Eight months after governments reached a landmark agreement on anguillids at the CITES Conference of the Parties in Samarkand, the conversation has entered a new and consequential phase. The 34th meeting of the CITES Animals Committee in Geneva was thankfully not about revisiting the politics of whether stronger international action on eels is needed; that question was settled last November. Instead, it was about the less glamorous but ultimately more important task of implementation. The meeting demonstrated that the international community is beginning to translate broad commitments into practical mechanisms for improving science, traceability, enforcement and sustainable management. For the Sustainable Eel Group, this represents an encouraging shift away from polarised debates and towards the detailed technical work that will ultimately determine whether CITES delivers meaningful conservation outcomes for all eels in the genus Anguilla.

The Resolution adopted in Samarkand was notable because it recognised that eel conservation cannot be achieved simply by restricting trade. It called for a more comprehensive approach to the conservation and management of the three dominant commercial species and other species considered to be at risk, encouraging Parties to strengthen scientific monitoring, improve stock assessments, collaborate on Non-Detriment Findings, develop adaptive management plans, enhance traceability throughout supply chains, improve customs reporting, and tackle illegal trade through stronger international cooperation. Importantly, it also recognised that different eel species, life stages and fisheries require different management approaches rather than simplistic, universal solutions. The Resolution therefore established a strategic framing that treats sustainable use and conservation as complementary objectives, placing the social, economic, and natural sciences at the centre of decision-making.

In Geneva, the CITES Secretariat outlined an ambitious programme to gather implementation reports from Parties, establish a dedicated information portal for anguillids, improve reporting on illegal trade, develop practical guidance for countries, and regularly bring new information back before both the Animals Committee and Standing Committee. Perhaps most importantly, the Animals Committee agreed to establish an intersessional working group dedicated specifically to eels, which will continue technical work between now and the next meeting in 2027. That decision matters because it signals that eels are no longer being treated as an occasional agenda item but as a continuing programme of work requiring sustained scientific engagement and international collaboration.

One of the most encouraging features of the Geneva discussions was the maturity of the debate. Rather than seeking to reverse the progress made, or change course and abandon the international trade altogether, delegates wrestled with genuinely difficult practical and scientific questions. One of the most noteworthy examples concerned the fate of confiscated live European eels: at first glance, releasing seized animals back into the wild might appear an obvious conservation measure; however, the Secretariat’s paper carefully sets out the competing considerations. Whilst reintroductions could potentially contribute to depleted populations and avoid unnecessary mortality, they may also introduce diseases and parasites, disrupt local population structure if the origin of seized eels is uncertain, create opportunities for laundering illegal trade and present significant logistical challenges. On these bases, the Committee recognised that further technical work and better guidance are needed.

The same pragmatic approach characterised discussions on traceability, an issue that has long complicated both enforcement and public debate. The Secretariat rightly observed that there were problems with accurately distinguishing between wild European eels, aquaculture-grown eels, eels for use in restocking programmes, and processed products. Because eel aquaculture still depends on wild-caught glass eels, they concluded that understanding the biological origin and movement of fish through the supply chain is essential if trade data are to have real conservation value. The Resolution therefore encourages Parties to report trade at species and life-stage level, improve customs codes and exercise particular caution over the use of the CITES ‘R’ source code for ranching unless the Convention’s strict criteria are genuinely met. These are technical measures, but they are precisely the kinds of improvements that strengthen confidence in legal trade while making illegal activity more difficult to conceal.

Perhaps the strongest indication that the post-Samarkand agenda is beginning to change behaviour came nfrom the evidence submitted by individual Parties. Algeria presented a comprehensive Non-Detriment Finding prepared in response to recommendations arising from the CITES Review of Significant Trade. The document brings together extensive biological monitoring, stock assessments, fishery management measures, scientific research, and regional cooperation under the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean. Whether the assessment ultimately satisfies every requirement of the CITES process is rightly for the scientific authorities to determine, but the broader significance is undeniable: clearly, countries are investing in the data, research, and management systems that sustainable trade demands. 

The European region likewise reported continued investment in strengthening scientific implementation. Among the developments highlighted at the Animals Committee was the United Kingdom’s ongoing review of its 2023 Non-Detriment Finding for European eel exports, alongside wider efforts across Europe to harmonise scientific assessments through the EU Scientific Review Group. Such work rarely attracts headlines, but it represents the infrastructure upon which credible wildlife trade regulation ultimately depends. Scientific advice must evolve as new evidence becomes available, and CITES works best when Parties are willing to revisit earlier assessments in light of improved knowledge.

For the Sustainable Eel Group, the significance of Geneva lies less in any single decision than in the direction of travel implied. The international discussion has moved beyond the sterile choice between conservation and trade that too often dominates public debate. The emerging CITES-facilitated approach recognises that the long-term future of anguillids depends on combining habitat restoration, fisheries management, scientific monitoring, robust enforcement against illegal trafficking, and transparent, demonstrably sustainable legal trade, measures which are insufficient in isolation, but together offer a realistic pathway towards recovery. The work agreed in Geneva will continue over the coming year through the new intersessional working group, ensuring that by the time governments reconvene, they will have a stronger scientific evidence base upon which to judge progress. The Sustainable Eel Group is monitoring these developments closely, and has committed to the development of an organisational strategy for the wider Anguilla genus.