Management of the eel is slipping through our hands! Distribute control and orchestrate national protection

ICES Journal of Marine Science (2016), 73(10), 2442–2452. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsw094 Food for Thought Management of the eel is slipping through our hands! Distribute control and orchestrate national protection Willem Dekker* *Corresponding author: e-mail: Dekker, W. Management of the eel is slipping through our hands! Distribute control and orchestrate national protection. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 73: 2442–2452. Received 22 March 2016; revised 7 May 2016; accepted 9 May 2016; advance access publication 21 June 2016. Following a multi-decadal decline of the European eel stock all across the continent, the EU adopted a protection and recovery plan in 2007, known as the Eel Regulation. Implementation, however, has come to a standstill: in 2015, the agreed goals had not been realised, the required protection had not been achieved, and from 2012 to 2015, no further reduction in mortality has been accomplished—while the stock is at a historical minimum. To analyse this manifest impasse, this article characterises the steering framework of the Eel Regulation as a governance problem. The Eel Problem is found to be extremely complex, due to many knowledge uncertainties and countless societal forces having an influence. The Eel Regulation divides this complexity along geographical lines, obliging national governments to implement national protection plans. This deliberate distribution of control has improved communication between countrymen-stakeholders, and has stimulated protective action in most EU Member States and elsewhere. In the absence of adequate international coordination and feedback on national plans, however, coherence is lacking and the common goals are not met. Actions and achievements have been assessed at the national level, but these assessments have not been evaluated internationally. Full geographical coverage has not been attained, nor is that plausible in future. Meanwhile, ICES’ advice remained focused on whole-stock management, a conservative approach not matching the structure of the Eel Problem or the approach of the Eel Regulation. Hence, essentially localised problems (non-reporting, insufficient action) now lead to a hard fail, paralysing the whole European eel recovery plan. Here, I argue that immediate re-focusing protective actions, assessments, evaluations and advice on mortality goals and indicators, for each management area individually, will enable feedback on national protection plans, and in that way, will break the impasse. Keywords: Anguilla, distributed control, European eel, feedback, governance, hard fail, impasse, mortality limits, protection, uncertainty. Introduction The stock of the European eel Anguilla anguilla (L.) is at a historical minimum. In 2007, the EU adopted a European recovery plan (Anonymous, 2007a), but recent post-evaluation indicates that implementation has come to a stand-still (ICES, 2016). This article analyses the background of this stagnation, discusses the steering framework of the recovery plan and the role of scientific advice, and suggests improvements. Since the mid-1900s, fishing yield of eel has diminished to below 10% of the quantity caught before, and over the last three decades, recruitment of glass eel has rapidly fallen to 1–10% of the 1960–70s level (Dekker, 2004; ICES, 2016). In 2007, the European Union adopted a protection and recovery plan for the eel (Anonymous, 2007a). This so-called ‘Eel Regulation’ instructed EU Member States to develop national Eel Management Plans by 2009, aiming at a common objective: to reduce anthropogenic mortality in order to restore a spawner run of at least 40% of the notional pristine run. Accordingly, national management plans have been developed, protective actions have been implemented and more information on the status of the stock has been compiled in nineteen EU countries. Since the adoption of the Eel Regulation, the absence of reliable catch and effort data for the stock as a whole has made ICES invariably advise on precautionary grounds—to reduce all C International Council for the Exploration of the Sea 2016. All rights reserved. V For Permissions, please email: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Aquatic Resources, Institute for Freshwater Research, Stångholmsv€agen 2, SE-17893 Drottningholm, Sweden 2443 Management of the eel is slipping through our hands! Production × 1000 tonnes The European eel occurs in habitats as diverse as the open ocean, high seas and sheltered coasts, large lakes and small ponds, main rivers and smallest streams. Continental habitat-units are typically less than 10 km2 in size (Dekker, 2000). Yet the eel constitutes the most widely distributed single fish stock in Europe, spread all over the continent and the Mediterranean (Europe, northern Africa and Mediterranean parts of Asia; Dekker, 2003a). Natural reproduction has never been observed in the wild. The occurrence of the smallest larvae in the Sargasso Sea indicates the most likely location of the spawning place (Schmidt, 1922). Noting the remarkably low genetic variation observed in eels from continental waters, the whole stock is considered to constitute a single panmictic population (Palm et al., 2009). However, it is not known which part (or all) of the continental distribution actually contributes to the oceanic spawning stock. Spent eel has not been observed returning to the continent; they are supposed to die in the Sargasso Sea, spawning only once in their lifetime (semelparity). In almost the whole distribution area, commercial eel fishing provides an essential income to small-scaled inland fisheries (Moriarty and Dekker, 1997; Dekker, 2003a; Dekker and Beaulaton, 2016a). The targeted life stage varies by region. Glass eel, recruiting from the ocean towards the continent, is exploited in the countries around the Bay of Biscay. Silver eel, returning to the ocean after 3–30 years on their spawning migration, is fished throughout the distribution area, and dominates in areas of low abundance, especially in the north. The growing stages inbetween, the yellow eel, is exploited throughout the distribution area, though less in areas of low abundance. Recreational fishing for eel is wide-spread, but rarely documented (e.g. Dorow, 2014; van der Hammen et al., 2016). 30 20 10 0 1950 Fisheries 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Figure 1. Time trend in eel production, combining fishing yield from the wild stock with aquaculture (using wild glass eel). Data from ICES (2013a); fishing yield for non-reporting countries has been reconstructed using the model of Dekker (2003b). For the fishing yield, the hatched part is what Dekker and Beaulaton (2016b) attribute to restocking. Data for later years are incomplete (ICES, 2016). 1000 Recruitment index Eel, fisheries, and other impacts In addition to these fisheries, many other anthropogenic activities have an impact on the stock, including land reclamation, water management, water (...truncated)