing.

Glass eels are directly consumed (mainly in Spain) or supplied to aquaculture (within Europe, or in Asia from Europe prior to the SRG decision of no NDF in 2010 or still from non-EU countries) or are used for restocking in Europe (Briand et al., 2008). Eel consumption, aquaculture or restocking are still based on the supply of glass eels from the wild, since artificial reproduction fails in the young larval stage. Figure 2.2 illus-trates an overview of the quantity of glass eel exchange before the CITES listing.


Figure 2.2. Mean trade volumes of glass eel (tonnes) 1996–2006 in Europe analysed from EURO-STAT database. Redrawn from Briand et al. (2008).

The matrix in Table 2.2 shows the exchange of Anguilla anguilla between EU countries, and between EU countries and non EU countries, in 2008. The precise numbers should be treated with caution as they are for one year only, are based on Customs data which does not differentiate species (all trade reported as ‘Anguilla’) and would not include illegal / unreported trade. However, they are useful to illustrate the range of quantities of eel that were traded between the different countries before the entry into force of the CITES listing.


Table 2.2. The exchange in Anguilla species in tonnes, according to the EuroStat statistics for 2008, with the country that reported the exchange showing in the columns. Negative values indicate means imports from the partner country (in line) to the reporter country. Data limited to those countries that exchanged at least 100 tonnes.

BELGIUM CROATIA DENMARK ESTONIA FRANCE GERMANY GREECE IRELAND ITALY NETHERLANDS POLAND PORTUGAL SPAIN SWEDEN UK

BELGIUM 102 5 3 6 434 5 106

DENMARK -55 -31 2 -221 -1 -584 -1909 49 -48 185 8

ESTONIA 55 -82 8

FRANCE 70 -1 -163 -10 -1 -244 141 -147 -424 1 -8

GERMANY 9 716 -32 2 40 1862 161 455 -54

GREECE -279 -47 28

IRELAND 1 -2 -250 -53 -3

ITALY -6 -3 840 260 -48 459 88 60 13

NETHERLANDS -221 118 2380 47 -80 -1881 -367 -29 -22 -13 127 185 296

POLAND -48 -197 61 12 -59

PORTUGAL 168 5 9 418

SPAIN -9 88 1 -84 -97 -4 -184 527

SWEDEN -99 -390 -2 -159 -220 12 1

UK -241 6 -7 -41 10 -36 -1

CANADA -54 -3 -96

CHINA -588 -316 75 -946 -86 -532 -2011 14 -310

MOROCCO -172

NORWAY -221 1 -182

RUSSIA 34 10

TUNISIA -2 -6 -151

USA -452 -46 -34 -7 1 -22


The five Asian countries/territories imported a total of 776 tonnes of eel fry (likely all to be A. anguilla) from the EU between 1997 and 2007 (Crook, 2010). Since the SRG decision on NDF in 2010, European eel trade to Asia is either illegally from the EU or legally from non-EU range states. Both trades are difficult to investigate but the signs suggest that some illegal trade is still occurring. A study performed by France AGRIMER, estimated that in 2013, about 20 tonnes of glass eels were exported from the EU (Via Aqua, 2014), although it is difficult to assess the reliability of this estimate because the methods used to gather the data were not detailed. In another example, EUROSTAT reports show that 3 tonnes of glass eels were imported to Hong Kong from France in 2014.

2.2 The status of the stock

2.2.1 ICES advice on the status of the stock

The most recent assessment and advice from ICES is that the status of eel remains crit-ical and that all anthropogenic mortality (e.g. recreational and commercial fishing, hy-dropower, pumping stations, and pollution) affecting production and escapement of silver eels should be reduced to, or kept as close to, zero as possible (ICES, 2014b).

The annual recruitment of glass eel to European waters declined dramatically from the early 1980s to reach a minimum in 2010. This latest ICES advice is based on the obser-vation that although the annual recruitment of glass eel to European waters has in-creased over the last three years, from less than 1% to 3.7% of the 1960–1979 level in the ‘North Sea’ series, and from 5% to 12.2% in the ‘Elsewhere’ series, both recruitment indices are still below the 1960–1979 levels and there is therefore no change in the per-ception of the status of the stock.

The assessment is based on data from fisheries and scientific surveys. In the recent past monitoring trends in recruitment has been the main tool for assessing the overall status of the eel stock. Currently, escapement biomass and mortality estimates reported by EU Member States have not been peer-reviewed and are not yet used in the assessment.

2.3 The management framework of eel

Within Europe

The stock, fisheries and other anthropogenic impacts, within EU and Member State waters, are managed in accordance with the European Eel Regulation No 1100/2007, “establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel” (European Union, 2007). This regulation sets a framework for the protection and sustainable use of the stock of European eel of the species Anguilla anguilla in Community Waters, in coastal lagoons, in estuaries, and in rivers and communicating inland waters of Member States that flow into the seas in ICES Areas III, IV, VI, VII, VIII, IX or into the Mediterranean Sea.

The Regulation sets the national management objectives for Eel Management Plans (EMPs) (Article 2.4) to “reduce anthropogenic mortalities so as to permit with high probability the escapement to the sea of at least 40% of the silver eel biomass relative to the best estimate of escapement that would have existed if no anthropogenic influ-ences had impacted the stock. The EMP shall be prepared with the purpose of achiev-ing this objective in the long term.”

In July 2012, Member States first reported on the actions taken, the reduction in anthro-pogenic mortalities achieved, and the state of their stock relative to their targets. In


May 2013, an ICES Workshop (WKEPEMP) evaluated these progress reports in terms of the technical implementation of actions (ICES, 2013b). These are the most up-to-date results available for consideration, because the next national progress reports are due to be submitted on 30th June 2015. EMPs are discussed in more detail in Section 4.1.6.

Outside Europe

The Eel Regulation 1100/2007 is only binding to European Union Member States but the European eel distribution extends much further than this. The whole-stock (inter-national) assessment requires data and information from both EU and non-EU coun-tries producing eels. Some non-EU countries provide such data to the ICES assessment and have developed EMPs outside the Regulation. More countries are being supported to achieve this through efforts of ICES and the General Fisheries Commission of the Mediterranean (GFCM).


3 The eel in CITES

3.1 Eel listing in CITES

A proposal by the European Union to include European eel in Appendix II of CITES was successfully made to the 14th CITES Conference of the Parties in June 2007 (Gay-nor, 2007: CoP Proposal 18). The proposal was adopted with an 18 month delay before implementation so that the listing came into effect on 13th March 2009. The listing was implemented in the EU by the inclusion of European eel in Annex B (the equivalent to Appendix II) of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations Regulation (338/97).

Appendix II of CITES is for ‘species which although not necessarily now threatened with extinction may become so unless trade in specimens of such species is subject to strict regulation in order to avoid utilization incompatible with their survival’.

Trade is defined in CITES as ‘export, re-export, import and introduction from the sea’. In other words, CITES only controls trade across international borders and does not have implications for trade within countries. CITES regulates trade through a system of per-mits, requiring export permits for trade in Appendix II specimens and import and ex-port permits for trade in Appendix I species.

The EU does not have barriers to trade within the Union. Accordingly, the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations (338/97) and related implementing Regulations control the move-ment of specimens into, or from, the Union as a whole.

Each CITES Party is required to appoint a Management Authority and a Scientific Au-thority. Within the EU, the various CITES authorities meet regularly to ensure common implementation of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations. The group in which the EU CITES Scientific Authorities meet is known as the Scientific Review Group (SRG; http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/srg_en.htm) and meets four times a year. EU CITES Management Authorities also meet in the EU CITES Management Committee (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/ctwff_en.htm) and relevant enforcement agen-cies meet in the EU CITES Enforcement Group (http://ec.europa.eu/environ-ment/cites/eg_en.htm).

Following the listing of European eel in 2009, some export of European eel specimens was permitted, including trade in live glass eels subject to quota (Fleming, 2011). In December 2010, the SRG, after reviewing the status of the stock, decided that it was not possible to make a NDF (see Section 3.2). Since that time, trade to or from the EU of specimens of European eel has been prohibited, with a few exceptions (Gaynor, 2014). It should be emphasised that the decisions taken under the EU Wildlife Trade Regula-tions only relate to trade to and from the Union. Legal harvest and trade within the European Union in European eels continues in many EU Member States subject to their national legislation and the provisions of their Eel Management Plans.

The European eel is unusual in a CITES context as a whole, and in the context of CITES trade to and from the EU. First, the single migratory population is shared between many countries but reproduction takes place in the high seas, beyond the jurisdiction of any State, making it unlike any other CITES-listed species. Many countries thus have reciprocal responsibility for the conservation and management of this species. How-ever, making a NDF for such a shared population is made more difficult. Second, the listing meant that the EU was in the position of potentially becoming a major exporter of wild-taken CITES specimens, a shift from its normal focus as a major importer of

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/ctwff_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/eg_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/eg_en.htm


CITES specimens from around the globe. Moreover, European eel is likely to be diffi-cult to distinguish in trade from other Anguilla specimens; an identification guide has been prepared to assist Parties in regulating international trade (Silfvergrip, 2009).

3.2 Definition of Non-detriment Finding

Article IV.2 of the Convention requires that, amongst other things: The export of any specimen of a species included in Appendix II shall require the prior grant and presentation of an export permit. An export permit shall only be granted when the following condition has been met: a Scientific Authority of the State of export has advised that such export will not be detri-mental to the survival of that species.’

Article IV.3 of the Convention also requires a Scientific Authority of each Party to mon-itor exports of specimens of Appendix II species and, whenever necessary, to advise the Management Authority of suitable measures to be taken to limit such exports in order to maintain such species throughout their range at a level consistent with their role in the ecosystems and well above the level at which they would qualify for listing in Appendix I.

The making of a NDF is, therefore, a fundamental requirement of CITES and a positive NDF is required before trade in CITES specimens in Appendix II can be permitted. An NDF-assessment is thus the process by which the Convention seeks to ensure that in-ternational trade in CITES specimens is sustainable.

These provisions are translated into EU Regulations through the following provision in Article 5.2.a of EU Regulation 338/97:

5.2 An export permit for specimens of the species listed in Annex A may be issued only when the following condition[s] have been met:

(a) the competent scientific authority has advised in writing that the capture or collec-tion of the specimens in the wild or their export will not have a harmful effect on the conservation status of the species or on the extent of the territory occupied by the rele-vant population of the species....

Note these provisions apply to Annex B specimens also. Accordingly, before any spec-imen in Annex B can be exported from the EU, a finding has to be made that the export of specimens will not be detrimental to the conservation status of the species in the wild. If this cannot be made, then exports would be refused.

The EU, through its Wildlife Trade Regulations, also has measures stricter than those required by the Convention, such that there is also a requirement to have permits for the import of Annex B specimens. These requirements, amongst others, along with the need for a NDF, are translated into the EU Regulation (338/97) through the introduc-tion of the following text (Article 4.2.a) for species in Annex B:

The import permit may be issued only [...]when:

(a) the competent scientific authority, after examining available data and considering any opinion from the Scientific Review Group, is of the opinion that the introduction into the Community would not have a harmful effect on the conservation status of the species or on the extent of the territory occupied by the relevant population of the spe-cies, taking account of the current or anticipated level of trade. This opinion shall be valid for subsequent imports as long as the abovementioned aspects have not changed significantly;


Accordingly, before such an import permit can be issued, the Scientific Authority of the EU importing country also needs to make an NDF, although the CITES permit from the country of export should be underpinned by an NDF. An import permit should only be issued if the Scientific Authority can make a positive opinion that such imports will not be detrimental to the survival of the species. If this is not possible, an import application should be refused. Such refusals may ultimately result in import suspen-sions to the EU, subject to consideration by the SRG.

Note that special provisions apply to Appendix II (Annex B)-listed species caught on the high seas, namely in areas beyond the jurisdiction of any State (Articles IV.6 & 7 and Resolution Conf. 14.6 (Rev. CoP 16)). However, these are not a major consideration in the case of European eel because there are few fisheries outside national waters.

NDFs may also be made with conditions, such as improving management through re-strictions on catch or the requirement of monitoring and control systems to ensure compliance with such limits. Another condition may be the need for traceability from catch to consumer. Setting such conditions in advance of harvesting might help to dis-courage unsustainable exploitation driven by trade demand.

In the case of uncertainty as to the status of a species or the impact of trade on the conservation of the species, Parties to CITES are encouraged (through Resolution Conf. 9.24), by virtue of the precautionary approach, to act in the best interest of the conser-vation of the species concerned and to adopt measures that are proportionate to the anticipated risks to the species.

3.3 CITES Resolution Conf. 16.7 Non-detriment findings

The CITES Parties, at their 16th Conference in 2013, agreed a Resolution (Resolution Conf. 16.7) which recommended the following non-binding guiding principles to Par-ties on the making of NDFs.

a) Scientific Authorities take into account the following concepts and non-binding guiding principles in considering whether trade would be detrimental to the survival of a species:

i) a non-detriment finding for an Appendix-I or -II species is the result of a science-based as-sessment that verifies whether a proposed export is detrimental to the survival of that species or not;

ii) Scientific Authorities should consider whether the species would be maintained throughout its range at a level consistent with its role in the ecosystems in which it occurs;

iii) in making a non-detriment finding, Scientific Authorities should consider the volume of legal and illegal trade (known, inferred, projected, estimated) relative to the vulnerability of the species (intrinsic and extrinsic factors that increase the risk of extinction of the species);

iv) the data requirements for a determination that trade is not detrimental to the survival of the species should be proportionate to the vulnerability of the species concerned;

v) the making of an effective non-detriment finding relies upon a correct identification of the species concerned and verification that it is specimens of this species that are to be exported;

vi) the methodology used to make a non-detriment finding should reflect the origin and type of specimen, such that the method used to make a non-detriment finding for a specimen known to be of non-wild origin may be less rigorous than that for a specimen of wild origin

for example;

http://www.cites.org/eng/res/14/14-06R16.php

http://cites.org/eng/res/09/09-24R16.php

http://cites.org/eng/res/09/09-24R16.php

http://www.cites.org/eng/res/16/16-07.php



vii) the methodology used should be flexible enough to allow for consideration of the specific and individual characteristics of different taxa;

viii) the implementation of adaptive management, including monitoring, is an important con-sideration in the making of a non-detriment finding;

ix) the non-detriment finding is based on resource assessment methodologies which may in-clude, but are not limited to, consideration of:

A. species biology and life-history characteristics;

B. species range (historical and current);

C. population structure, status and trends (in the harvested area, nationally and in-ternationally);

D. threats;

E. historical and current species-specific levels and patterns of harvest and mortality (e.g. age, sex) from all sources combined;

F. management measures currently in place and proposed, including adaptive man-agement strategies and consideration of levels of compliance;

G. population monitoring; and

H. conservation status; and

x) the sources of information that may be considered when making a non-detriment finding include but are not limited to:

A. relevant scientific literature concerning species biology, life history, distribution and population trends;

B. details of any ecological risk assessments conducted;

C. scientific surveys conducted at harvest locations and at sites protected from harvest and other impacts; and

D. relevant knowledge and expertise of local and indigenous communities;

E. consultations with relevant local, regional and international experts; and

F. national and international trade information such as that available via the CITES trade database maintained by UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), publications on trade, local knowledge on trade and investigations of sales at markets or through the Internet for example; and

b) Scientific Authorities consider, as a reference for making non-detriment findings, the infor-mation included in the Annex to document AC26/PC20 Doc. 8.4 and any subsequent updates available on the CITES website;

The Workshop noted that the EU CITES Scientific Review Group are likely to consider all the factors above when considering an NDF-assessment for trade in European eels. However, the nature of the request to ICES meant that the Workshop focused in par-ticular on components of paragraph ix) of the recommendations in Res. Conf. 16.7 above and, in particular, on its subparagraphs C and F.


3.4 Examples of NDF guidance for other species

So far there have been very few occasions where NDFs have had to be determined for CITES fish species taken from the wild. This has changed at recent CITES CoPs by the inclusion of the European eel and a number of shark species.

There are no binding rules on how to carry out an NDF-assessment for CITES listed species. The above mentioned CITES Resolution Conf. 16.7 serves as a recommended guidance only. However during the last CoP it became obvious that more detailed NDF guidance was needed taking into account the specific and individual characteristics of sharks. The German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, acting as CITES Scien-tific Authority of Germany therefore commissioned the development of such guide-lines.

The NDF Guidance for Shark Species (Mundy-Taylor et al., 2014) has been designed to provide a practical method to carry out a NDF for these taxa, taking into account their preparation for shark stocks occurring within the waters of one or more Member States and/or on the high seas. It has also been designed to be easy to use and to work in data-poor situations.

The shark guidance has been developed as a series of steps through the process of making an NDF-assessment, considering the range of scenarios that may be encoun-tered. The steps include subunits, and factors to be considered in each unit. Worksheets have been provided in order to assist Scientific Authorities through the process. Indi-cators/metrics have been identified for every step to evaluate the factors. In addition, a variety of source materials are provided for reference.

The flowchart following on the next page gives an overview of the steps necessary to carry out an NDF-assessment for shark species.


Figure 3.1. Flow chart illustrating the NDF-assessment process for shark species listed in CITES Appendix II.

An example of factors and indicators/metrics for Step 2: “Evaluation of the intrinsic biological vulnerability” is given in Table 3.1.


Table 3.1. Example of factors and indicators/metrics for the “Evaluation of the intrinsic biological vulnerability. “

BIOLOGICAL FACTOR LEVEL OF VULNERABILITY INDICATOR/METRIC

Median age at maturity (age at which 50% of a cohort reaches maturity)

Low <5 year

Medium 5–15 years

High >15 years

Unknown

Notes: Later sexual maturation, higher vulnerability. Age at maturity can fall in a heavily fished stock; the metric used here should be for a lightly fished or unfished stock and focus upon more slowly growing, later maturing females.

Median size at maturity (size at which 50% of a cohort reaches maturity)

Low <40 cm (total length)

Medium 40–200 cm (total length)

High >200 cm (total length)

Unknown

Notes: Larger size at maturity, higher vulnerability. Size at maturity can fall in a heavily fished stock; the metric used here should be for a lightly fished or unfished stock and focus upon females (where the species exhibits sexual dimorphism).

Maximum age/ longevity in an unfished population

Low <10 years

Medium 10–25 years

High >25 years

Unknown

Notes: Longer lifespan, higher vulnerability. Calculate as age reached by 1% of a cohort.

Maximum size Low <100 cm (total length)

Medium 100–300 cm (total length)

High >300 cm (total length)

Unknown

Notes: Larger size, higher vulnerability

The first version of the Guidance underwent a practical test using case studies for dif-ferent shark stocks (different species with stocks in rich as well as poor-data situations). The results were discussed during a meeting organized in Bonn, Germany (August 2014). The recommendations of the meeting were used to improve the guidance, which was subsequently published on the CITES homepage in October 2014 (http://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/prog/shark/docs/Shark%20NDF%20guid-ance%20incl%20Annexes.pdf and http://cites.org/sites/de-fault/files/eng/prog/shark/docs/Shark%20NDF%20guidance%20incl%20Annexes%20Spanish.pdf) (Mundy-Taylor et al., 2014). A delegate of the Central America Fisheries and Aquaculture Organization (OSPESCA) at the Shark Workshop in Columbia in No-vember 2014 stated that the revised NDF-assessment guidance is already in use by

http://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/prog/shark/docs/Shark%20NDF%20guidance%20incl%20Annexes%20Spanish.pdf




OPESCA when considering sustainable shark fisheries regions, and that the guidance is practical and easy to use.

Developing a similar/comparable methodology to carry out an NDF-assessment for European eel might also be a future option to further provide guidance.


4 Considerations for an NDF-assessment for eel

4.1 Introduction

ICES was requested to provide scientific information and advice on the following is-sues relating to the European eel:




This chapter describes how the Workshop addressed each of these issues in turn, and what proposals arose from this work.

4.2 Are there Criteria and thresholds for a future NDF-assessment?

4.2.1 Introduction to criteria

The key task of the Workshop was to examine possible criteria, indicators and associ-ated thresholds that might be used by anyone considering an NDF-assessment for Eu-ropean eel in the future. The Workshop considered materials available from various CITES conferences, those provided by the European Commission’s DG ENV, as well as the French expertise for NDF (MNHN, 2014), and reports from the WGEEL, in order to consider criteria and thresholds for an NDF-assessment for eel.

As noted in Section 3.3 above, CITES Resolution (Resolution Conf. 16.7) (2013) recom-mended non-binding guiding principles to Parties on the making of NDFs. The Work-shop focused attention on the eight resource assessment methodologies of principle ‘ix’ and first considered each of these in terms of its relevance as an indicator for the Euro-pean eel, as described below:

• “species biology and life-history characteristics”. The eel biology is presented in Chapter 2.1. The eel can be consid-

ered vulnerable in CITES terms because it is a semelparous and long-lived species; has a supposed single spawning area; under-takes long migrations; has many unknowns during its marine phase; is placed at a high trophic level; and the accumulation of lipid reserves make the eel subject to bioaccumulation of lipophilic toxicants. However, there are also factors of resilience such as pan-mixia; having large spawning and growth areas; having a great va-riety of colonized habitats; being a highly mobile species; having an opportunistic feeding regime; and undergoing environmental sexual determinism. While all these factors should be taken into account, none of them will change significantly from one NDF-as-sessment to another and therefore these are not useful as the basis of a criterion for an NDF-assessment.

• “species range (historical and current)”.



While the range has not changed recently at a species distribution scale, it should be noted that its distribution inside watersheds may have been constrained, in particular by obstacles to migration, Diaz et al. (2012) provide a good example of such reductions in Spain. Although the installation of eel passage solutions through EMPs will be improving this situation, this kind of change has mainly oc-curred over time-scales of many years (12+). The Workshop consid-ered that significant changes at spatial scale greater than watershed (and perhaps smaller scales) will be slow to occur, therefore up-dates to any assessment would only be required with low (~10 years) frequency, and this is not useful as the basis of a criterion for an NDF-assessment.

• “population structure, status and trends (in the harvested area, nationally and internationally)”.

This element is one of the main elements that can evolve quickly, and therefore may be suitable for criteria. We have proposed four criteria that relate to this resource assessment methodology.

• “threats”. The main threats are those that may be responsible for the decline

of the species, as described in Chapter 2.1. Those threats can be re-duced through implementing EMPs or be increased due to other incentives, including increased exploitation due to international demand. Anthropogenic mortalities (the impact of these threats) are taken into account in the proposed eel criterion B. This resource assessment methodology should however be checked regularly to detect the appearance and/or change in impact of threats.

• “historical and current species-specific levels and patterns of harvest and mortality (e.g. age, sex) from all sources combined”.

As noted above, eel fisheries exploit all life stages found in conti-nental waters, but the fisheries are typically small-scale, spatially distributed and diverse in gears (see latest WGEEL report for more details (ICES, 2014a)). Fisheries mortality is taken into account in the proposed eel criterion B.

• “management measures currently in place and proposed, including adap-tive management strategies and consideration of levels of compliance”.

This resource assessment methodology is fully developed in the proposed eel criteria.

• “population monitoring”. Monitoring is an explicit requirement of EMPs (Regulation

1100/2007), in order to provide valuable information for determin-ing the status of the stock, as well as the impact of anthropogenic mortalities. No precise criteria have been proposed for this re-source assessment methodology since the results of monitoring are used to compute the various eel criteria proposed.

• “conservation status”. Apart from its inclusion in CITES, the European eel has been clas-

sified in various lists or appendices of international conventions or nature conservation organisations, including the IUCN Red List (Jacoby and Gollock, 2014), the OSPAR convention (Convention for


the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlan-tic), Appendix II of the Barcelona convention (Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution), Appendix II of the Convention on Migratory Species and the list of threatened species of HELCOM (Baltic Marine Environment Protection Com-mission). However, the reasons for these classifications are the sta-tus assessments derived from the other resource assessment methodologies above, and therefore no eel criteria were proposed specifically for conservation status.

The remainder of Chapter 4.2 explains the eel criteria proposed by the Workshop, fol-lowed by a discussion of the relationship between these criteria, and the way that they could be used. In summary, eel criteria are proposed based on (A) CITES Appendix I considerations; (B) the ICES framework for advice based on stock biomass and anthro-pogenic mortality rates; (C) Recruitment indices; and, (D) eel management plans. These criteria are summarised in the text boxes at the start of each section, but must be read in conjunction with the explanatory texts.

4.2.2 Eel Criterion A – CITES Appendix I considerations

Eel Criterion A: any index of abundance for European eels should be above 15% of a historical baseline. The Workshop advised that the recruitment indices for Euro-pean eel formed the longest and most reliable time-series of data that could consti-tute an index of abundance.

Article IV.3 of CITES requires the following:

A Scientific Authority in each Party shall monitor both the export permits granted by that State for specimens of species included in Appendix II and the actual exports of such specimens. Whenever a Scientific Authority determines that the export of specimens of any such species should be limited in order to maintain that species throughout its range at a level consistent with its role in the ecosystems in which it occurs and well above the level at which that species might become eligible for inclusion in Appendix I, the Scientific Authority shall advise the appropriate Management Authority of suitable measures to be taken to limit the grant of export permits for specimens of that species.

The text outlined in bold provides one criterion by which an NDF-assessment for ex-port of European eels might be made, namely that the species should be above the levels at which it might qualify for inclusion in the more restrictive Appendix I.

Resolution Conf. 9.24 (rev CoP16) on Criteria for amendment of Appendices I and II of CITES provides criteria for the inclusion of species in the CITES Appendices. The cri-terion most relevant to the inclusion of European eel in Appendix I is criterion C1 of Annex 1 of the Resolution, namely that “A marked decline in the population size in the wild, which has been [either]”:

i ) observed as ongoing or as having occurred in the past (but with a potential to resume), or

ii ) inferred or protected on the basis of any one of the following: a ) a decrease in area of habitat b ) a decrease in quality of habitat c ) levels or patterns of exploitation d ) a high vulnerability to either intrinsic or extrinsic factors, or e ) a decreasing recruitment


Annex 5 of the same Resolution provides guidance on how the term ‘marked decline‘ should be interpreted, both as a historical extent of decline and a recent rate of decline. In particular, it also includes explanations as to how ‘marked decline’ should be ap-plied to ‘commercially exploited aquatic species’ and where a general guideline for a marked historical extent of decline is a percentage decline to 5–20% of the baseline. This text states:

“In marine and large freshwater bodies, a narrower range of 5–20% is deemed to be more ap-propriate in most cases, with a range of 5–10% being applicable for species with high produc-tivity, 10–15% for species with medium productivity and 15–20% for species with low productivity.”

When European eel was proposed for inclusion in the CITES Appendices, an analysis by an expert panel of FAO (2007) concluded that European eel should be considered as low productivity in the northern part of its range and as medium productivity in the southern part of its range. As a decline to 15% of baseline is the midpoint for decline between medium and low productivity species, the Workshop considered that using this figure was appropriate as a threshold to assess whether European eel might qualify for inclusion in Appendix I or not.

With regards to the term ‘population’, this has specific meaning as far as anguillid eels are concerned, but CITES define it as “the total number of individuals of the species” (http://www.cites.org/eng/res/09/09-24R16.php). Quantifying this ‘population’ may not be possible for the European eel, considering its complex life history and the data available in relation to certain life stages, but estimates, indices and/or proxies could be used instead.

Accordingly, as a first step in determining an NDF-assessment, it was suggested that any index of abundance for European eels should be above 15% of a historical baseline. The group advised that the recruitment indices for European eel formed the longest and most reliable time-series of data that could constitute an index of abundance.

Referring to the spatial scale considerations (Chapter 4.2 below), note however that the ICES ‘North Sea’ and ‘Elsewhere’ recruitment indices (ICES, 2010) are substocks but still for very large geographic regions. The Workshop did not consider how the two indices might be combined for a whole-stock assessment; the WGEEL has moved away from a single index because of the apparent differences between trends in these two series, nor how smaller subsets of the recruitment time-series could be applied to smaller geographic scale assessments such as for EU Member States or Eel Manage-ment Units.

4.2.3 Eel Criterion B – ICES framework for advice based on stock biomass and mortality rates

Eel Criterion B: for the considered area, spawner escapement is above the 40% of pristine biomass; anthropogenic impact rate is below the threshold of ∑A = 0.92.

“An important part of ICES advice regards the management of the exploitation of liv-ing marine resources” (ICES, 2014b). Following international agreement, ICES de-signed a framework for its advice to ensure the sustainable uses of living resources. “The ICES approach uses both fishing mortality rates and biomass reference points” (ICES, 2014b).


In the line with this approach the WGEEL designed a “Modified Precautionary Dia-gram” considering both anthropogenic mortalities and biomass reference points (40% of pristine biomass and the corresponding mortality), derived from the EU eel regula-tion (1100/2007), to qualify the status of European eel stock (Figure 4.1, most recently in ICES, 2014a).

In the perspective of an NDF-assessment for European eel, this diagram can be used to quantify the level of the escapement and anthropogenic mortality. However, it is im-portant to re-iterate that exploitation is only one element of this metric of mortality, which also includes factors such as turbine mortality. Further, it is also important to consider in relation to the NDF-assessment that international trade would only be a proportion of exploitation, with the whole also including end-products consumed within the EU.

For the escapement, if the considered area (EMU, country, EU, whole stock …) is above the 40% of pristine biomass (on the right-hand of the graph, in the green area or the amber above the green) the escapement can be considered to be enough to produce a full recruitment. This could be considered as a positive sign for the NDF-assessment. In contrast, a biomass below the 40% of pristine biomass may lead to a decreased re-cruitment (failure).

For the anthropogenic impacts, if the estimate of lifetime anthropogenic impacts for the area considered is below the threshold of ∑A = 0.92 (corresponding to a mean sur-vival to the silver eel stage of at least 40%, in comparison to a situation without anthro-pogenic impacts), the anthropogenic impacts can be considered to be at a sustainable level. This could be considered as a positive sign for the NDF-assessment.

However, in a depleted state (as is the case for the eel now), an additional level of pro-tection will be required to enable recovery of the stock. Maintaining anthropogenic mortality exactly at the limit (ΣA=0.92) runs the risk that the stock stabilises in the de-pleted state, but does not recover (or recovers only very slowly). The level of additional protection required depends on the biology of the species, as well as on the ambition level to achieve a rapid recovery (the willingness to take severe measures). The eel is a long-lived species, but it spawns only once in its lifetime (as a short-lived species); a protocol fitting this unusual combination of life-history characteristics is currently be-ing discussed (ICES, 2014a). Figure 4.1, taken from the latest WGEEL report (ICES, 2014a), applies the ICES-standard for a long-lived species.

However data used so far in building the Modified Precautionary Diagram (ICES WGEEL, 2014a & ICES, 2013a) are those data provided by Member States themselves through their 2012 Progress Reports to the European Commission or to a 2013 ICES data call. These data are taken in good faith, but the WGEEL recognises the need to assess their quality (ICES, 2014a) and that there is variability of reporting standards, level of detail and coverage. Information for many management units is absent/incom-plete and thus these units cannot be represented in the precautionary diagram. In ad-dition to the Modified Precautionary Diagram, the WGEEL (ICES, 2014a) therefore presented the same stock indicators in a map, in which the areas with missing indica-tors are marked as such (Figure 4.2) Additionally, the missing parts of the stock cannot be included in the aggregate bubble, which therefore represents the sum of the reported indicators only. As a consequence, the presented aggregate can be biased.


Figure 4.1. Modified Precautionary Diagram, presenting the status of the stock (horizontal, spawner escapement expressed as a percentage of the pristine escapement) and the anthropogenic impacts (vertical, expressed as lifetime mortality ΣA). The size of the points (bubbles) corresponds to the estimated abundance of eel in each area, if no anthropogenic impacts had reduced the current stock. Green indicates the local stock is fully compliant with the targets, amber indicates that one target is reached but not the other, and red indicates that neither target is reached. This plot shows stock indicators by EU Member States and for the sum of the reported countries (26 EU and non-EU coun-tries are missing). Note that non-reporting EMUs/countries do not show up in these plots. From ICES (2014a).


Figure 4.2. Stock indicators from the modified Precautionary Diagram (Figure 4.1), plotted on the location of their eel management unit (EMU). The size of each bubble corresponds to the biomass of escaping silver eels if no anthropogenic impacts had affected the current stock. The colour of each bubble corresponds to the position of the indicators, relative to the reference limits of the modified Precautionary Diagram. For EMUs/countries that did not report their stock indicators (or incompletely), a “sad face” of arbitrary size is shown. For France, indicators have only been re-ported for the country as a whole, not for the constituting EMUs; that country-total is shown (shaded red), along with the EMUs.

4.2.4 Eel Criterion C – Recruitment Indices

Eel Criterion C1: a high credibility (95% for example) that recruitment is trending in a positive direction (i.e. an increase in recruitment), can be considered as a good sign that the stock is at least moving towards recovery and thus be part of a positive NDF-assessment.

Eel Criterion C2: the Eel stock is recovering if the abundance of the current genera-tion is higher than the generation which spawned it. Given considerations of data availability and quality, the Workshop proposes the principle that average recruit-ment during the NDF-assessment period should be higher than it was for a similar length time period one generation previously.

Eel Criterion C3: the recruitment index should be above the 5% quantile of observed recruitments between 1960 and 1979 that is the lower bound of the confidence inter-val of this time period.

In the context of a rebuilding stock, an increasing recruitment is expected as a sign of recovery. The ICES Study Group on International Post-Evaluation of Eel (SGIPEE) (ICES, 2010) and WGEEL (ICES, 2014a) have elaborated and refined methods to test for signals of recovery in eel recruitment.

The WGEEL collected 52 recruitment series (ICES WGEEL, 2014a) distributed all over Europe. This collection spans 1900 to 2014, although not all series are available during the whole period and the maximum number of series available for the same year is 33. One should notice that some series have ceased recently either due to the scarcity of


glass eels or due to change in fisheries management (including implementation of quo-tas), particularly in Bay of Biscay. From these series the WGEEL build recruitment in-dices through a generalized linear modelling (GLM) analysis. These series are widely recognised and served to build the ICES advice (ICES advice, 2014b).

The stock–recruitment relationship describes the relationship between the number of spawners and their offspring. In classical population dynamics, at low population level, more spawners generate more offspring, but at high population level when full recruitment is achieved, more spawners does not generate more offspring because the capacity is reached.

The recruitment can thus be used as a proxy of the spawning biomass at low level of stock and full recruitment is an indication of a safe stock. However one should notice that any change (increase or decrease of mortality) in the early phase of eel will only be reflected in recruitment series after that cohort grows to the silver eel phase, those silver eels reproduce and the offspring come back to the continental waters. The time to accomplish this cycle can be relatively long (up to several decades). Using recruit-ment series to reflect the status of stock should always require to note the possible tem-poral lag between action and effect on the recruitment.

In the following part we develop three criteria based on recruitment series that qualify the status of the stock. Starting from a depleted stock the first criterion (C1) examines if the stock (recruitment) is increasing. The second criterion (C2) examines if this in-crease is strong enough to be the sign of a recovery. The last criterion (C3) examines if the full recruitment is reached.

4.2.4.1 Eel criterion C1 – Is the recruitment increasing?

In the context of a rebuilding stock, an increasing recruitment is expected as a sign of recovery. SGIPEE (ICES, 2010) and WGEEL (ICES WGEEL, 2014) has elaborated and refined methods to test signals of recovery of recruitment. Most recently (ICES, 2014a), a Bayesian Eel Recruitment Trend (BERT) model was proposed that takes into account the autocorrelation that exists in recruitment series to give the credibility of having a trend shift. The criterion can thus be defined on the basis of this test. If the test gives a high credibility (95% for example) to a trend shift in the positive direction (i.e. an in-crease in recruitment), this can be considered as a good sign that the stock is at least moving towards recovery and thus be part of a positive NDF-assessment. A positive trend can be determined at a very low recruitment, however, and so this criterion is not sufficient on its own to make a positive NDF-assessment.

4.2.4.2 Eel Criterion C2 – Is the population recovering?

The goal of the Eel Regulation (1100/2007) is to reach the 40% of the pristine silver eel escapement. However, at this moment there is a high level of uncertainty in the esti-mation of escapement due to the lack of data and knowledge and the variability of assessment methods (ICES, 2013b). For that reason, until escapement data availability and knowledge improves, an approach that allows eel population evaluation with cur-rently available data, as applied by MNHN (2014), is a plausible criterion. In this ap-proach, the criterion is that that the Eel stock is recovering if the abundance of current generation is higher than the generation which spawned it (Mace and Sissenwine, 1993). This approach has been applied earlier by Åström and Dekker (2007), within a more elaborate, full lifetime model; Lambert (2008) applied a comparable model using life-history parameters more representative for the southern part of the distribution.

To apply such approach, three aspects should be considered (MNHN 2014):


• First, it must be decided at which stage abundance should be compared. As no time-series of silver eel escapement exist (estimates have been made since 2009 only) and there is uncertainty in the escapement estimations, the Work-shop proposed that recruitment indices would be a pragmatic alternative. The “Elsewhere Europe” recruitment series developed by WGEEL, with data including 51 years and 25 river basins, is considered to be the most ro-bust time-series available and therefore is appropriate to comparative pur-poses if an NDF-assessment was developed at the whole stock level. Analyses of other time-series (yellow and silver eel, landings and surveys), however, indicates that the stock probably was already in severe decline long before the recruitment started to drop (Dekker, 2004).

• Secondly the generation time should be stated. Eel generation time varies with longitude and latitude, sex and habitat quality. In a recent review of silver eel catches (ICES, 2014a), it was found that in southern regions, female silver eels tend to be relatively young (e.g. six years in Mediterranean la-goons) while in northern regions they are usually much older (e.g. 17 years in inland waters in Sweden). One option could be to use a different genera-tion time according to the regions and habitats; according to the ICES ecore-gion for example. For example, MNHN (2014), used the mean age at silvering for continental females in Europe according to EELIAD (Eeliad, unpublished data): 11 years, plus two years of the transoceanic migration time, to result in a generation time of 13 years; whereas the 2014 IUCN Red List assessment used a mean age of 15 years (Jacoby and Gollock, 2014). The Scientific Authority making an NDF-assessment would have to decide on the mean generation time appropriate to their particular conditions. Addi-tionally, the presence of differential mean ages within the population will further complicate the interpretation; the results of Lambert (2008) for a southern part of the population differ substantially from those of Åström and Dekker (2007). For further discussion of substocks, see Chapter 4.2.

• Thirdly, as recruitment shows a high between-year variability MNHN (2014) considered that it is necessary to have three consecutive years of higher abundance to state that the population recovery criteria is favourable.

Taking these three aspects together, the suggested principle is that average recruitment during the NDF-assessment period should be higher than it was for a similar length time period one generation previously. For example, according to the MNHN (2014) approach, it could be considered that the population would be recovering if the aver-age recruitment for the 2012–2015 was higher than that of 1999–2002.

4.2.4.3 Eel Criterion C3 – is there full recruitment?

The principle of this criterion is to assess how close or far is the recruitment index from a ‘normal’ (or baseline period) level. The WGEEL (ICES, 2013a) analysed recruitment time-series indices and proposed the following references:

• Rtarget – which is the geometric mean of observed recruitments between 1960 and 1979, the most recent period in which the stock was considered to be healthy;

• Rdown – which is the 5% quantile of observed recruitments between 1960 and 1979 that is the lower bound of the confidence interval of this time period.


These thresholds for the WGEEL recruitment indices are presented in Table 4.1. The Workshop proposed that a positive NDF-assessment might be supported if the recruit-ment index was above Rdown, that is, within the confidence interval of reference period recruitment. This approach was applied to the recruitment indices in ‘North Sea’ and ‘Elsewhere Europe’ zones, as it cannot be ruled out that recruitment pattern to the two areas have different trends (ICES, 2010).

Table 4.1. Thresholds estimates for recruitment indices, based on the ‘North Sea’ and ‘Elsewhere Europe’ recruitment indices developed by WGEEL. The baseline level (period 1960–1979) is set to 1.0.

‘ELSEWHERE EUROPE’ ‘NORTH SEA’

Raw data Raw data

Rtarget 0.94 0.93

Rdown 0.53 0.54

At the time of its analysis, WGEEL (ICES, 2013a) noted that the recruitment fell below Rdown in the early 1980s in the ‘North Sea’ index, and the mid-1980s in the ‘Elsewhere Europe’ index. Despite an increase for the last few years, the recruitment remains far below Rdown.

Figure 4.3. Trend in recruitment (‘Elsewhere Europe’ index) from 1950 to 2011 with respect to healthy zone (green), cautious zone (orange) and the critical zone (red) plotted against a natural scale (left) and a logarithmic scale (right).


4.2.5 Eel Criteria D - Eel management plans

Eel Criterion D1: the creation and implementation of an eel management plan.

Eel Criterion D2: the eel management plan is effective in contributing to stock re-covery at whatever spatial scale is appropriate to the proposed NDF-assessment.

What is an eel management plan?

The EU Eel Regulation (1100/2007) requires Member States with significant eel habitats to implement Eel Management Plans (EMPs) and regularly report on their progress. The long-term objective of each EMP should be “to reduce anthropogenic mortalities so as to permit with high probability the escapement to the sea of at least 40% of the silver eel biomass relative to the best estimate of escapement that would have existed if no anthropogenic influences had impacted the stock”. Member States are free to implement management and conser-vation measures appropriate to their eel resources.

The Regulation sets reporting requirements (Article 9) such that Member States must report on the monitoring, effectiveness and outcomes of EMPs, including the propor-tion of silver eel biomass that escapes to the sea to spawn, or leaves the national terri-tory, relative to the 40% target level of escapement; the level of fishing effort; the amount of eels under 12 cm in length caught and the proportions utilised for different purposes; and the scale of mortality due to factors outside the fishery. At present, Mem-ber States have to report on a tri-annual basis with the next progress report deadline being due 30th June 2015 and the following being 30th June 2018. After this report, Member States will have to report every six years. Nineteen EU Member States have produced EMPs at present, six have been exempt and three have abstained from pro-ducing plans, for various reasons. Most EMPs were approved in 2009 or 2010 with im-plementation beginning after this point; all submitted plans were approved by 2014.

Progress on the implementation of these plans was reported to the EU by Member States in 2012. ICES conducted a technical review of these progress reports (ICES, 2013b), finding that in most Eel Management Units, and depending on local conditions, progress had been made in implementing eel-specific management measures for com-mercial and recreational fisheries, hydropower, pumping stations and obstacles, re-stocking, on habitat and a few cases of predator control.

What criteria could be associated with EMPs?

The Workshop recognises that the creation and implementation of EMPs is a valuable and necessary step towards local protection of eel, and therefore proposes that the im-plementation of EMPs could be a criterion for an NDF-assessment (D1), but noting that it is not sufficient in itself to support a positive NDF-assessment.

A second criterion for a positive NDF-assessment could be that the EMP is effective in contributing to stock recovery at whatever spatial scale is appropriate to the proposed NDF-assessment (D2).

What are the challenges to these criteria?

However, there are some challenges to using criteria based on EMPs.

First, all Member States have either implemented approved plans, been exempt from this, or have abstained. Therefore, providing that these EU Member States continue to implement their EMPs, having implemented an approved plan would only be a useful


criterion for new EU Member States, or for non-EU countries, but in that latter case these countries are not obliged to implement an EU-like EMP.

Second, the effectiveness of some EMPs is difficult to judge at this time for a variety of reasons:

• The Member States’ Progress Reports to the Commission in 2012 revealed that only 17 of 81 EMPs were achieving their 40% escapement biomass (42 are not and 22 did not report), and only 24 EMPs had levels of anthropo-genic mortality below that which was the equivalent of the 40% target. Ad-ditionally, the Regulation only requires achievement of the biomass target “in the long term”, so there is no deadline date against which to measure achievement.

• It is difficult to predict the time-scale of effects, given the complexities of the eel life cycle dynamics, the influence of stock-wide changes in recruitment, and the potential for synergistic or contrary effects of management measures. According to the information provided in the EMP progress re-ports, restrictions on commercial and recreational fisheries for silver eel have contributed most to increases in silver eel escapement in the short time since the implementation of management plans. The effectiveness of measures related to hydropower, pumping stations and obstacles, is diffi-cult to demonstrate or judge because of the site-specific nature of potential impacts and lack of post-evaluation. Measures to improve habitats may re-duce density-dependent mortality rates, but their effectiveness is driven by local conditions. Restocking is not expected to have contributed to increased silver eel escapement yet because of the generational lag time. The efficacy of restocking for recovering the stock remains uncertain. Control of preda-tors was proposed in 14 actions but only five were fully implemented. Sev-eral predators of eel are themselves protected by European legislations and therefore control can be difficult even where they are considered an anthro-pogenic-induced mortality factor.

Third, not all of the methods used to estimate stock indicators for EMPs have been fully described and/or peer-reviewed so it is uncertain at this time how comparable the re-sults from different methods might be, and therefore whether the aggregation of results from EMPs to larger regions, EU Member States or international regions yields a robust reflection of the status of the stock at these larger scales. The WGEEL has illustrated an approach to aggregate EMP results to larger spatial scales using the modified precau-tionary diagram (Figure 4.2), but while this aggregation weighs all estimates by their share to the total potential biomass Bbest, an alternative approach might be an additional weighing dependent on the certainty of their estimates or their likely degree of exploi-tation for trade.

In conclusion, the Workshop recognised that the EMPs were an important considera-tion with regards to management of eel resources by Member States, but the plans con-tain management measures and targets at the EMU level, and how these relate to the state of the stock at larger spatial scales remains an important question to be fully de-veloped. As such, the EU’s CITES Scientific Review Group would need to decide which spatial scale, i.e. EU, Member State and/or EMU, to examine and it would be prudent to seek up-to-date expert advice in relation to EMPs.


4.2.6 Considerations of the application of criteria

The first criterion (A: “CITES Appendix 1 considerations”) seems to be a necessary cri-terion for an NDF-assessment, because this is a formal requirement of any NDF-assess-ment for Appendix II species. If this criterion is not met it would seem difficult to argue for a positive NDF-assessment in regard to article IV.3 of the CITES convention. Crite-rion D1, the implementation of an approved EMP, also seems necessary to the Work-shop, but we note that this is only a binding obligation of the EU Eel Regulation within the EU; for other areas, a management plan will be required too, and evaluation criteria for these will need to be developed.

Other criteria are all designed to ensure a sustainable exploitation. For example, the modified precautionary diagram (B) in theory is able to judge the situation of the stock and the sustainable use of the resources. If the anthropogenic mortality is below the mortality threshold, the spawner escapement should increase and in turn the recruit-ment should increase (C1), contributing to recovery (C2 & C3) and that means ulti-mately that EMP are fulfilling their objectives (D). In reality, given that (a) there can be a long lead-in between seeing changes in recruitment indices reflected in changes in spawning stock, (b) information is imperfect (through absence and potential bias) at this time and (c) our understanding of the population dynamics of European eel is far from complete, we cannot guarantee that criteria will not contradict each other or that the use of one criterion or a combination of criteria can ensure a correct positive NDF assessment. For these reasons we advocate gathering as much information as possible, computing all these criteria and combining their results regarding the available infor-mation and their degree of certainty/reliability. Further, we would advise that the out-puts from the analysis relating to the above criteria are viewed in concert with other relevant data, such as information on legal and illegal trade (e.g. seizures of illegal ex-ports).

We assume that the question of the appropriate level of certainty in the data used to argue the case for indicator thresholds has been made as part of the NDF-assessment. The standard ICES principle for an acceptable level of uncertainty when giving catch advice is that of the 5% risk limit. For instance there should be less than 5% risk that the catch will lead to the stock getting below the management target. In the absence of anything different for the eel circumstance, the ICES 5% limit could be used. However, there will be circumstances where it is not possible to quantify the level of risk in such terms, and therefore a subjective assessment of risk may be all that can be proposed.

4.3 The spatial scale for developing an NDF and its consequences for stock recovery

The eel occurs in nearly all countries in Europe, and in the Mediterranean parts of Af-rica and Asia (Dekker, 2003). Eel Management Plans have been compiled per EU Mem-ber State or smaller management areas within the EU, and management measures are implemented in the scattered habitats (Dekker, 2000). In this section, we are addressing the question of spatial scales: what spatial unit can be adequate for developing an NDF-assessment?

This section addresses the request for “an assessment of the scale that could be used to make a Non-Detriment Finding (e.g. at the level of the entire stock, or of the EU, or of regional sub-stocks, or any other level).”


4.3.1 The spatial structure of the stock

The genetic structure of the European eel has been thoroughly analysed in several re-cent studies (Palm et al., 2009; Andrello et al., 2011; Pujolar et al., 2011). The most recent studies confirm previous findings that the stock is panmictic, that is: in terms of genet-ics, all individuals belong to the same population. Whether this panmixia is achieved by random mating of adults in the spawning area in the southwestern part of the Sar-gasso Sea or by random dispersal of the larvae on their route towards the continent, is unknown. Recently, Ulrik et al. (2014) reported spatially varying selection, observed in the glass eel stage, in an otherwise panmictic population, indicating that panmixia is restored in the later life stages.

Panmixia, however, does not necessarily imply that silver eels from all over the conti-nental distribution area actually contribute to the spawning stock, at all or to the same degree, and/or mix there. It might be possible that either only part of the continental stock might reproduce (Dekker, 1999), or the contribution of regional substocks is re-quired due to regionally varying selection.

Suggestions for such a ‘part’ of the stock that contributes to spawning stock include: 1. Large and abundant females from the Baltic may dominate the spawning stock; 2. Only males from Morocco and Portugal (nearest to the Sargasso Sea) may reach the spawning area (Kettle et al., 2011); 3. The Biscay area, receiving the vast majority of glass eel recruitment, may constitute the reproducing part of the population (Dekker, 2003); 4. The Mediterranean, the only area where temperatures are found in accordance with the species’ preference, may constitute the reproducing part of the stock (Dekker, 2003); and 5. Differential distances from different areas on the continent towards the Sargasso Sea, leading to differences in arrival times at the spawning place, which in turn might explain the observation that recruitment is going down faster than the esti-mated size of the spawning stock (Dekker, 2004). Finally 6., regionally varying selection leads to substocks, all of which might need to contribute to the reproduction. Here, we do not argue for or against any of these hypotheses, but note that it is not known whether or not the whole continental distribution area contributes to the spawning stock (at all, or to the same degree).

In the absence of decisive evidence on what part of the continental stock successfully contributes to the reproduction however, the precautionary approach is to assume that any or all parts of the continental stock might contribute to the spawning process, even if some parts might not. Adequately protecting all parts ensures that overall protection is presumed (Dekker, 2010), whether or not all parts contribute to the reproduction (known as the “all for one” approach). Moreover, since any part of the continental stock might be essential to the overall status of the stock, all parts must be protected at least to the minimum acceptable level (known as the “one limit/target for all” scenario), whatever that level is.

The EU Eel Regulation actually defines (Art. 2.4, underlining added): “The objective of each Eel Management Plan shall be … to permit … the escapement … of at least 40% of the [pristine] silver eel biomass …”, which is in agreement with the above discus-sion.

4.3.2 Reasons for making an NDF-assessment for parts of the stocks

ICES is requested to provide scientific information and advice on the spatial scale on which to make an NDF-assessment. There can be different reasons for making an NDF-assessment for a substock, including:


• Data-related: Making an NDF-assessment for an area for which adequate data are available; i.e. excluding the areas for which no adequate data are available.

• Implementation-related: Making an NDF-assessment for an area where po-tential restrictions can be implemented; e.g. for the EU as a whole, where the internal open borders would complicate internal trade restrictions, but add-ing non-EU countries would make implementation more complex by in-volving other jurisdictions.

• Management-related: Making differential NDF-assessments for areas with a sustainable stock status vs. those without a sustainable stock status.

Clearly, an NDF-assessment for a small area should not be accepted on just the argu-ment that the substock is only a very small part of the total, since the sum of many small areas may well constitute a considerable part of the whole.

In the following text, we will provide a general discussion of spatially subdivided as-sessments; nowhere will we refer to a specific spatial scale. However, in order to de-termine the thoughts, one might consider one or more of the following:

• An assessment for a specific river or Eel Management Unit (the scale of the EMP).

• An assessment for a specific country. • An assessment for the whole of the EU, in distinction from the non-EU coun-

tries within the distribution area of the eel. • An assessment for a set of geographically homogeneous countries, e.g. ICES

ecoregions. • Etc.

4.3.3 An NDF-assessment for the whole or for parts of the stock

In this section, we discuss the choice either for an NDF-assessment for the whole stock or an NDF-assessment for separate substocks. We will make different assumptions on the composition of the spawning–stock ‘biomass’ (SSB): a. all substocks contribute to SSB; b. the substock does contribute to SSB; and c. the substock does not contribute to SSB, and consider the adequacy of NDF-assessments for either the whole stock or a substock, whatever the identity of the substocks. The discussion is schematically sum-marised in Table 4.1, and discussed in detail below.


Table 4.1. Schematic summary of the discussion on the spatial scale for making an NDF-assessment. The columns compare the development of an NDF-assessment for the whole stock, to one for a particular substock. The rows list all possible assumptions on the true-but-unknown identity of the spawning stock. Green text indicates conditions where the chosen scale is adequate or has no consequences; yellow is a point for concern; red is inadequate.

NDF FOR

Whole stock A substock

Ass

umpt

ions

on

the

Spaw

ning

Sto

ck

All substocks contribute to the spawning

Section 4.3.4.1 Spatial scale is correct

Section 4.3.5.1 Spatial scale mis-specified, but most substock indicators do reflect overall status Action in a substock has little effect on the whole stock – limited feedback. Compensatory action (making up for other, underprotected areas) required?

The substock considered does contribute to the spawning, others might not.

Section 4.3.4.2 Spatial scale mis-specified. Stock-wide indicators may be misleading

Section 4.3.5.2 Spatial scale is correct Compensatory action (making up for other, underprotected areas) has no effect.

The substock considered does not contribute to the spawning, others might.

Section 4.3.4.2

Spatial scale mis-specified. Stock-wide indicators may be misleading

Section 4.3.5.3

The assessment is irrelevant. This may lead to unnecessary restrictive action.

Compensatory action (making up for other, underprotected areas) has no effect.

4.3.4 An NDF-assessment for the whole stock

4.3.4.1 … where all substocks contribute to the reproduction

In the case of an NDF-assessment developed for the whole stock, where the whole stock indeed contributes to the reproduction, the NDF is developed at the correct spa-tial scale.

4.3.4.2 … where only a substock contributes to the reproduction

In this case, the status of the whole stock will reflect the situation in the reproducing part, and stock-wide indicators of the status will reflect that; hence, this spatial scale can be adequate. However, some indicators, such as local anthropogenic mortality lev-els, reflect the regional situation only, and the whole-stock assessment for NDF based on whole-stock-indicators is likely to misrepresent the situation. This only occurs if indicators vary substantially from region to region, and some regions violate the limits and targets set, which is a situation to be avoided anyhow.


4.3.5 An NDF-assessment for a substock

4.3.5.1 … where all substocks contribute to the reproduction

In this case, the NDF-assessment will correctly characterise the status of the substock, but management actions taken in the substock will have only a limited effect on the whole stock (positive or negative). That is: the total number of substocks dampens the effect of management measures taken in single substocks; protective action gets little feedback.

An important issue for this case arises, when the substock meets the criteria for devel-oping a positive NDF-assessment, but the overall stock does not. The status of the whole stock would indicate that additional protection is required, and one way of achieving that might be a further reduction in impacts, even in those areas where agreed management targets/limits have already been reached, one area compensating for the under-achievements of another. Whether or not this compensation is required (or alternatively, a slower progress towards recovery is accepted) is a matter that goes beyond the remit of this Workshop. We do note, however, that the true identity of the reproducing part of the continental stock is unknown, and therefore, it is of utmost importance that minimum acceptable protection levels are reached in all management areas (Section 4.3.1). Compensatory action, instead of protection that is adequate across all areas, then may give a false impression of a sustainable protection regime.

4.3.5.2 … and that substock does contribute to the reproduction, but others do not

If the substock considered covers the whole reproduction, the NDF-assessment is de-veloped for the correct spatial scale (as was also the case in 4.3.4.1).

4.3.5.3 … and that substock does not contribute to the reproduction

This is a somewhat trivial case, since the substock considered is assumed to not con-tribute to the reproduction. The only complication occurs when no NDF for this sub-stock can be made and accordingly impacts (e.g. exploitation) will be restricted; while this substock would not have reproduced anyhow and therefore the restriction was not necessary. Though unnecessary, this does not breach the precautionary approach.

4.3.6 Conclusions on the spatial scale for developing an NDF-assessment

The European eel stock has a very wide distribution area, and there are several reasons why a spatial subdivision into different assessment areas might be pursued. Starting from the notion that the biology of the eel is insufficiently known; are there substocks, and if so, which ones? Do all substocks contribute to reproduction? This section ex-plored the consequences of specifying an NDF-assessment in agreement with, or not, an (unknown) substock structure. If a spatial subdivision of the stock is present, a whole-stock NDF-assessment may result in misleading stock indicators. In contrast, if no subdivision exists (a single, panmictic stock), some regional stock indicators (e.g. recruitment strength, overall stock abundance) will correctly reflect the status of the stock, though others (e.g. anthropogenic mortality) might not. It is therefore concluded that, whatever the true identity of stock and substocks, an NDF-assessment requires indicators that reflect the status at the appropriate spatial scale. Additionally, the status of the whole stock can be considered, but compensatory actions (compensating for un-der-achievements in other areas) are no safe replacement for protection adequate in all areas.


It should be noted that the data available for the criteria and associated thresholds are likely to be depend on which spatial scales are examined. The report simply refers to either ‘the stock’ or a ‘substock’, and the latter could be interpreted as wide as the entire EU down to a single EMU, and as such, this should be taken in to account during an NDF-assessment.

4.4 Possible conditions associated with an NDF

In this chapter we assume that the results of an examination of criteria defined in Chap-ter 4.1 at the appropriate scale (Chapter 4.2) leads to a positive NDF-assessment for whole or part of the stock. The question that arises is then what conditions could be placed on that trade (import or export) to further ensure the NDF?

If a positive NDF-assessment is concluded, that means that the current (or recent or foreseen) exploitation, set within the context of all anthropogenic impacts, is sustaina-ble. A reasonable condition is that the trade permitted by the NDF does not result in an increase in exploitation such that total anthropogenic mortality exceeds that sus-tainable limit.

We can imagine a system of fishing quota limiting the fishing mortality to the level under which the positive NDF-assessment was approved by the SRG. That should en-sure that the exploitation remains within sustainable limit if other sources of mortali-ties do not increase in the same time. It does not matter to the status of the stock whether fished eel is consumed inside or outside Europe, because both circumstances remove specimens from the spawning–stock biomass. Therefore, it is not appropriate to impose an NDF condition on a proportion of the fishing quota; it is all or nothing.

There may be circumstances where an increase in exploitation would not cause the overall anthropogenic mortality rate to exceed the sustainable limit, for example where another cause of mortality was reduced. However, it is more difficult to set up a system that ensures the sustainable use of the resources in such circumstances. That would require a precise knowledge of all anthropogenic mortalities. For the moment this pre-cision seems to be out of reach, given the limited information presented in EMPs, Pro-gress Reports and provided to the WGEEL in the years since the EMPs were implemented.

Another option would be to only trade in a “surplus”. However, WGEEL (ICES, 2008) underlined that in Europe “there is a limited understanding on methods by which to make assessments of a local surplus on a quantitative, biological basis”. Even if a sur-plus could be described in ecological terms, there are challenges with determining how an apparent surplus in glass or yellow eel catch could be considered in terms of a silver eel escapement target, or with determining a surplus at different spatial scales. There-fore, this notion seems not to be a practical way to define the quantity that can be traded through import or export.

Alongside these eel-specific conditions suggested above, there are general conditions (or precautions) that would be expected, including that:

• there is sufficient confidence in the evidence supplied to support the NDF-assessment;

• there would be a genuine ‘paper trail’ of documents; • the evidence would be robust to standard audit procedures; and • all legal processes had been followed; and


• the origin of the trade and the method by which it was caught are specified and verifiable, being traceable to whatever spatial scale resolution is re-quired by the indicator.

These are not easy conditions to meet, however, as the Workshop notes that despite specific requirements for traceability of eel trade set out in the Eel Regulation, the WGEEL’s attempts to catalogue trade and especially the trade in glass eel continues to be hindered by the lack of appropriate information on final fate of eel traded in Europe. It is essential to an efficient traceability system that adequate enforcement and report-ing related to the supply chain of eel fisheries and end products are in place. This would support an NDF-assessment process and also limit illegal catch and trade which would impact upon the maintenance of a NDF.


5 Summary conclusions


The Workshop concluded that it was possible to identify a number of indicators, with thresholds suggested for some of these, which could be used to guide the assessment of a NDF for international trade in European eels, and that suggested indicators could include the following:

A ) population indices should be above levels at which the species might qualify for listing in Appendix I of CITES; for European eel this level was adjudged to be 15% of historical baseline, and recruitment time-series are the longest and most reliable data that could constitute an index of abundance;

B ) a modified precautionary framework considering both anthropogenic mor-talities and biomass reference points (40% of pristine biomass and the corre-sponding mortality rate);

C ) indices indicating that recruitment is trending positively, reflect a recover-ing population, and are within confidence limits of reference baseline; and

D ) the implementation of effective eel management plans (or their equivalents).

All the suggested indicators should be considered together, where data are available; criteria A) and the implementation of an eel management plan (D1) were seen as es-sential first steps after which the other indicators could be assessed. The indicators rely on data that are of variable quality and completeness and so a precautionary approach should be taken in cases of uncertainty or where data quality are poor.


With respect to the spatial scale on which an NDF might be assessed, in the absence of decisive evidence on what part of the continental stock successfully contributes to re-production, the precautionary approach is to assume that any or all parts of the conti-nental stock might contribute to reproduction. Taking this point into account, it was still feasible to undertake an NDF-assessment at smaller spatial scales than the entire population (and there could be valid reasons for doing so) but the risks and benefits needed to be considered.


Noting that it does not matter to the status of the recovery of the European eel stock whether eel are consumed inside or outside Europe, as neither circumstance contrib-utes to the spawning–stock biomass, it is not possible to define conditions for any pro-portion of exploitation less than the whole: the key condition is that the exploitation is at a level that is sustainable. In addition, general conditions regarding the robustness of supporting evidence, documentation and traceability of trade were proposed.

4 ) Further considerations in the development of this process

This was a short Workshop to consider the criteria that might be relevant to anyone to consider in developing an NDF-assessment for European eel. The findings of this


Workshop could be further developed into a step-by-step guidance framework, includ-ing testing with case studies, along the lines previously implemented for NDF-assess-ment of sharks, but it was recognised that this full process took many months, and included several international meetings.


Annex 1: Terms of Reference for WKEELCITES

2014/2/ACOM51 The Workshop on Eel and CITES (WKEELCITES) will meet 10–12 March 2015 in ICES, Copenhagen, Denmark, chaired by Alan Walker, UK, to work on response to request from the EU. The work will be to:

A ) Answer the EU special request to ICES on CITES criteria and conditions for a Non-Detriment Finding regarding Anguilla anguilla.

WKEELCITES will report by 25 March 2015 for the attention of the Advisory Commit-tee.

Supporting Information

PRIORITY: VERY HIGH

Scientific justification and relation to action plan:

To answer the request from the EU

Resource requirements:

Participants: Core eel experts and CITES experts two external experts will be invited to attend the Workshop as reviewers

Secretariat facilities:

Meeting facilities

Financial: Travel and per diem will be covered for reviewers and seven core experts

Linkages to other committees or groups:

WGEEL

Linkages to other organizations:

CITES


Annex 2: Agenda

Day 1 (10th):

1 ) Opening of meeting and housekeeping 2 ) Terms of Reference 3 ) Presentations

3.1 ) The eel and its assessment framework (WD) 3.2 ) CITES NDF – CITES Resolution Conf 16.7 Non-detriment finding

(UG) 3.3 ) SRG discussion paper (VF) 3.4 ) French approach to NDF for eel (AA)

4 ) Agree structure of report 5 ) Agree work structure 6 ) Start drafting sections of the report, collating from existing materials

Day 2 (11th):

1 ) Drafting the report

Day 3 (12th)

2 ) Review of report and recommendations 3 ) AOB


Annex 3: Participants

NAME ADDRESS PHONE/FAX E-MAIL

Anthony Acou MNHN Station Marine de Dinard 38 Rue du Port Blanc 35800 Dinard Cédex France

[email protected]

Laurent Beaulaton Invited Expert

ONEMA-INRA CS 84215 65 rue de St Brieuc (Bât 15) 35042 Rennes Cedex France

Phone +33 Fax +33

[email protected]

Sofia Brockmark

Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management Box 11 930 404 39 Göteborg Sweden

Phone +46 10-698 65 81 Cell +46 76-538 62 81

[email protected]

Pat Close Lough Neagh Fishermen’s Co-operative 4 Bannside Toomebridge Co Antrim BT41 3SB N. Ireland, UK

Phone +44 28 796 50618

[email protected]

Vicki Crook External Reviewer

Traffic Headquarters Office 219a Huntingdon Rd Cambridge CB3 ODL United Kingdom

[email protected]

Rafael Andrés David Fernández

Ministry of Agriculture Plaza San Juan de la Cruz s/n 28071 Madrid 28014 Spain

Phone +34 91 597 54 89

[email protected]

Willem Dekker Invited Expert

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Institute of Freshwater Research Stångholmsvägen 2 Dept. of Aquatic Resources 17893 Drottningholm Sweden

Phone +46 10-478 4248 Mobile: +46 76-12 68 136

[email protected]

Estibaliz Diaz Invited Expert

AZTI-Tecnalia AZTI Sukarrieta Txatxarramendi ugartea z/g E-48395 Sukarrieta (Bizkaia) Spain

Phone +34 946 029 400 Fax +34 946 870 006

[email protected]


NAME ADDRESS PHONE/FAX E-MAIL

Derek Evans Invited Expert

Agri-food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) AFBI Headquarters Newforge Lane BT9 5QX Belfast United Kingdom

Phone +44 28 9025 5551 Fax +44

[email protected]

Eric Feunteun MNHN UMR MNHN-CNRS-PVI BOME CRESCO 38 Rue du Port Blanc 35800 Dinard Cédex 70134 France

[email protected]

Vincent Fleming Invited Expert

JNCC Monkstone House City Road Peterborough PE1 1JY UK

Phone +44 1733 866870 Fax +44 1733 866855

[email protected]

Evangelia Georgitsi

DGMare 200 rue de la Loi 1049 Belgium Brussels

+32 [email protected]

Matthew Gollock External Reviewer

Institute of Zoology Regent’s Park NW1 4RY London United Kingdom

Phone +44 207 449 6249 Fax +44

[email protected]

Ute Grimm Invited Expert

Federal Agency for Nature Conservation Konstantinstrasse 110 53179 Bonn Germany

Phone +49-228-84 91-1421 Fax +49-228-8491-1419 or -9999

[email protected]

Henrik Sparholt

ICES Secretariat H.C. Andersens Blvd. 44–46 1553 Copenhagen Denmark

[email protected]

Alan Walker

Chair

Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas)

Lowestoft Laboratory

Pakefield Road

NR33 0HT Lowestoft

Suffolk

United Kingdom

Phone +44 1502 562244

Fax +44 1502 513865

[email protected]


Annex 4: References

Andrello, M., Bevacqua, D., Maes, G.E. and De Leo, G.A. 201. An integrated genetic-demo-graphic model to unravel the origin of genetic structure in European eel (Anguilla anguilla L.). Evolutionary Applications. Vol. 1 pp 1–18.

Ăström M. and Dekker W. 2007 When will the eel recover? A full life cycle model. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64: 1–8.

Briand, C., Bonhommeau, S., Beaulaton, L., and Castelnaud, G. 2008. An appraisal of historical glass eel fisheries and markets: landings, trade routes and future prospect for management. Wesport, Ireland.

CITES. 2013 Decisions of the Conference of the Parties to CITES in effect after its 16th meeting. http://www.cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/dec/valid16/E16-Dec.pdf.

CITES. 2013. CITES Resolution Conf. 16.7, Non-detriment Findings http://www.cites.org/eng/res/16/16-07.php.

CITES. 2013. Res. Conf. 9.24 (rev CoP16) Criteria for amendment of Appendices I and II of CITES provides criteria for the inclusion of species in the CITES Appendices. http://www.cites.org/eng/res/all/09/E09-24R13.pdf.

Crook, V. 2010. Trade in Anguilla species, with a focus on recent trade in European Eel A. anguilla. TRAFFIC report prepared for the European Commission.

Dekker W. 1999, Is the European eel overfished? ICES/EIFAC eel working group, Silkeborg, Sep-tember 1999, working document, 15 pp.

Dekker W. 2003. On the distribution of the European eel and its fisheries. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60, 787–799.

Dekker W. 2004. Slipping through our hands - Population dynamics of the European eel. PhD thesis, 11 October 2004, University of Amsterdam, 186 pp. http://www.diad-fish.org/doc/these_2004/dekker_thesis_eel.pdf.

Dekker W. 2010. Post-evaluation of eel stock management: a methodology under construction. IMARES report C056/10, 69 pp.

Dekker W. 2010. Post-evaluation of eel stock management: a methodology under construction. IMARES report C056/10, 69 pp.

Diaz E., Korta M., Arenburu A., Abaroa C. 2012. Report on the eel stock and fishery in Spain 2010/2011. In: ICES, 2012. Report of the joint EIFAAC/ICES Working Group on Eels (WGEEL), ICES CM 2012/ACOM:18.

DFO. 2006. A Harvest Strategy Compliant with the Precautionary Approach (PDF). DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2006/023.

European Commission. 2010. Short summary of conclusions of the 54th meeting of the scientific review group on trade in wild fauna and flora1 3 December 2010 https://circabc.eu-ropa.eu/sd/a/49ab3fc9-646b-4b35-ac42-f0333479ce24/54_summary_srg.pdf.

European Council. 1996. Council regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein. Official Journal L 061, 03/03/1997 P. 0001–0069.

European Union. 2007. Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007 of 18 September 2007 establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel. Official Journal of the European Union L248/17: 1–7.

FAO. 2007. Report of the second FAO Ad Hoc Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals to Amend Appendices I and II of CITES Concerning Commercially-exploited Aquatic Species. Rome, 26–30 March 2007. FAO Fisheries Report. No. 833. Rome, FAO. 133 pp, http://www.cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/cop/14/inf/E14i-38.pdf.

http://www.cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/dec/valid16/E16-Dec.pdf

https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/49ab3fc9-646b-4b35-ac42-f0333479ce24/54_summary_srg.pdf

https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/49ab3fc9-646b-4b35-ac42-f0333479ce24/54_summary_srg.pdf

http://www.cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/cop/14/inf/E14i-38.pdf


Feunteun E., Acou A., Trancart T., Boulenger C., Aarestrup K., Amilhat K., Belpaire C., Covaci A., Gargan P., Lobón-Cerviá J., Poole R., Wickström H., Walker A., Righton D. 2014. Organic and Metallic Pollutants Reduce the Diversity of Life-History Traits in European Eel: The End of an Evolutionary Advantage? American Fisheries Society, Eel Symposium, Québec, Qc, Canada.

Fleming, L.V. 2011. Eels & CITES: will regulating international trade contribute to recovery of the European eel? In Eel Management, the state of the art. Proceedings of a conference, Bridgwater, Somerset, April 2009. (Eds. D. Bunt & A. Don). pp 48–56. Institute of Fisheries Management, Somerset.

Gaynor, K. 2014. An assessment of the challenges faced in making a Non-Detriment Finding (NDF) for Anguilla anguilla (European eel). Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Universidad In-ternacional de Andalucía. Sede Antonio Machado, Baeza, Spain.

ICES. 2008. The report of the 2008 Session of the Joint EIFAC/ICES Working Group on Eels, Sep-tember 2008; ICES CM 2008/ACOM:15. 192 pp. and country reports.

ICES. 2010. Report of the Study Group on International Post-Evaluation on Eels, 10–12 May 2010, Vincennes, France. ICES CM 2010/SSGEF:20. 42 pp.

ICES. 2011. Report of the 2011 Session of the Joint EIFAAC/ICES Working Group on Eels Lisbon, Portugal, 5–9 September 2011; ICESCM 2011/ACOM:18,244p.

ICES. 2013a. Report of the Joint EIFAAC/ICES Working Group on Eels (WGEEL), 18–22 March 2013 in Sukarrieta, Spain, 4–10 September 2013 in Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2013/ACOM:18. 851 pp.

ICES. 2013b. Report of the Workshop on Evaluation Progress Eel Management Plans (WKEPEMP), 13–15 May 2013, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2013/ACOM:32. 757 pp.

ICES. 2014a. The report of the 2014 Session of the Joint EIFAAC/ICES/GFCM Working Group on Eels, November 2014; ICES CM 2014/ACOM:18. 203 pp.

ICES. 2014b. ICES Advice on Eel stock for 2015.

Jacoby, D. and Gollock, M. 2014. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Anguilla anguilla. Version 2014.3. www.iucnredlist.org.

Kettle, A. J., Vøllestad A.L., and Wibig, J. 2011. Where once the eel and the elephant were to-gether: decline of the European eel because of changing hydrology in Southwest Europe and Northwest Africa? Fish and Fisheries, 12(4), 380–411.

Lambert, P. 2008. Évaluation des effets possibles de différents niveaux de réduction des im-pacts sur le temps de restauration du stock d'anguille européenne Rapport ONEMA-Cemagref. 15 pp.

Laflamme S., Côté C. L, Gagnaire P.-A., Castonguay M., Bernatchez L. 2012. RNA/DNA ratios in American glass eels (Anguilla rostrata): evidence for latitudinal variation in physiological status and constraints to oceanic migration? Ecology and Evolution. 2(5):875–884. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.212.

Mace, P. M. and Sissenwine, M. P. 1993. How much spawning per recruit is enough? Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 120: 101–118.

MNHN. 2014. Synthèse du college d’experts CITES-Anguilles. Version finale. 43 pp. http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/rap-port%20MNHN%20ACNP%20ao%C3%BBt%202014%20Anguilla%20CITES_%20rap-port%20final%2029-08-2014.pdf.

Moriarty, C., and Dekker, W. 1997. Management of the European eel. Fisheries Bulletin. 110 pp.

Mundy-Taylor, V., Crook, V., Foster, S., Fowler, S., Sant, G. and Rice, J. 2014, CITES Non-detri-ment Findings for Shark Species 2nd, revised version, A Framework to assist Authorities in making Non-Detriment Findings (NDFs) for species listed in CITES Appendix II. Report

http://www.iucnredlist.org/

http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/rapport%20MNHN%20ACNP%20ao%C3%BBt%202014%20Anguilla%20CITES_%20rapport%20final%2029-08-2014.pdf




prepared for the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (Bundesamt fur Na-turschutz, BjN). http://cites.org/sites/de-fault/files/eng/prog/shark/docs/Shark%20NDF%20guidance%20incl%20Annexes.pdf.

Palm, S. Dannewitz, J. Prestegaard T. and Wickstrom H. 2009. Panmixia in European eel revis-ited: no genetic difference between maturing adults from southern and northern Europe Heredity vol.1 p 1–8.

Pujolar, J. M. Bevacqua, D. Capoccioni, F. Ciccotti, E. De Leo, G. A. Zane L. 2011. No apparent genetic bottleneck in the demographically declining European eel using molecular genetics and forward-time Simulations. Conservation Genetics vol.3 p 1–13.

Silfvergrip, A, M, C. 2009. CITES identification guide to the freshwater eels (Anguillidae) with focus on the European eel. Report 5943. Swedish Environment Protection Agency, Stock-holm. 132 pp.

Ulrik et al. 2014. Do North Atlantic eels show parallel patterns of spatially varying selection? BMC Evolutionary Biology, 14:138 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/14/138.

VIA AQUA. 2014. Étude des marchés de l’anguille européenne, pour FRANCE AGRI-MER.

http://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/prog/shark/docs/Shark%20NDF%20guidance%20incl%20Annexes.pdf

http://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/prog/shark/docs/Shark%20NDF%20guidance%20incl%20Annexes.pdf


Annex 5: Glossary of terms and acronyms

ACOM Advisory Committee of ICES

Bbest Spawner biomass corresponding to recent natural re-cruitment that would have survived if there was only natural mortality and no restocking.

B0 Spawner escapement biomass in absence of any an-thropogenic impacts, sometimes referred to as Pris-tine Biomass.

Bcurrent Spawner escapement biomass under current condi-tions.

Bootlace, fingerling Intermediate sized eels, approx. 10-25 cm in length. These terms are most often used in relation to stock-ing. The exact size limits of the eels may vary consid-erably.

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species

CL Conservation Limit (i.e. S lim) - Demarcation of unde-sirable stock levels or levels of fishing activity; the ul-timate objective when managing salmon stocks and regulating fisheries will be to ensure that there is a high probability that undesirable levels are avoided.

CoP CITES Conference of Parties

EIFAAC European Inland Fisheries and Aquaculture Advi-sory Commission of the FAO

EFF European Fisheries Fund

Elver Young eel, in its first year following recruitment from the ocean. The elver stage is sometimes considered to exclude the glass eel stage, but not by everyone.

Eel Management Unit (EMU) Area defined by Member State that constitutes natu-ral habitats for eel, which may include marine waters. Typically, the area covered by a single Eel Manage-ment Plan.

EMFF European Maritime and Fisheries Fund

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Na-tions

FWI Framework of Indicators - used to indicate if any sig-nificant change in the status of stocks used to inform the previously provided multi-annual management advice had occurred.

Glass eel Young, unpigmented eel, recruiting from sea into continental waters

HD Habitats Directive


Limit Anthropogenic mortality (A lim)

Anthropogenic mortality, above which the capacity of self-renewal of the stock is considered to be endan-gered.

Limit escapement biomass (B lim)

Spawner escapement biomass, below which the ca-pacity of self-renewal of the stock is considered to be endangered.

Management Authority (CITES) Competent to grant permits of certificates on behalf of the Authority (member of CITES) (Article 9.1 of the CITES Convention)

MSFD Marine Strategy Framework Directive

NDF Non-Detriment Finding

Precautionary Approach Refer to Rio Article 15, 1992

RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organization

River Basin District (RBD) The area of land and sea, made up of one or more neighbouring river basins together with their associ-ated surface and groundwaters, transitional and coastal waters, which is identified under Article 3 of the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC, as the main unit for management of river basins. Term used in relation to the EU Water Framework Directive.

Recruitment (continental) (eel) Recruitment of glass eel, elvers or yellow eel to conti-nental waters. This differs from the classical defini-tion for fisheries assessment that is the addition of small fish to the exploited population.

(Re)Stocking (eel) Stocking is the practice of adding fish (eels) to a wa-terbody from another source, to supplement existing populations or to create a population where none ex-ists. Often the term “restocking” is used in reference to this activity for eels, because the seed is derived from wild fisheries.

Scientific Authority (CITES) Nominated scientific expertise for signatory of CITES (Article 9.1 of the CITES Convention), with responsi-bility for assessing NDFs.

Scientific Review Group (SRG) Members of all scientific authorities of the member states of the European Union

Silver eel Migratory phase following the yellow eel phase. Eels characterized by darkened back, silvery belly with a clear contrasting black lateral line and enlarged eyes. Downstream migration towards the sea, and subse-quently westwards. This phase mainly occurs in the second half of calendar years, though some are ob-served throughout winter and following spring.


Spawner per recruit (SPR) Estimate of spawner production per recruiting indi-vidual

% SPR Ratio of SPR as currently observed to SPR of the pris-tine stock, expressed as a percentage. Also known as Spawner Potential Ratio.

SRG Scientific Review Group of CITES

SSB Spawning–Stock Biomass

Trap and Transport Traditionally, the term Trap and Transport referred to trapping recruits at impassable obstacles and trans-porting them upstream and releasing them. Under EMPs, trap and transport (or catch and carry) now also refers to fishing for downstream migrating silver eel for transportation around hydropower turbines.

WFD Water Framework Directive

Yellow eel (Brown eel) Life stage resident in continental waters. Often de-fined as a sedentary phase, but migration occurs within and between rivers, and to and from coastal waters. This phase encompasses the elver and boot-lace stages.


Annex 6: Reviewers’ reports

Matt Gollock

As the sole independent reviewer present at the workshop, I was given three criteria under which to approach the task:

• Provide an overview of the reviewer’s comments and recommendations made to the experts during the workshop; highlight any major concerns.

• Do I accept the report as appropriate to be the basis of the advice? • Include suggestions for future work.

I have detailed responses and comments below.

Provide an overview of the reviewer’s comments and recommendations made to the experts dur-ing the workshop – highlight any major concerns

As someone who has expertise in eel conservation, I felt I was very much part of the process and was encouraged to be so from the beginning. As such my comments and recommendations were treated similarly to the other delegates and I felt no need to make any further specific remarks relating to the process. It was clear that the process was a balance of trying to include good science and practicality; both as far as having three days to carry it out and determining what would/could be feasibly implemented. As an example, it needs to be borne in mind that a similar process for sharks took ~1 year (late 2013 to October 2014; Ute Grimm), which included writing, testing the draft at a workshop on the five CITES-listed shark species using two sets of stock data (one data-rich and one data-poor) and subsequent amendments. I would not highlight this as a major concern, but it was something all delegates were conscious of and there was a feeling that the report submitted from the WKEELCITES should be revisited as it has the potential to be a key piece of advice as far as future exploitation and trade of the European eel is concerned.

One final point to raise is another issue that was highlighted by more than one delegate, relating to the fact that harvest of the European eel is already occurring. During the workshop we discussed the concept of trade as a potential detriment to the eel stock, but due to the nature of the EU and the trade that is allowed between member states, exploitation of all life stages continues and the question ‘Does is matter where they are eaten?’ was raised in relation to trade beyond member states. This situation has arisen due to the existence and nature of the EU, and the particular focus of CITES, interna-tional trade, and there is perhaps not a solution, but the question of whether it is har-vest and/or trade that poses a threat to the species would seem an important one.

Do you accept the report as appropriate to be the basis of the advice?

I feel there was, as far as the time available allowed, a robust examination of available data and legislation and how they would apply to a NDF of the European eel, as well as a sympathetic view to how the advice would be received and implemented by the EU and CITES SRG. There is a lack of data for life stages that would be key for such advice i.e. silver eel escapement, and also potential challenges relating to the geograph-ical scale on which data relating to the NDF should be examined, and both of these issues were discussed and pragmatic solutions identified.

As such I feel the report is an appropriate basis of the advice.


You are welcome to include suggestions for future work in the annex.

I would suggest that there is continued communication between CITES SRG and ICES WGEEL, perhaps adding CITES expertise to WGEEL and vice versa, even on an ad hoc basis, now that this ‘official’ connection has been made. This felt like the beginning of a process and as such I feel both parties would benefit from ongoing links.

The effective transparency, reporting and enforcement of the chain of custody from fisheries to point of sale are mentioned in the report and would seem the backbone of any trade occurring from a NDF. This is perhaps not for ICES to advise upon, however any NDF and associated trade resulting from the use of the advice within this report would be compromised should there not be a strong chain of custody.

As stated above, there will be benefit in revisiting the advice as part of these discus-sions as further trade and biological data relating to the species is gathered.

Finally, it is worth considering the value of this document in relation to other An-guillids. Exploitation and international trade in other eel species is currently occurring, and while none are presently CITES-listed, should this change, these guidelines could provide a basis for assessing a NDF.

Vicki Crook

I was not present at the workshop, and my review is based purely on the information presented in the report. I was provided with a draft version of the report one week prior to it being finalised, which enabled me to comment directly on the content and structure of the report. I will therefore also follow the three criteria provided to the other reviewer.

Provide an overview of the reviewer’s comments and recommendations made to the experts dur-ing the workshop – highlight any major concerns

I found that the draft report was very thorough and detailed, particularly bearing in mind the very limited amount of time that was allocated to the task. I highlighted to the Chair that some of the conclusions in the draft (such as the criteria developed and associated thresholds) appeared lost amongst the details and provided some sugges-tions on how to bring these out and make things clearer to readers. I was very pleased with how these were incorporated in the final version and feel that it is much clearer now. I am new to the ICES advice mechanism/process, and understand that this work had to be carried out according to strict ICES formats and time frames. Nevertheless, this is a very complex issue and more preparatory and follow-up work and discussions would probably reveal even more useful information, insights and approaches.

Do I accept the report as appropriate to be the basis of the advice?

This process has clearly benefitted from knowledge and input by a range of experts in this field, resulting in a report with a considerable amount of useful information, which provides a good initial basis for advice. I appreciate that the process was strictly time-bound, taking into account the reality of what could be feasibly achieved in a three-day workshop, and as noted by the other reviewer, I feel that its value would increase significantly if experts are able to set aside time for follow-up work in the near future.

Although this may not have specifically been part of the remit of the workshop, I would have liked to have seen a bit more mention in the report of considerations surrounding the practical application of any criteria and thresholds, particularly in relation to the actual situation on the ground. More information on the importance/relevance of the


different life stages to decision-making, particularly in relation to the scale and associ-ated conditions of any NDF carried out, would have been extremely useful. With ex-ploitation ongoing, and trade permitted within the EU, I feel that the main issue which could possibly result in an increase in offtake if a positive NDF were to be made, mer-ited further discussion (i.e. pressure to carry out an NDF, possibly across the entire population, at present appears to be predominantly to allow export of the high value commodity, glass eels). As per the other reviewer’s comments, the group considered these issues in the workshop, but this does not appear to be emphasised in the report.

In addition, although a number of resources were mentioned in the report, such as the shark NDF guidance, it was not completely clear how much these resources had been consulted or used, and whether they could be usefully applied to the specific situation at hand.

Include suggestions for future work

As noted above, I believe this report is an excellent first step in determining the practi-cality of being able to carry out an NDF for the European Eel (or in fact any Anguilla species). My suggestions for future work mainly relate to the practical applications mentioned above and a more detailed look into the applicability of tools already avail-able. In addition, a number of issues for further study/consideration were mentioned throughout the report, and I think it would be very useful to have these summarised somewhere separately, providing a framework for any next steps. I also agree with the other reviewer in that more regular communication between CITES Authorities and ICES WGEEL can only benefit the future conservation of the European eel, and the Anguillid group as a whole.

ICES WKEELCITES REPORT 2015ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication Reports/Expert Group Report/acom/201… ·...

Documents

Transcript of ICES WKEELCITES REPORT 2015ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication Reports/Expert Group Report/acom/201… ·...