Commission staff working document - Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 708/2007 concerning use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture {COM(2009) 541 final}
Date: 2009-10-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: administrative formalities, agricultural production, aquaculture, biodiversity, common fisheries policy, ecological balance, environmental protection, fishery management, health control

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 15.10.2009 
SEC(2009) 1347 final 

 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

amending Regulation (EC) No 708/2007 concerning use of alien and locally absent 
species in aquaculture  

{COM(2009) 541 final} 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
 
  
Background information  

As already mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum, 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 provides for a system of permits to be introduced at Member State 
level  in  order  to  sift  out  species,  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  species  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 "closed 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,  Member  States  did  not  have  a  common  view  as 
regards  defining  further  some  criteria  of  "closed  aquaculture  facilities",  and  considered  that 
additional  scientific  elements  might  be  needed  to  support  a  decision  to  totally  exempt  such 
facilities  from  any  permit  requirement  regarding  the  movement  of  alien  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)  provides  that  introductions  and  translocations  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 that effect could be taken by 
"Comitology".  

Since then, the Community-funded concerted action "Environmental impacts of alien species 
in aquaculture"(IMPASSE) (funded under the Sixth Framework Programme) has produced a 
more  precise  definition  of  "closed  aquaculture  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 proper environmental protection.  

The  use  of  a  new  definition  of  "closed  aquaculture  facility"  based  on  the  IMPASSE  results 
would  justify  exempting  introductions  and  translocations  of  alien  species  for  use  in  such 
facilities from the permit requirement, hence 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 for those closed aquaculture facilities which can 
be  considered  as  bio-secure  and  would  be  interested  in  farming  "alien  or  locally  absent" 
aquatic species. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
However,  if  exempting  closed  aquaculture  facilities  from  the  permit  requirement  may  be 
decided  by  the  Commission,  the  parallel  amendment  of  the  present  definition  of  "closed 
aquaculture  facility"  (provided  in  Article  3(3)  of  the  Regulation)  -  to  make  such  exemption 
fully compatible with a high level of environmental protection - requires an amendment of the 
Council Regulation.  

The proposed modifications do not represent a major 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 exemption under consideration, while keeping fully in 
line  with  the  objectives  of  this  Regulation.  As  mentioned  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 the use of alien and locally absent species in 
aquaculture. 

The  proposal  for  Council  Regulation  708/2007  was  accompanied  by  its  own  Impact 
Assessment  (SEC  (2006)421).  The  IMPASSE  concerted  action  provides  the  scientific  and 
technical  basis  for  exempting  introductions  and  translocations  of  alien  or  locally  absent 
species  for  use  in  "closed  aquaculture  facilities"  from  the  permit  obligation.  Moreover,  the 
consequences  of  the  proposal  will  be  very  limited  as  it  applies  only  to  "closed  aquaculture 
facilities".  However,  these  facilities  will  benefit  from  the  proposed  simplification,  as  time-
consuming permit procedures which tie up resources will be eliminated. This amendment will 
ensure that the current high level of environmental protection is maintained and, at the same 
time, will help to produce positive social and economic impacts since the facilities concerned 
can  be  freed  from  the  costs  associated  with  the  permit  procedures.  A  specific  Impact 
Assessment  addressing  this  limited  modification  of  the  Regulation  would  not  therefore 
provide any added value as it represents just an executive decision on a technical issue with 
marginal consequences. It would not be proportionate to invest additional effort and time in 
carrying out a formal Impact Assessment.  

The size of the problem 

Specific  data  on  the  number  of  facilities  or  on  production  in  "closed  aquaculture  facilities" 
that  would  today  comply  with  the  new  proposed  definition  are  not  available.  Mandatory 
collection  of  information  or  statistics  on  aquaculture  activities,  and  particularly  the 
technicalities of the production facilities, by Member States is sporadic. However, limited but 
relevant information concerning all the Recirculation Aquaculture Systems (RAS) can be used 
to  show  that  the  impact  of  the  proposed  amendment  of  Regulation  708/2007  will  be  very 
limited. 

Currently, RAS technology in Europe produces a range of different species at varying stages 
of  development;  fingerlings,  grow-out  and  broodstock.  Grow-out  facilities  account  for  the 
most  use  of  RAS  by  volume,  producing  approximately  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 production. 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 exempted form the permit procedure but it depends on the decision of the 
MS. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
level  approximately  370  million  fingerlings  were  estimated  to  have  been  produced  in  2005. 
The main centres of production were 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,  Eel,  Sturgeon,  Tilapia, 
Turbot,  Pike  perch,  Sole,  Barramundi,  Sea  bass,  Trout  (Trout  in  outdoor  recirculation 
systems), and a small group of others5.  

The  vast  majority  of  the  companies  using  the  recirculation  systems  can  be  found  in  the 
Netherlands (80-100 companies; total production 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 entire RAS output constitutes just a small proportion of 
the  total  production  of  European  aquaculture.  It  needs  to  be  stressed  in  addition  that  the 
number of "closed aquaculture facilities" as strictly defined by the proposal is lower than the 
number of total RAS facilities, and is today very limited. Moreover, not all species which are 
presently farmed in those facilities are covered by Regulation 708/2007.  

Risk involved:  

The  proposed  amendment  of  Regulation  708/2007  does  not  represent  any  specific  risk  that 
needs to be highlighted. The more precise definition of "closed aquaculture facility" is stricter 
and  tighter  than  the  previous  one  and  therefore  ensures  maximal  bio-security  of  those 
facilities. At the same time, it removes red tape. 

Detailed  information  on  the  number  of  such  facilities  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 administrative simplification may also be of benefit in 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

For comparison: overall aquaculture production in the EU was about 1.3 million tonnes in 2005.  

JRC:  Prospective Analysis  of  the  Aquaculture  Sector  in  the  EU; part 2: Characterisation of  emerging 
aquaculture systems – cf. http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications 

Oliver Schneider et al., Wageningen UR, IMARES 

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.  

JRC:  Prospective Analysis  of  the  Aquaculture  Sector  in  the  EU; part 2: Characterisation of  emerging 
aquaculture systems – cf. http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications 

JRC:  Prospective Analysis  of  the  Aquaculture  Sector  in  the  EU; part 2: Characterisation of  emerging 
aquaculture systems – cf. http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications 

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 vast majority of the enterprises are SMEs. According to Framian 2007, 
there are some 14 400 firms in the EU. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the  future  to  any  enterprises  that  would  be  interested  in  developing  aquaculture  of  a  new 
"alien  or  locally  absent"  species  and  would  make  the  necessary  changes  to  a  production 
facility in line with the proposed definition of "closed aquaculture facility". 

EN 

5 

   EN