7 Use of alien and locally absent species
in aquaculture
| (27429)
8296/06
COM(06) 154
+ ADD 1
| Draft Council Regulation concerning the use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture
|
| Legal base | Article 37EC; consultation; QMV
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letters and SEM of 23 November 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 34-xxviii (2005-06), para 3 (10 May 2006)
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
7.1 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
salmon, 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 these have been identified as one of the
key causes of biodiversity loss, it considers that additional
measures need to be taken to identify and prevent any adverse
effects on existing ecosystems. It also notes that, in its strategy
for the sustainable development of European aquaculture,[16]
it committed itself to propose management rules for the introduction
of alien species in aquaculture.
7.2 The Commission therefore put forward in April 2006 this proposal,
which would place Member States under a general obligation to
ensure that the necessary measures are taken to avoid the introduction
of alien species having adverse effects on biodiversity. Anyone
intending to introduce such a species would have to apply for
a permit,[17] which would
be granted for any movement regarded as routine. However, for
non-routine movements an environmental risk assessment would have
to be carried out, and a permit would be granted only where the
risk was likely to be low.
7.3 As we noted in our Report of 10 May 2006, the Government considered
that the damaging environmental impact of the introduction of
alien species for aquaculture has been amply demonstrated, and
therefore welcomed the proposal. However, it was concerned that
the proposal appeared to be somewhat bureaucratic, and felt that
its aim might be better achieved through a Directive, giving more
scope for Member States to decide on the controls needed. It also
believed that the Regulation should not apply retrospectively,
and that, where there is a history of introductions of the species
concerned, the degree of any analysis required should be substantially
reduced.
7.4 We were also told that a Regulatory Impact Assessment would
follow, and, in view of the concerns over the potentially bureaucratic
nature of this proposal, we said that we would await this before
taking a firm view.
Minister's letters
7.5 We subsequently received a letter of 6 July 2006 from the
Minister for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare at the
Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Ben Bradshaw)
saying that there had been a very limited response from the industry
to a consultation exercise, which had not produced enough information
to prepare a Regulatory Impact Assessment. He added that most
of the comments received supported the Government's line, but
that there were concerns over the UK view that industry should
pay for risk assessments, over the prospect of the Regulation
being applied retrospectively, and over the classification of
rainbow trout as an exotic species. The Minister also said that
the Government remained concerned about the bureaucracy involved
with the proposal, and would be pursuing this with the Commission.
This was followed by a further letter in late August,[18]
which clarified the position of rainbow trout, and which said
that the Commission had undertaken to review the comments made
by the UK and others about the bureaucratic nature of the proposal
and its possible retrospective effect.
Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 23 November 2006
7.6 We have now received from the Minister a supplementary Explanatory
Memorandum of 23 November 2006, enclosing a partial Regulatory
Impact Assessment. This makes clear that the Regulation does not
apply to native species (essentially salmon, brown trout, native
coarse fish, native oysters and mussels), and that, for semi-naturalised
species (including rainbow trout and pacific oysters), Member
States can apply such measures as they see fit within their territory.
They are therefore not bound to use any of the mechanisms available
in the Regulation, and, for most of these, all the UK would require
is some consideration of the site security. As it operates this
kind of control at present, the Regulation is unlikely to impose
any new costs on industry, and in any case now rules out any retrospective
effect so far as the need to carry out a risk assessment for semi-cultivated
species is concerned.
7.7 As regards true alien species which may be bred for ornamental
purposes or placed in fishing lakes to enhance anglers' enjoyment,
the UK can essentially tailor the application to the nature of
the project in hand. If the would-be aquaculturist were to propose
a fully enclosed system with re-circulating water, the prime concern
would be site security, though, to the extent that a site is more
open, the demands made by way of prior information would increase.
However, the Assessment says that it is in most cases unlikely
that the costs would exceed £5,000, given that those wishing
to cultivate such species should be able to determine most of
the necessary information from literature produced in areas where
the species are native, and it also points out that the proposal
leaves it to individual Member State to decide whether or not
these should be borne by the applicant.[19]
Conclusion
7.8 We are grateful to the Minister for this further information,
which helpfully clarifies the likely impact of the proposal, and,
in the light of what he has told us, we are now clearing the document.
16 (23818) 12137/02; see HC 152-xl (2001-02), para
12 (30 October 2002). Back
17
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 there is
no direct contact with natural waters, and where adequate effluent
treatment systems are in place. Back
18
This pointed out that, although rainbow trout had been present
in UK waters for over 100 years, it could not be regarded as native,
since that term applied to species commonly regarded as having
been present in the British Isles since the last Ice Age. However,
rainbow trout is among the species which can be regarded as "naturalised"
or "ordinarily resident" by dint of extended residence
periods, and hence has special status under existing legislation. Back
19
As things stand, the Government considers that any such costs
within the UK should be borne by the applicant. Back
|
