WRITTEN QUESTION No. 624/99 by Gianni TAMINO , Antoni GUTIÉRREZ DÍAZ Introduction of rainbow trout into the river Serpis (Community of Valencia, Spain)
Date: 1999-03-12
Institutions: European Parliament, GUTIERREZ DIAZ, TAMINO
Subjects: Community of Valencia, aquaculture, conservation of resources, ecosystem, freshwater fish, protected species, protection of animal life, watercourse













EUR-Lex - 91999E0624 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91999E0624

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 624/99 by Gianni TAMINO , Antoni GUTIÉRREZ DÍAZ Introduction of rainbow trout into the river Serpis (Community of Valencia, Spain)  


Official Journal C 348 , 03/12/1999 P. 0108 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0624/99by Gianni Tamino (V) and Antoni Gutiérrez Díaz (GUE/NGL) to the Commission(12 March 1999)Subject: Introduction of rainbow trout into the river Serpis (Community of Valencia, Spain)The samaruc (Valencia hispanica) is an endangered native species found in various rivers in the Community of Valencia. The Environment Institute (former ICONA), the National Museum of Natural Sciences in Madrid, the Centre for Experimental Aquaculture in Valencia and various Spanish universities and experts have confirmed that this species is present in the river Serpis. The EU has allocated EUR 984 000 from the LIFE programme to assist with its protection.Nevertheless, on the basis of a 1993 technical report, the environment service of the autonomous government of Valencia, has disregarded the presence of this species in the river Serpis and restocked the river with rainbow trout, which by virtue of their size are a natural predator of the samaruc, in breach of the provisions of Directive 92/43/EEC(1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats, which prohibits the introduction of non-native species into a habitat if they might be detrimental to native species.In the light of these considerations, the Centre for Experimental Aquaculture of Valencia submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman in July 1998 (789/98/JMA) alleging that the abovementioned directive had been infringed.Does the Commission not consider that a comparison should be made between the 1993 technical report, denying the presence of samaruc in the river Serpis and the opinions of other scientists?Does it consider that the inclusion of the river Serpis as one of the special conservation sites provided for in Article 5 of the directive on natural habitats could help achieve the objective of protecting this species?In the light of the infringements cited by the abovementioned complaint, does the Commission not think that it should investigate the way in which the funds from the LIFE programme are being used for the protection of the samaruc?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission(28 April 1999)The Commission is aware of the facts raised by the Honourable Members, since a complaint on the same subject was already lodged with the Commission.The introduction of a non-native species which may have a negative effect on a native species falls under the scope of Council Directive 92/43/EC, of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora and in particular Article 22 b which requires Member States to:"ensure that the deliberate introduction into the wild of any species which is not native to their territory is regulated so as not to prejudice natural habitats within their natural range or the wild native fauna and flora and, if they consider it necessary, prohibit such introduction. The results of the assessment undertaken shall be forwarded to the committee for information."In the framework of the Commission investigation of this complaint, the Spanish authorities indicated that the presence of the "Valencia hispanica" in the river Serpis had not been confirmed, according to available scientific evidence. A scientific study of the CSIC (Spanish superior council for scientific research) supplied by the Spanish authorities explained that, even assuming that "Valencia hispanica" were present in that river (which has never been confirmed until now), its habitat differs from that of the non-native species and therefore the latter would never represent any threat to the former.This information was transmitted to the complainant, who did not bring to the attention of the Commission new elements helping to identify a breach of Community law in this case. In the light of the above, the facts raised by the Honourable Members do not disclose a breach of Directive 92/43/EEC.As no breach of Directive 92/43/EEC has been identified, the Commission does not consider it necessary to open a special investigation about the way in which Community funds have been used. Nevertheless, as any other Life-Nature project, this project is subject to regular technical and financial controls.(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.