Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council Regulation concerning use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture COM(2006) 154 final — 2006/0056 (CNS)
Date: 2006-10-26
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: aquaculture, biodiversity, common fisheries policy, environmental protection, fishery management, fishery produce, sustainable development

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/15

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council Regulation
concerning use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture

COM(2006) 154 final — 2006/0056 (CNS)

(2006/C 324/07)

On 2 May 2006, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 37 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 8 September 2006. The rapporteur was
Mr Tornberg.

In view of the renewal of the Committee's term of office, the Plenary Assembly has decided to vote on this
opinion at its October plenary session and has adopted Mr Espuny Moyano as rapporteur-general under
Rule 20 of the Rules of Procedure.

At its 430th plenary session, held on 26 October 2006, the European Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 94 votes to none, with two abstentions.

1. Introduction

egions’ should also be defined in the context of the proposed
regulation.

1.1
The Council has called on the EESC to issue an opinion
on the proposal for a Council Regulation concerning use of
alien (1) and locally absent (2) species in aquaculture.

The Commission's proposal

1.2
is aimed at protecting the
aquatic environment and its biodiversity from the risks that
accompany the occurrence of alien species. The Commission
has deemed the existing framework, which includes the Habitats
Directive (3) to be insufficient.

1.3
The Commission is proposing to introduce a regulation,
based on already existing practices and codes of practice,
without prejudice to future strategies.

The proposed regulation does not deal with problems
1.4
relating to,
for example, angling, ornamental fish and other
exotic animals, but aims to foresee, prevent and manage the
future problems caused by alien species away from their natural
habitats.

1.5
The Committee feels that there is a tendency to over-
regulate within the European Union. This should not be the case
for the proposed regulation.

1.6
The EESC recommends the drawing up of a list of estab-
lished species (i.e. ‘naturalised’ alien species) in order to reduce
the bureaucracy and red tape for these species.

The Committee recommends

1.7
the term ‘locally
absent species’ be properly defined. The terms ‘zones’ and ‘ecor-

that

(1) Alien species as defined by the proposal for a Council regulation COM

(2006) 154 final (Article 3).

(2) Locally absent species as defined by the proposal for a Council regu-

lation COM(2006) 154 final (Article 3).

(3) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of

natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

1.8
The EESC also feels that the EU is a single market, and
that there should be a distinction between alien and locally
absent species within the EU and outside of the EU.

1.9
The EESC notes the foreseeable problems small producers
would face as a result of the introduction of this regulation. In
particular, it notes the lengthy forms, as per Annex 1 of the
proposal.

2. General comments

2.1
The proposal to regulate at EU level the import of alien
species into the Community area for use in aquaculture, which
will protect the variety of native aquatic fauna and flora (4) and
at the same time promote the development of aquaculture, is
very much welcomed by the EESC in principle.

2.2
The Committee acknowledges the high importance and
need for a regulation concerning the use of alien species in
aquaculture, in order to protect the aquatic environment and its
biodiversity.

2.3
In the event of the proposed regulation's adoption, the
Committee urges the Commission to launch an appropriate
information campaign on the regulation in order to prevent it
from being misused by the media seeking to scare consumers
and to sell more newspapers.

(4) The study group discussed the example of the American bullfrog
escaping into the Aquitaine region of Southern France and other parts
of Europe with negative effects. Although the bullfrog is not a product
of aquaculture, it may be assumed that it came from the ornamental
sector, which is not covered by this regulation.

C 324/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

The EESC feels that it is essential for the regulation to
2.4
favour the development of aquaculture in Europe (5), since it is a
growing sector which will create many opportunities in the
future,
in its
if it is not hampered by the current proposal
present form.

The EESC notes the frustration of professionals within
2.12
the sector at the approach often taken by the Commission.
Therefore it is also important to focus on ensuring that the
regulation is simplified and practically-oriented and that costs
are minimised for the parties concerned.

2.5
The EESC notes the rapid progress and development of
the sector outside the EU, noting also that the sector is saturated
and in need of the development of new species. The EESC also
points out that the aquaculture sector has the potential to be a
success story within the framework of the CFP (Common Fish-
eries Policy), for the fishing sector.

2.6
The EESC feels that intra-EU trade should be simplified,
with less red tape and documentation, and should not be over-
regulated.

2.7
The Committee stresses the need to ensure that the regu-
lation is not so cumbersome as to hinder the further develop-
the sector and has concerns regarding the unity
ment of
between its ecological, economic and social aspects. Moreover,
the Committee feels that translocation of species is sufficiently
controlled within the EU.

2.8
The real difficulties for the aquatic environment in our
regions are caused by the introduction of exotic or alien species
in aquaculture. In order to simplify and shorten the proposal as
the Committee's proposal would be to
much as possible,
concentrate efforts on this problem and deal with locally absent
species separately. The use of locally absent species does not
seem very important in aquaculture. Another related problem is
that the regions where one species is absent, are not defined by
the Commission.

2.9
A further simplification would be to distinguish between
species within the EU and alien and locally absent species from
outside of the EU. The EESC recommends that this be taken
into consideration since the EU is moving towards a more inte-
grated common market.

2.10
The Committee observes that, due to the volatility of
the sector, it might not always be feasible and practicable for
producers to plan as far ahead as deemed necessary by the
Commission in order to receive a permit for import and move-
ments.

2.13
The Committee notes that ornamental fish and salmon
are not dealt with in this proposal, but stresses that these are
potentially large contributors to the overall problem.

2.14
The EESC stresses the importance of ensuring that the
regulation is clear in its objectives and has a clear scope and
limit. Given that there are no comprehensive and detailed rules
concerning the sector, the EESC suggests that the Commission
should propose such an overarching regulation, or at
least
launch an action plan for the future direction of the sector.

2.15
The EESC is aware that the proposal originated before
the EU's 2005 simplification initiative but feels that the current
proposal should take this into account by being simplified.

3. Specific comments

3.1
The proposal goes far beyond necessary and justified
measures; the status quo regarding species some of which have
been used in European aquaculture for centuries (e.g. carp,
rainbow trout, char and others) is not taken into account. So far
the cultivation of these species has not led to any damage to
ecosystems. Risk assessments for the movement of these species
at all stages of development and lengthy authorisation proce-
dures are far removed from reality and not practicable. It is
common practice for aquaculture firms in the Community area
to cooperate across borders in compliance with the veterinary
requirements and to move carp, trout and other established fish
species on a short-term basis.

The Committee urges that established fish species (6) be
3.2
excluded from the provisions of the draft regulation through a
positive list or a list of exceptions by the individual member
states. Equally, the issue of
locally absent species should be
excluded. It is incomprehensible to associate controlled aquacul-
ture with the spreading or translocation of
indigenous but
locally absent fish or other species.

2.11
For example, if a producer is breeding a certain stock
from Israel and the stock dies, the producer needs to act quickly
and, for instance, import from the USA in order to avoid losing
valuable time. The current proposal would prevent the producer
from carrying out his activities until he receives a new permit.
Translocations and movements, and in particular trade move-
ments, should be exempt from the proposed regulations after
the general scientific statement that the ‘risk’ to cultivate an
alien or locally absent species in aquaculture is low.

3.3
The issue of locally absent species is already regulated by
specific regulations of the Member States. The proposed regu-
lation should concentrate on the protection of the EU's aquatic
biodiversity from the risks that accompany the import of alien
species.
In fact it would be very difficult to implement the
proposed regulation concerning locally absent species because
there is no generally accepted definition of local regions in this
context. Omitting the provisions on locally absent species
would make the proposed Council Regulation more readily
comprehensible and much easier and cheaper to implement.

(5) As stated in the EESC's opinion on sustainable development of aquacul-

(6) For example, carp (cyprinus carpio) and rainbow trout (oncorhynchus

ture, CESE 595/2003, OJ C 208 of 3.9.2003.

mykiss) in Poland, to mention but a few.

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/17

The Committee points out that the decision period of up
3.4
to a year on an application for movement (Article 10) would
delay production decisions to an unacceptable extent and lead
to unacceptable economic disturbances, and recommends that
the period be shortened.

The Committee feels that, in order to help producers, a
3.11
list of EU scientists with the required knowledge should be
made readily available to producers. At the same time, informa-
tion or training on the application process should also be made
available to producers.

3.5
The EESC also stresses the importance of exploring the
possibility of a ‘what if’ scenario under Article 10, to provide for
cases where a permit application receives no response. For
example, under Spanish law, silence equals consent if there is no
reply within the proposed deadline of one year. The EESC feels
that, if legally possible, the Spanish example should be applied
to this Article of the proposal.

Applications

for multiple movements over 5 years
3.6
(Article 6) are not practicable, since very short-term unplanned
decisions on purchases, sales and the exchange of fish at various
development stages are frequently required. The proposed regu-
lation would directly conflict with the planned provisions on
the declared objectives of promoting aquaculture and promoting
the diversification of the range of species in aquaculture.

3.7
Decisions on applications for the import and movement
of aquatic organisms for aquaculture are important; they should
be based on scientific reasons and announced as early as
possible.

3.8
For the authorities concerned, the planned consultative
committee and the aquaculture firms, the wide-ranging rules
would mean immense personnel and financial expenditure,
which cannot be met with the available human resources. That
would conflict with the general drive to reduce bureaucracy
both in the Member States and at EU level.

The EESC feels that the excessive quantity of rules should
3.9
be reduced to what is strictly necessary.
In particular, there
should be fewer criteria in Annex 1 of the proposed regulation.

3.12
It is proposed that instead of the planned individual
assessments only one sample risk assessment for each ecoregion
or Member State, to be carried out by a qualified scientific estab-
lishment, should be provided for. If the risk is estimated as
‘slight’ in such a sample assessment, any future application for a
routine movement
in that ecoregion can be confined to
providing details on locality, personnel and dates. This proposal
would lead, if implemented, to a better quality of risk assess-
ment and at the same time to an enormous saving in bureau-
cratic expenditure for the aquaculture firms and the authorities.
The costs of a sample assessment by a scientific establishment
should be borne by the European Fisheries Fund (EFF).

3.13
The Committee further stresses the need for ecoregions
to be defined by the Council Regulation for harmonisation
between the Member States.

3.14
The EESC feels that it would be beneficial to have an
interval of at least one year between the date of publication of
the regulation and its entry into force, in order to bring national
legislation into line and to inform the sector and people
concerned of the changes that will be introduced.

3.15
The Committee draws attention to its previous opinions
on the CFP (7), aquaculture (8) and biodiversity (9), and fully
stands by them in the context and scope of this opinion.

3.16
The Committee draws the Commission's attention to
GMO and polyploid species. Their potential danger to the
aquatic environment should not be underestimated. There is a
need for stricter regulation of genetically modified organisms as
well as salmon in aquaculture and the introduction and translo-
cation of ornamental species.

The import and movement of alien fish species can
3.10
entail considerable risks. Thorough scientific knowledge is
needed to assess these risks. The scientific data needed cannot,
as suggested in Annex 1, be acquired by applicants from their
work; the applicant would need expert advice.

The Committee calls upon the Commission to take
3.17
note of both this opinion and those previously mentioned in
order to create a better working environment for the aquacul-
ture sector with regard to the use of alien and locally absent
species in aquaculture.

Brussels, 26 October 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

(7) Simplification of the CFP, CESE 961/06, rapporteur: Sarró Iparraguirre

(adopted on 5 July 2006).

(8) Ibidem footnote no 5.
(9) Conservation of biodiversity, CESE 752/2006, rapporteur: Ribbe

(adopted on 18 May 2006).