3 Use of alien and locally absent species
in aquaculture
| (27429)
8296/06
+ ADD 1
COM(06) 154
| Draft Council Regulation concerning the use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture
|
| Legal base | Article 37EC; consultation; QMV
|
| Document originated | 4 April 2006
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 13 April 2006
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 8 May 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | None, but see footnotes
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information awaited
|
Background
3.1 According to the Commission, aquaculture is a fast-growing
sector, which has in the past benefited from the introduction
of alien species, such as rainbow trout and Pacific oyster, and
from the farming of species which do not naturally occur in an
area. It therefore considers it likely that the industry will
continue to use new species in order to satisfy the needs of the
market, but, as alien species have been identified as one of the
key causes of biodiversity loss, and thus liable to undermine
the Community's sustainable development objectives in its biodiversity
action plan for fisheries,[4]
it considers that measures need to be taken, over and above those
in the current Habitats Directive (92/43/EC),[5]
to identify and prevent any adverse effects on existing ecosystems.
It also notes that, in its strategy for the sustainable development
of European aquaculture,[6]
it committed itself to propose management rules for the introduction
of alien species in aquaculture.
The current proposal
3.2 In putting forward this proposal, the Commission notes that,
although the Habitats Directive deals with the deliberate introduction
of alien species into the wild, its application to accidental
introductions or those to non-wild environments, is uncertain,
and that other Community legislation which might have a bearing
is not specific to aquaculture. Against that background, and drawing
upon the experience gained under existing voluntary arrangements,
notably the relevant Code of Practice adopted by the International
Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), it is proposing
that Member States would be under a general obligation to ensure
that the necessary measures are taken to avoid the introduction
of alien species having adverse effects on biodiversity, and that
they would be required to designate a competent authority responsible
for ensuring compliance. Anyone intending to introduce such a
species would have to apply to that authority for a permit, and
to provide the necessary supporting information: a permit would
be granted for any movement regarded as routine, but, in the case
of non-routine movements an environmental risk assessment would
have to be carried out, and a permit would be granted only where
such an assessment shows that the risk is likely to be low, or
can be reduced to that level by mitigating action. There are also
provisions providing for consultation where movements might affect
other Member States.
3.3 The proposal would cover ornamental fish where
these are reared or propagated in the Community for onward sale,
but not their keeping in pet-shops, garden centres or aquaria
where this is no direct contact with natural waters, and where
adequate effluent treatment systems are in place.
The Government's view
3.4 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 8 May 2006,
the Minister for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare
at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr
Ben Bradshaw) says that the damaging environmental impact of the
introduction of alien species for aquaculture has been amply demonstrated
by past experience, for example with crayfish, and that the UK
therefore welcomes the Commission's proposal to require Member
States to have controls in place to address this question. However,
he says that the Government is concerned that the proposal appears
to be somewhat bureaucratic, and feels that its aim might be better
achieved through a directive, which would give more scope for
Member States to decide on which controls might best be put in
place. He also says that it will be necessary to ensure that the
Regulation does not apply retrospectively, imposing a burden on
those already farming alien species, and to establish that, where
there is a history of introductions of the species concerned,
the full rigour of any analysis required can be substantially
reduced, with due account also being taken of the strong link
between the introduction of alien species and the proximity of
open water sites to centres of population and to adequate road
access.
3.5 The Minister also says that a Regulatory Impact
Assessment will follow. However, he comments that, although the
proposal has taken on board industry fears about the potential
costs of applications by not making it mandatory for these to
be borne by applicants, the UK considers that they should bear
at least some of those costs. In particular, it believes that
short-term costs would not deter those in what is describes as
a specialised area from expanding into this "new and potentially
lucrative" trade, and he points out that, since the proposal
would allow permits to be issued for successive movements within
a five-year period, this should reduce costs and simplify procedures.
Conclusion
3.6 In noting the Minister's comments about the
potentially bureaucratic nature of this proposal, we also note
that a Regulatory Impact Assessment is to be provided, and we
intend to await this before taking a firm view. In the meantime,
we think it right to draw the proposal to the attention of the
House.
4 (22319) 7611/01; see HC 152-ii (2001-02), para 22
(17 October 2001). Back
5
OJ No. L 206, 22.7.1992, p.7. Back
6
(23818) 12137/02; see HC 152-xl (2001-02), para 12 (30 October
2002). Back
|
