Two MEPs have asked the European Commission to consider creating a dedicated expert subgroup on eel to improve governance of the Eel Regulation, warning that only three Member States have submitted updated management plans. The question, tabled on 8 July 2026 by Bert-Jan Ruissen (ECR) and Carmen Crespo Díaz (PPE), highlights a gap in the current joint special group set up under the marine action plan, which covers fisheries and environment but lacks a specific eel focus.
The written parliamentary question recalls that on 15 April 2026, the Commission told the European Parliament's Committee on Fisheries that only three Member States – representing a small minority of total eel stock – had notified updated Eel Management Plans (EMPs) under Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007. The MEPs argue that an eel-specific subgroup would be a cost-efficient way to address all impacts on eel across its marine and freshwater life cycle, providing advice on implementation, feedback on EMPs, and progress evaluation.
The question contains three concrete asks. First, whether the Commission will create such a subgroup under the joint special group. Second, how it would involve representatives from commercial and recreational fishers, water managers, hydro-power companies, civil society, and other relevant parties. Third, how it will ensure the viability and competitiveness of the eel fisheries sector, taking into account its socio-economic impact.
The Commission is expected to reply within approximately six weeks. The answer will signal whether the executive is open to strengthening governance structures for eel management, a species of high conservation concern and economic value for coastal communities. The MEPs' initiative seeks to balance ecological recovery with the interests of fishers and other stakeholders affected by potential restrictions.
The creation of a dedicated subgroup would give commercial and recreational fishers, water managers, and hydropower operators a formal voice in EMP updates, potentially reducing regulatory uncertainty. For the Commission, it would add administrative costs but could improve compliance and stock recovery. Environmental NGOs would likely welcome stronger oversight, while Member States with limited eel stocks may resist additional reporting burdens. The socio-economic dimension flagged by the MEPs suggests a push to avoid overly restrictive measures that could harm small-scale fisheries.