EN    EN EN 
 
EN 1   EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 15.10.2009 
SEC(2009) 1347 final 
  
 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
COUNCIL REGULATION 
amending Regulation (EC) No 708/2007 conc erning use of alien and locally absent 
species in aquaculture  
{COM(2009) 541 final} 
 
EN 2   EN Background information  
As already mentioned in the Explanatory Me morandum, a formal Impact Assessment has not 
been carried out. This document summarises the main arguments to justify this approach and 
provides background information on the issue at stake. 
Council Regulation (EC) No 708/2007 of 11 June  2007 concerning use of alien and locally 
absent species in aquaculture establishes a framework governing aquaculture practices in 
relation to those species. It provi des for a system of permits to be introduced at Member State 
level in order to sift out spec ies, or associated non-target species, that may be potentially 
damaging for the natural environment if specimens  of such species were to escape from the 
aquaculture facility. Under this  system a permit is needed for any movement (i.e. introduction 
or translocation) of specimens of such spec ies for use in aquaculture and also a prior 
environmental risk assessment is required in given cases. 
This Council Regulation applies to all aquaculture facilities. Nevertheless, movements of 
alien or locally absent species for use in "close d aquaculture facilities" are already considered 
by the Regulation to be of lower risk compared to  their use in other aquaculture facilities. All 
such movements require the prior granting of a permit by the competent authorities, but for 
"closed aquaculture facilities" prior environmental assessment of those movements is not 
compulsory ((Article 2(6) of the Regulation).  
At the time of adoption of the Regulation, Me mber States did not ha ve a common view as 
regards defining further some criteria of "close d aquaculture facilities", and considered that 
additional scientific elements might be needed  to support a decision to  totally exempt such 
facilities from any permit requirement regardi ng the movement of alie n or locally absent 
species. However, such a possibility was already being considered at the time of adoption of the Regulation.  
Indeed, its Article 2(7) provide s that introductions and transl ocations for use in "closed 
aquaculture facilities" may at a future date be exempted from the permit requirement, based 
on new scientific information and advice, and that a decision to th at effect could be taken by 
"Comitology".  
Since then, the Community-funded concerted acti on "Environmental impacts of alien species 
in aquaculture"(IMPASSE) (f unded under the Sixth Framewor k Programme) has produced a 
more precise definition of "closed aquacult ure facility", which includes the necessary 
characteristics to consider these facilities  as bio-secure. The definition proposed by the 
IMPASSE project provides more precise criteria to ensure pr oper environmental protection.  
The use of a new definition of "closed aquacu lture facility" based on the IMPASSE results 
would justify exempting introductions and transl ocations of alien species for use in such 
facilities from the permit requirement, hen ce achieving administrative simplification.  
The results of the IMPASSE project in relation to  closed aquaculture facilities were presented 
to the Member States within the Management  Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture, and a 
large number of Member States supported the idea to improve the current definition of 
"closed aquaculture facility" in order to allow the said exemption. The aim is to remove the 
red tape associated with the permit procedure fo r those closed aquaculture facilities which can 
be considered as bio-secure and would be in terested in farming "alien or locally absent" 
aquatic species. 
 
EN 3   EN However, if exempting closed aquaculture fa cilities from the permit requirement may be 
decided by the Commission, the parallel amendm ent of the present definition of "closed 
aquaculture facility" (pr ovided in Article 3(3) of the Regul ation) - to make such exemption 
fully compatible with a high level of environm ental protection - requires an amendment of the 
Council Regulation.  
The proposed modifications do not represent a ma jor or substantial change to the Regulation. 
Technical adjustments need to be made to the definition of "closed aquaculture facility" and 
related provisions in order to allow the exemp tion under consideration, while keeping fully in 
line with the objectives  of this Regulation. As mentione d above, this action is already 
envisaged in the Council Regulation and the proposed change will just address a pending 
decision of the legislative framework concerning th e use of alien and locally absent species in 
aquaculture. 
The proposal for Council Regulation 708/20 07 was accompanied by its own Impact 
Assessment (SEC (2006)421). The IMPASSE con certed action provides the scientific and 
technical basis for exempting in troductions and transl ocations of alien or locally absent 
species for use in "closed aqu aculture facilities" from the permit obligation. Moreover, the 
consequences of the proposal will be very limit ed as it applies only to "closed aquaculture 
facilities". However, these faci lities will benefit from the pr oposed simplification, as time-
consuming permit procedures which tie up reso urces will be eliminated. This amendment will 
ensure that the current high leve l of environmental protection is  maintained and, at the same 
time, will help to produce positive social and eco nomic impacts since the facilities concerned 
can be freed from the costs associated with the permit procedures. A specific Impact Assessment addressing this limited modifica tion of the Regulation would not therefore 
provide any added value as it re presents just an executive d ecision on a technical issue with 
marginal consequences. It would not be proportiona te to invest additional effort and time in 
carrying out a formal Impact Assessment.  
The size of the problem  
Specific data on the number of f acilities or on production in "c losed aquaculture facilities" 
that would today comply with the new propo sed definition are not available. Mandatory 
collection of information or statistics on aquaculture activities, and particularly the 
technicalities of the production fa cilities, by Member States is sporadic. However, limited but 
relevant information concerning all th e Recirculation Aquaculture Systems
 (RAS) can be used 
to show that the impact of the proposed am endment of Regulation 708/2007 will be very 
limited. 
Currently, RAS technology in Europe produces a ra nge of different specie s at varying stages 
of development; fingerlings, grow-out and bro odstock. Grow-out facilities account for the 
most use of RAS by volume, producing a pproximately 20 000 t per annum in 2005. Eel, 
African catfish, and trout1 are by far the most significant, with the Netherlands and Denmark 
accounting respectively for some 50% and 25% of  total European produc tion. At EU hatchery 
                                                 
1 African catfish and rainbow trout are included in Annex IV to Regulation 708/2007, which means that, 
in principle, these species are ex empted form the permit procedure but it depends on the decision of the 
MS. 
 
EN 4   EN level approximately 370 million fingerlings were  estimated to have been produced in 2005. 
The main centres of production we re Greece, Denmark, Italy and France2.3 
According to Schneider et al4 (personal communication) the main species to grow out using 
RAS in Europe are African catfish, European catfish, Arctic char, Ee l, Sturgeon, Tilapia, 
Turbot, Pike perch, Sole, Barramundi, Sea ba ss, Trout (Trout in outdoor recirculation 
systems), and a small group of others5.  
The vast majority of the companies using th e recirculation systems can be found in the 
Netherlands (80-100 companies; total producti on of between 9 400 and 13 000 tonnes; value 
of production: €45 million – €52 million; approx imately 200 full-time equivalents employed 
in RAS6) and Denmark (7 000 tonnes (mostly eel  and trout); production value about 
€16.3 million; 64 people employed in RAS – includ ing full-time, part-time, and seasonal 
workers7).8 
However, there are no data available on annual turnover of the enterprises and on the number 
of movements.  
The above data illustrate that even the entir e RAS output constitutes just a small proportion of 
the total production of Eur opean aquaculture. It needs to be stressed in addition that the 
number of "closed aquaculture facilities" as stri ctly defined by the propos al is lower than the 
number of total RAS facilities, and is today very limited. Moreover, not all species which are 
presently farmed in those facilitie s are covered by Regulation 708/2007.  
Risk involved:  
The proposed amendment of Regulation 708/2007 doe s not represent any sp ecific risk that 
needs to be highlighted. The more  precise definition of "closed a quaculture facility" is stricter 
and tighter than the previous one and theref ore ensures maximal bi o-security of those 
facilities. At the same time, it removes red tape. 
Detailed information on the number of such faci lities in the EU is not available, and the 
Commission services cannot provide an estimate of the number of companies that may benefit 
from this proposal at present. But this administ rative simplification may also be of benefit in 
                                                 
2 For comparison: overall aquaculture production in the EU was about 1.3 million tonnes in 2005.  
3 JRC: Prospective Analysis of th e Aquaculture Sector in the EU; pa rt 2: Characterisation of emerging 
aquaculture systems – cf. http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications  
4 Oliver Schneider et al.,  Wageningen UR, IMARES 
5 In principle, Regulation 708/2007 does not apply to farming of African catfish, European catfish, 
Arctic char, Eel, Sturgeon, Turbot, Pike perch, Sole, Seabass, Trout.   
6 JRC: Prospective Analysis of th e Aquaculture Sector in the EU; pa rt 2: Characterisation of emerging 
aquaculture systems – cf. http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications  
7 JRC: Prospective Analysis of th e Aquaculture Sector in the EU; pa rt 2: Characterisation of emerging 
aquaculture systems – cf. http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications  
8 The value of overall aquaculture production is approximately €3 billion. Direct employment in the EU 
aquaculture sector is, according to the data available, approximately 65 000 full-time jobs. Regarding 
the structure of the sector, the va st majority of the enterprises ar e SMEs. According to Framian 2007, 
there are some 14 400 firms in the EU. 
 
EN 5   EN the future to any enterprises that would be interested in developing aquaculture of a new 
"alien or locally absent" sp ecies and would make the nece ssary changes to a production 
facility in line with the proposed defi nition of "closed aquaculture facility".