Introductions
Marine organisms can move or be moved to a new sea area either by natural vectors
such as water currents or as the result of human activities, in particular shipping
(in ships' ballast water and as hull fouling) and aquaculture.
If such an alien (foreign, exotic, non-native, non-indigenous, introduced, neobiota, naturalized — names that are often used interchangeably) organism or species becomes established in the new sea area, then it is considered to be an introduced species.
Those introduced species that are harmful to biodiversity are often called invasive, aggressive, noxious, pest or harmful species.
Shipping and aquaculture are responsible for about 90% and 10%, respectively, of the introductions of marine alien species in Europe.
WWF-Germany 2004
The introduction of alien species [1] via marine aquaculture activities may be either intentional or accidental. Some species of finfish, shellfish (molluscs, crustaceans, and echinoderms) and aquatic plants (including seaweeds) are imported from other sea areas specifically for cultivation, either extensively for commercial reasons or otherwise for the aquaria trade or research. Some, such as mussels and oysters, are deliberately introduced to a location in the wild; others, such as farmed salmon, occasionally escape into the wild and establish themselves. In other cases, aquatic "hitchhikers", such as disease-causing organisms or small larval forms of invertebrates, are unintentionally imported together with the species intended for cultivation.
Whether intentional or accidental, introduced species — both larval and adult stages — occupy similar niches in the marine environment to native species, with potentially serious impacts on the native species, for example by competing with them for food and/or space. Introduced species may potentially alter habitats and the balance of existing communities, resulting in changes to the structure and function of entire marine ecosystems [2]. Such ecological impacts may not be detected during pilot studies. The consequent ecological and socio-economic cost may be profound. Therefore, key international agreements and instruments (e.g. the Convention on Biological Diversity) play a vital role in requiring international, regional and national level measures to prevent, reduce and control the introduction of alien species.
International conventions regulating introduced species
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea came into force in 1994. Article 196 on the use of technologies or introduction of alien or new species requires states to take all measures necessary to prevent, reduce and control "the intentional or accidental introduction of species, alien or new, to a particular part of the marine environment, which may cause significant and harmful changes thereto".
The 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD): "Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate - prevent the introduction of, control or eradicate those alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or species".
The 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries: "9.2.2 States should, with due respect to their neighbouring States, and in accordance with international law, ensure responsible choice of species, siting and management of aquaculture activities which could affect transboundary aquatic ecosystems. 9.2.3 States should consult with their neighbouring States, as appropriate, before introducing non-indigenous species into transboundary aquatic ecosystems." … "9.3.1 States should conserve genetic diversity and maintain integrity of aquatic communities and ecosystems by appropriate management. In particular, efforts should be undertaken to minimize the harmful effects of introducing non-native species or genetically altered stocks used for aquaculture including culture-based fisheries into waters, especially where there is a significant potential for the spread of such non-native species or genetically altered stocks into waters under the jurisdiction of other States as well as waters under the jurisdiction of the State of origin. States should, whenever possible, promote steps to minimize adverse genetic, disease and other effects of escaped farmed fish on wild stocks. 9.3.2 States should cooperate in the elaboration, adoption and implementation of international codes of practice and procedures for introductions and transfers of aquatic organisms. 9.3.3 States should, in order to minimize risks of disease transfer and other adverse effects on wild and cultured stocks, encourage adoption of appropriate practices in the genetic improvement of broodstocks, the introduction of non-native species, and in the production, sale and transport of eggs, larvae or fry, broodstock or other live materials. States should facilitate the preparation and implementation of appropriate national codes of practice and procedures to this effect."
The threat from introduced species was also emphasised in the Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg 2002, which called for actions at all levels to: "Strengthen national, regional and international efforts to control invasive alien species, which are one of the main causes of biodiversity loss, and encourage the development of effective work programme on invasive alien species at all levels".
Transfers
In marine aquaculture, organisms are frequently moved (transplanted) from one
location to another within their native distribution range. For example, shellfish
spat (seed or spawn) may be dredged from subtidal beds and moved to areas where
they will have a better chance of survival and produce a better crop. Apart
from the physical impact of dredging on the natural habitat, there are concerns
about genetic impacts and disease associated with organism transfer.
Transboundary issue
The introduction of marine organisms takes place across ecological boundaries, not state borders. However, the intentional introduction of an alien species by an individual state could impact an entire marine region.
One example of an intentionally introduced species in Ireland is the Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas), which has been imported from Japan because it is larger and faster growing than the native oyster (Ostrea edulis), otherwise known as the European flat oyster. Heffernan (1999) points to several potential problems associated with bringing the Pacific oyster into Ireland:
Genetic implications
In general, the genetic implications depend on whether introduced and/or transferred
organisms are capable of breeding and establishing a self-sustaining population
and, if so, whether they are likely to out-compete native species and populations.
The genetic effects of introductions on native populations may be defined as direct or indirect. Direct effects occur when the gene pool of the native population is open to the invasion of genes from the introduced population. Indirect effects occur when hybridisation between the native and the introduced population is not possible, but alterations in gene frequencies result from ecological interactions with the introduced organism. Only the indirect effects apply to Pacific oyster cultivation, as they cannot hybridise with the native oyster.
Heffernan (1999) states that the likely impact of Pacific oyster cultivation will be negligible as, although it has been observed spawning in Ireland in Donegal Bay in 1993, it has not been recorded as establishing wild populations: "This is presumably due to the limited occurrence of sufficiently high temperatures for successful reproduction." However, ecological interactions will drive genetic changes in both the native (Ostrea edulis) and the introduced species (Crassostrea gigas) and, therefore, climate change and ocean warming in particular "may enable the Pacific oyster to spawn successfully and so cause other impacts, genetic and well as ecological" (Heffernan 1999).
Transfers of non-target species
There are numerous examples of the introduction of disease and other unwanted
(non-target or "hitchhiker") organisms with shellfish in general.
Minchin et al. (1993) discovered that consignments of Pacific oyster certified as being free of Bonamia, Marteilia and other species actually harboured Mytilicola orientalis, Myicola ostrea, Crepidula fornicata, Ostrea edulis and Mytilus edulis. The biomass of the importations and the frequency of Mytilicola orientalis and Myicola ostrea in the consignments suggest that they may become established in Irish waters. Furthermore, recent research has confirmed that the copepod Mytilicola orientalis is now established in Ireland.
Minchin et al. (1993) make the point that the discovery of Ostrea edulis and Mytilus edulis in Pacific oyster consignments is worrying as they are both vectors of Martelia refringens and in the case of the protozoan Bonamia ostrea, Ostrea edulis is a vector. The presence of Crepidula fornicata also has serious implications as should it become established there may be significant changes in (a) trophic competition, (b) changes in the texture of the seabed and (c) modification of the benthos. Another species which was not detected by Minchin et al. (1993), but which is also high risk is Sargassum muticum. Being a monoecious species a single plant can result in the development of a whole population and come mature within a year (Minchin et al. 1993).
Phytoplankton species have also been imported with live consignments of oysters. In fact, sixty-seven species of phytoplankton (43 diatoms, 22 dinoflagellates and 2 silicoflagellates) were recorded in addition to other microspecies such as foraminiferans and tintinnids. Fifteen types of dinoflagellate cysts were recorded. There is concern that potentially harmful species of phytoplankton may be imported accidentally into Ireland with shellfish transfers (O’Mahony 1993). It is possible that a phytoplankton species, capable of causing a red tide, could be imported to Ireland in Pacific oysters from France. One "red tide", in Dungarvan in 1994, virtually wiped out all the cockles and lugworms in the area (P. Cullen, pers. comm.). This could have serious consequences for the birds that feed on these species.
Heffernan 1999
Ecological
Heffernan (1999) states: "To date, Pacific oysters have not adversely affected
the indigenous fauna. This may be due primarily to its contained status."
Manila clam
Another intentionally introduced species is the Manila clam (Tapes semidecussatus
or Ruditapes phillipinarum).
In the long-term, it is possible that Manila clam spawning could lead to the production of a self-sustaining population due to:
1. Acclimatisation.
2. Elevated temperatures in sea lochs.
3. Movements in water currents and isotherm patterns (Meikle and Spencer 1989).Concerns have been expressed about the likelihood of escapes from intertidal Manila Clam culture plots where only a top containment net is used (Meikle and Spencer 1989). The Manila clam was recorded as spawning in Sligo in 1989 (Burnell and Cross 1989).
Heffernan 1999 (incl. citations)
Mussels
Bottom cultivation of native blue mussels (Mytilus edulis) involves the location,
collection and transplantation of wild mussel spat into richer, shallower waters
using a dredger (Heffernan 1999). As Mytilus edulis is a native species any
impacts relating to transfers would be on a national rather than an international
level. Heffernan (1999) points to three basic concerns associated with such
organism transfer:
Recruitment — The dredging of several thousands of hectares of subtidal beds for mussel spat must have some impact on the natural system, including reducing the chance that beds will develop into mature mussel beds, and that mature beds will regenerate following disturbance from human or natural causes.
Genetic impacts — Any genetic dilution could theoretically lead to a weakening of the species and ultimately a drop in survival. "If hatchery production of seed for commercial mussel farming were to become a major source of supply for the various mussel industries there would be a requirement for further research into its genetic implications. In addition, care should be taken, insofar as possible, to avoid moving mussels further than is absolutely necessary as this may cause dilution of any unique genetic traits in the local population."
Disease — Disease is not documented as a problem in mussel cultivation. "However, care should taken to avoid introducing mussels carrying disease or parasites into an uninfected area. Care must also be taken that the mussel does not inadvertently act as a carrier of disease of some other organisms."
The genetic and disease implications, above, of moving shellfish from one area to another also apply to suspended mussel cultivation.
Scallops
Cultivation of the native scallop (Pecten maximus) in Ireland involves collecting
spat, which may then be transferred to another area.
Studies of the reproductive ecology of different populations of Pecten maximus indicate that there are genetically isolated stocks in different areas. This has important implications for stock assessment, for restocking and aquaculture programmes.
Differences between populations reflect not only differing responses to differing local environmental cycles but also genetic adaptation on the part of local self-recruiting stocks, and hence a degree of genetic isolation between stocks (Orensanz et al. 1991). This uniqueness must be protected from introductions of other native species for mariculture or restocking purposes, even from within Ireland, as they could dilute the gene pool. If this genetic variation became diluted it may have the effect of weakening the whole population and reducing the probability of survival.
In this situation, where the endemic population is small and locally adapted transfers may destroy the unique phenotype of the local population, even if overall fitness is not compromised. The homogenising effect is popularly labelled genetic pollution and results in the loss of interpopulation diversity and distinct local phenotypes (Gaffney and Allen 1992). In contrast, if the local population is not highly adapted to a changing environment then it is possible that the introduction will bring genes which may result in immediate benefits (Gaffney and Allen 1992).
Heffernan 1999 (incl. citations)
Native oyster
The usual cultivation method employed in Ireland for the native/flat oyster
(Ostrea edulis) is extensive culture, which involves collection of wild spat
by dredging and re-laying in a more productive area (Heffernan 1999).
When considering the ecological impact of transfers of native oysters, the main concern is the possible accidental introduction and transfer of disease-causing non-target species, such as the oyster parasite (Bonamia ostrea), see below, as a result of imports.
Bonamia
Probably one of the best documented disasters resulting from the transfer of organisms is the case of Bonamia. Bonamiasis is a disease of Ostrea edulis which was first described in Brittany, France, in 1979 (Meikle and Spencer 1989) where it caused serious mortalities in flat oyster stocks. It has since been recorded in the Netherlands, Spain and Ireland. Losses due to the disease are usually high, up to 80% or even higher. The organism responsible is a simple protistan, Bonamia ostrea. The organism has been recorded in Cork Harbour, Galway Bay and Clew Bay. In Cork mortalities of 90% were recorded in the 4-year old classes in 1986 and by the spring of 1987 significant mortalities were evident in all classes except one year olds. The Galway Bay outbreak was confined to a small inner outlet. Mortalities up to 70% were reported. Oysters from Clew Bay tested positive, but although no obvious mortality occurred, their condition was very poor. Interestingly the two areas where Bonamia outbreaks were most severe the numbers of oysters were high (McArdle et al. 1991). It is believed that the disease was originally introduced through an illegal consignment of oysters (Ostrea edulis) from France into the south-west of Ireland in the early 1980s (McArdle et al. 1991; D. Hugh-Jones pers. comm). When the disease was recognised, French imports of live Ostrea edulis were banned.
Heffernan 1999 (incl. citations)
Other examples from around the world of accidental introductions and transfers include:
A literature review conducted by the UK JNCC (Eno 1996) concluded that some 50 species now known to be present in UK waters ought to be regarded as non-indigenous. Most were introduced accidentally either via shipping or through movements of shellfish for cultivation purposes. The Pacific oyster was a deliberate introduction for aquaculture development purposes and the hard shelled clam (Mya arenaria) may have been deliberately introduced. Of the 50 species classed as non-indigenous, seventeen are found in waters off the west of Scotland and of these only seven are animal species (the review excluded species < 20µm in size). Some of the introduced species are now common, for example Spartina anglica or common cord grass.
The introduction of other non-indigenous marine molluscs (e.g. abalone and Manila clam (Ruditapes semidecussata)), as well as the transfer of molluscs from one area to another, for mariculture purposes includes a risk of transporting competitors, predators, parasites, pests and diseases. Of the total of 126 species imported into the North-east Atlantic region, thirty have been recorded in Irish waters. Whilst some of these species were intentionally introduced for mariculture, the vector of introduction for many is unknown but may have been shipping. Others are known to have been incidental species associated with importations of bivalve molluscs for mariculture. Until about 1920, American oysters (Crassostrea virginica) were regularly imported into Region III. One species introduced in this way is the slipper limpet, Crepidula fornicata. Any populations that became temporarily established in Ireland have not survived but it still persists in some UK waters. In the 1920s to 1950s, native oysters from France were imported to restock certain Irish bays and may have been the source of Chinese hat shell (Calyptraea chinensis) on the west coast of Ireland.
Following the implementation of EC Directive 91/67/EEC in January 1993, the movement of shellfish species between member countries is, in principle, free of restrictions. The trade in half-grown Pacific oysters from France has resulted in the oyster-gut parasite Mytilicola orientalis being introduced to Ireland. In 1993, samples taken in Carlingford Lough on the North Channel, and Dungarvan, Cork Harbour and Oysterhaven on the Celtic Sea, revealed the presence of this organism. As far as is known, it has become established only in Dungarvan harbour. M. orientalis may harm Pacific oysters and other molluscan species in areas where it becomes abundant. Finally, a number of phytoplankton species have been recorded in importations of Pacific oyster, including cysts of toxin-producing dinoflagellates.
OSPAR QSR 2000 for Region III Celtic Seas
Footnotes
1. The term "alien species", or similar, is used for all species outside their native distribution range, and also refers to exotic sub-species, races and other exotic organisms within the same species. [Back]
2. The ecosystems and habitats where introduced species arrive are already greatly altered by human activities and are more vulnerable to impact from alien species. [Back]
References
Minchin D., Duggan C.B., Holmes J.M.C. and Neiland S. 1993. Introductions of exotic species associated with Pacific oyster transfers from France to Ireland. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen (Denmark). Mariculture Comm. Counc. Dublin, Ireland, 23 Sep-1 Oct 1993, 11, CM 1993/F:27.
O’Mahony J.H.T. 1993. Phytoplankton species associated with imports of the Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas, from France to Ireland. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen (Denmark). Mariculture Committee. C.M. 1993/F:26. ref: K=L.
WWF-Germany. 2004. Biodiversity assessment and threats analysis for the WWF Global 200 Ecoregion "North-East Atlantic Shelf". WWF-Germany, Frankfurt am Main.
WWF-Norway. 2005. On the run – Escaped farmed fish in Norwegian waters. Report 2/2005. WWF-Norway, Oslo. (pdf 2.1Mb)
In 1995 the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) issued a Code of Practice on the Introductions and Transfers of Marine Organisms (pdf 323k), subsequently revised in 2004, establishing a North Atlantic regional policy approach to preventing problems resulting from species introductions for fisheries enhancement and marine aquaculture purposes.
The 2004 Code of Practice follows the precautionary approach adopted by the FAO with the goal of reducing the spread of exotic species.
"It accommodates the risks associated with current commercial practices including trade in ornamental species and bait organisms, research, and the import of live species for immediate human consumption (these are not species that are intended to be released to the environment, so a notification to ICES is neither appropriate nor practical). It also includes species that are utilized to eradicate previously introduced harmful and native species, as well as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and polyploids (specifically triploids and tetraploids). It outlines a consistent, transparent process for the evaluation of a proposed new introduction, including detailed biological background information and an evaluation of risks.
ICES views the Code of Practice as a guide to recommendations and procedures… While initially designed for the ICES Member Countries concerned with the North Atlantic and adjacent seas, all countries across the globe are encouraged to implement this Code of Practice. Public awareness of the concerns associated with introductions and transfers of marine organisms is essential to assist in the prevention of problems associated with such introductions. Countries are therefore encouraged to ensure the widest distribution of this code." (ICES 2004).
The Code of Practice sets forth recommended procedures and practices to diminish the risks of detrimental effects from the intentional introduction and transfer of marine (including brackish water) organisms, including introductions into closed containment systems. It applies to public (commercial and governmental), private, and scientific interests. "In short, any persons engaged in activities that could lead to the intentional or accidental release of exotic species should be aware of the procedures covered by the Code of Practice" (Preamble).
The Code of Practice is divided into sections of recommendations relating to:
Ireland's obligations
Ireland is an ICES Member Country. Consequently, in relation to aquaculture
involving introduced species, Ireland is obliged to implement the 2004 or more
recent version of the ICES Code of Practice on the Introductions and Transfers
of Marine Organisms..
ICES Member Countries contemplating new introductions are requested to present "in good time" to the ICES Council a detailed prospectus on the rationale and plan for any new introduction of a marine (brackish) species; the contents of the prospectus are detailed in Section II of the Code and Appendix A. If any introduction or transfer proceeds following approval, ICES requests Member Countries to keep the Council informed about it, "both through providing details of the broodstock established and the fate of the progeny, and through submitting progress reports after a species is released into the wild" (Preamble) according to Section III of the Code.
The 2004 Code of Practice states:
"All introductions and transfers of marine organisms carry risks associated with target and non-target species (including disease agents). Once established, introduced species can spread from foci of introductions and have undesirable ecological, genetic, economic, and human health impacts.
Introductions of marine organisms occur in the course of many human activities, including but not limited to aquaculture, stocking, live trade (e.g., species used for aquaria, ornamentals, bait, and food), research, biocontrol, and the use of genetically modified organisms. Even species introduced intentionally into closed systems can be released accidentally. Thus, introductions can result whenever live organisms are moved, regardless of the original intent. As a result, a risk of introduction and subsequent impacts exists with any movement and should be considered explicitly.
This Code of Practice provides a framework to evaluate new intentional introductions, and also recommends procedures for species that are part of current commercial practices to reduce the risk of unwanted introductions, and adverse effects that can arise from species movement."
Agencies of Member Countries "should fully implement the Code of Practice and apply all regulatory measures possible to prevent unauthorized introductions", and to reduce illegal and unauthorised introductions, "Member Countries are also encouraged to increase public awareness about the risks associated with importing live products" (Section I Strategy for implementation).
Member Countries contemplating any new introduction are expected to submit to the ICES Council "well in advance" a detailed prospectus on the proposed new introduction(s) for evaluation and comment:
"The prospectus should include the purpose and objectives of the introduction, the stage(s) in the life cycle proposed for introduction, the native range, the donor location, and the target area(s) of release. The prospectus should also include a review of the biology and ecology of the species as these pertain to the introduction (such as the physical, chemical, and biological requirements for reproduction and growth, and natural and human-mediated dispersal mechanisms) and information on the receiving environment.
The prospectus should also provide a detailed analysis of the potential impacts on the aquatic ecosystem of the proposed introduction. This should include, wherever possible, assessments from previous introductions. This analysis should include a thorough review of:
i) the ecological, genetic, and disease impacts and relationships of the proposed introduction in its natural range and donor location;
ii) the expected ecological, genetic, and disease impacts and relationships of the introduction in the proposed release site and projected range, as well as vectors for further distribution;
iii) an economic assessment, where appropriate.
The prospectus should conclude with an overall assessment of the issues, problems, and benefits associated with the proposed introduction. An evaluation of risks… should be included.
Upon review of the prospectus, the ICES Council will provide comments and recommendations on the proposed introduction" (Section II Recommended procedure for all species prior to reaching a decision regarding new introductions).
Section III of the Code of Practice outlines the actions to be taken if the decision is taken to proceed with the introductions, whilst Section IV outlines the recommended procedure for introduced or transferred species which are part of current commercial practice. Section V concerning general considerations regarding the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) states:
"Recognizing that little information still exists on the genetic, ecological, and other effects of the release of genetically modified organisms into the natural environment (where such releases may result in the mixing of altered and wild populations of the same species, and in changes to the environment), the Council urges Member Countries to establish strong legal measures [1] to regulate such releases, including the mandatory licensing of physical or juridical persons engaged in genetically modifying, or in importing, using, or releasing any genetically modified organism."
Section VI outlines the recommended procedure for all GMOs [2] prior to reaching a decision regarding new releases, whilst Section VII recommends actions if the decision is taken to proceed with the release. Sections VII to X relate to polyploid organisms [3].
Appendix A to the Code of Practice gives detailed information requirements for inclusion in the prospectus. This information is used to conduct the biological risk review (Appendix B). Appendix C concerns the quarantine process and provides detailed information on suggested requirements for quarantine facilities. Appendix D concerns monitoring.
Footnotes
1. such as the Council Directive of 12 March 2001 on the Deliberate Release into the Environment of Genetically Modified Organisms (2001/18/CE). [Back]
2. An organism in which the genetic material has been altered anthropogenically by means of recombinant DNA technologies. This definition includes transgenic organisms, i.e., an organism bearing within its genome one or more copies of novel genetic constructs produced by recombinant DNA technology, but excludes chromosome manipulated organisms (i.e., polyploids). [Back]
3. Polyploids are chromosome-manipulated organisms, where the number of chromosomes has been changed through cell manipulation techniques. A polyploid organism is not a genetically modified organism (GMO). [Back]
References
FAO. 2003. Database on the Introductions of Aquatic Species (DIAS). Fisheries Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
FAO. 1995. The Code of Conduct For Responsible Fisheries (CCRF). Fisheries Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (pdf 303k)
ICES. 2002. Code of Practice on the Introductions and Transfers of Marine Organisms (ITMO). International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), Copenhagen, Denmark. (pdf 323k)
At EU level, alien species are identified as one of the key causes of diminished biodiversity, resulting in significant economic and social impacts, which consequently may undermine the attainment of the EU's sustainable development objectives (Gothenburg and Lisbon objectives).
Council Directive 92/43/EEC
The Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora (the Habitats Directive) 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".
COM(2001)162
In its Biodiversity Action Plan for Fisheries (COM(2001)162, Vol. IV), under
Action 9 on "limiting introduction of new species and securing animal health",
the European Commission undertook to thoroughly evaluate the potential impact
of non-indigenous species in aquaculture and to promote the application of the
ICES Code of Practice on the Introductions and Transfers of Marine Organisms,
and the European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission (EIFAC) Code of Practice
and Manual of Procedures for consideration of introductions and transfers of
marine and freshwater organisms.
COM(2002)511
In its Communication A strategy for the sustainable development of European
aquaculture, COM(2002)511 (pdf 125k), the European Commission states that "enlarging
the range of farmed species and strains will create new opportunities, and should
continue to be actively promoted". However, the Commission warns that the
"introduction of new species may also lead to the introduction of diseases,
both to farmed and wild stocks" and that the introduction of "foreign
species may lead to biodiversity threats if the released or escaped exotics
take root in their new environment".
The Commission proposes promoting research on new species and strains (i.e. future intentional introductions), and states:
"The Commission believes that research on species diversification is a top priority, for both fish and molluscs. Selected new species must necessarily respond to customers' preferences, in accordance with new market trends. Efforts should possibly be oriented to species such as seaweed, molluscs and herbivorous fish, that are able to utilise the primary production more efficiently. Another priority is the introduction of effective genetic improvement programmes using selective breeding, as this will lead to considerable gains in productivity. Introduction of new species should be carried out in such a way to avoid the introduction of diseases… As the introduction of new species for farming, in particular when they are not indigenous, may also lead to the introduction of diseases, good and careful management practices including preventative measures at farmers' level are essential, in addition to possible legislative implications."
Concerning the ICES Code of Practice on the Introductions and Transfers of Marine Organisms, the Commission considers that all Member States should adhere to the Code of Practice to prevent accidental introductions. However, there is currently no binding legal obligation to enforce this. Therefore, the Commission "will propose management rules on the introduction of non-indigenous aquatic species that are consistent with the provisions of this Code." This it has duly done, in the form of a Proposal for a Council Regulation concerning use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture, COM(2006)154, published in April 2006 (see below).
COM(2002)539
In its Communication to the Council and the European Parliament Towards a strategy
to protect and conserve the marine environment, COM(2002)539 (pdf 376k), the
European Commission recognises that "information is lacking to identify,
monitor and assess the impact of the introduction of non-indigenous species".
The Communication contained the long-term objective of ensuring sustainable
use of biodiversity through the protection and conservation of natural habitats
and of wild fauna and flora in the first instance in the European seas, inter
alia, by "preventing the human induced introduction of new non-indigenous
species, genetically modified organisms and disease organisms".
COM(2006)154
The European Commission recently brought forward a Proposal for a Council Regulation
concerning use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture, COM(2006)154
(pdf 219k) as part of its strategy for the sustainable development of European
aquaculture, COM(2002)511.
This proposal for a Regulation "seeks to introduce an EU framework to ensure adequate protection of the aquatic environment from the risks associated with the use of alien species in aquaculture, building on the existing voluntary ICES and EIFAC rules. For the purpose of the Regulation, aquaculture is taken to include activities such as bottom cultivation of mussels and both stocking and put-and-take fisheries, which use aquaculture techniques as their basis."
The rationale behind the proposal is that, with the likelihood that the aquaculture industry will continue to use novel species in order to satisfy the needs of the market, it would "be prudent to decouple this economic growth from the potential threats to ecosystems posed by alien species by anticipating and preventing negative biological interaction with indigenous populations, including genetic change, and by restricting the spread of non-target species and other detrimental impacts. This is the main objective of this proposal."
Points worth noting include the proposed Regulation:
With certain exceptions, will not apply to translocations of aquatic organisms within a Member State. However, a Member State may choose to apply the Regulation to such translocations within their territory. (Article 2, paragraphs 2 and 3)
Will cover "all aquaculture facilities located within the jurisdiction of Member States irrespective of their size or characteristics or of the species of aquatic organism farmed. It shall cover aquaculture using any form of aquatic medium." (Article 2, para. 4)
Will not apply to the keeping of ornamental aquatic animals or plants in pet-shops, garden centres or commercial and private aquaria without any direct contact with natural waters, or in facilities which are equipped with effluent treatment systems. (Article 2, para. 5)
Member States are obliged to:
Ensure that all appropriate measures are taken "to avoid adverse effects to biodiversity, and especially to species, habitats and ecosystem functions which might arise from the introduction or translocation of aquatic organisms and non-target species in aquaculture and from the spreading of these species into the wild." (Article 4)
Designate the competent [national] authority responsible for ensuring compliance with the requirements of the proposed Regulation. The competent authority will appoint an expert advisory committee to assist it. (Article 5)
Keep a register of introductions and translocations containing a historical record of all applications made and the associated documentation gathered before the issue of a permit and during the monitoring period. "The register shall be made available to the public in accordance with Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information." (Article 23).
The procedure then follows:
Anyone intending to undertake the introduction or translocation (i.e. transfer) of an aquatic organism must apply for a permit from the competent authority of the Member State receiving the organism. The applicant must submit detailed information (specified in Annex I) with the application, which will be judged by the advisory committee. (Article 6)
The advisory committee will then give its opinion on whether the proposed movement is a routine movement or a non-routine movement and whether the movement must be preceded by quarantine or pilot release before informing the competent authority. (Article 7)
In the case of routine movements, the competent authority may grant a permit, indicating, where applicable, the requirement for quarantine or pilot release as set out in Chapters IV (conditions for introduction after issue of a permit) and V (conditions for translocations after issue of a permit). (Article 8)
In the case of non-routine movements, an environmental risk assessment (ERA) must be carried out as outlined in Annex II. The competent authority will decide whether the applicant or an independent body is responsible for conducting the ERA and who should bear the cost. On the basis of the ERA, the advisory committee will give its opinion on the risk to the competent authority before it decides to grant a permit, seek to apply mitigation procedures or technologies to reduce the level of risk before issuing a permit, or else refuse to grant a permit, which must be justified on scientific grounds. (Article 9)
Extract from the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources debate concerning the proposal for a Council Regulation concerning use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture, 6 June 2006:
Dr. Beamish: "…COM(2006)154 has been brought forward as part of the Commission's strategy for the sustainable development of aquaculture. The objective of the proposal is to establish a new framework to govern aquacultural practices and the introduction and production of alien and locally absent species. Currently, we have fish health legislation governing this area which only covers the health status of fish being imported, other than where a species is being placed in a special area of conservation. In the case of placement in a conservation area, there is a requirement to assess the impact on the local ecology. The objective of the proposal is to support the economic growth of the aquaculture industry and assist its diversification into new species, while anticipating and preventing any detrimental impact on indigenous populations…
Members will be aware of instances where alien species have been introduced in Ireland. The zebra mussel and others were accidentally introduced, though not through aquaculture activity. They came in on boats or in ballast water. This deals purely with the risks for species being introduced for aquaculture purposes.
The basic principles are that operators wishing to introduce these species must apply for permits for movement of alien or locally absent species and a specialist advisory committee must be established to assess whether the movements are to be classified as routine or non-routine. The procedures that would then apply would depend on the assessment."
Deputy Broughan: "What is the difference? Would non-routine movement be where one is growing the species?"
Dr. Beamish: "…For almost 30 years we have been growing certain alien non-indigenous species such as Pacific oysters and have not experienced any problems in that regard. This also applies to the abalone species, which we now grow in the west. The assessment would be based on whether something is novel, whether there are risks attaching to it or if it is, at this point, routine practice. Where such is deemed to be non-routine movement, an environmental impact assessment is required, followed by a risk assessment by the expert group. The proposal leaves to the discretion of each member state the decision as to who should undertake the environmental impact assessment. However, the risk assessment must be undertaken by the expert group.
Following issue of permits and release of species, monitoring arrangements are required to be in place for at least two years. It could also be required, depending on the level of risk, that the species only be released into a closed system in the first instance. All documentation in regard to this process must be made publicly available by the competent authority.
Under the proposal, Ireland would be required to designate a competent authority to ensure compliance with the regulation. The competent authority would then appoint an advisory committee of scientific and technical experts to assess applications for permits to introduce alien or locally absent species. As this is a new task, there will be an increase in the resource requirements of the competent authority and increased obligations for the industry.
A number of what are defined under this proposal as alien species have been introduced and successfully farmed in Ireland for many years, namely, Pacific oysters and rainbow trout. Overall, these species, which we prefer to call traditional, non-indigenous, are generating approximately €15 million at first sale of aquaculture product. As these species attract a low risk status and are well established, we do not believe that they should be subject to detailed assessment processes, a position which we intend to present in respect of this proposal.
Where species are being moved, as regularly happens when shellfish are harvested and re-laid, the risks are low and we are seeking clarification that this regulation will not apply in such cases. One of the benefits of the proposal, apart from protecting the environment and other species, relates to our export of species such as Pacific oysters to a receiving country that may argue against taking in the species because it is not indigenous. Under this proposal, such countries would have to undertake a risk assessment and provide justification for not doing so. This proposal could result in a trade benefit for Ireland."
Deputy Durkan: "May we ask questions on the first proposal?"
Chairman: "Yes."
Deputy Durkan: "Dr. Beamish stated that species are often accidentally rather than deliberately introduced. To what extent are species accidentally introduced? Have any species been found to be detrimental to other fish stocks? For example, I recall watching a marine programme in which a Pacific snapper ate an Atlantic snapper for breakfast. Obviously, the situation is being monitored. Will the regulation have a detrimental affect in Ireland?"
Deputy Broughan: "Who will be the competent authority? Dr. Beamish mentioned abalone and our success abroad with shrimp. The issue of sea lice has been widely debated. Is there such a concept as routine or non-routine movement? It may be that in the past the system was invigilated better and that some of the problems were not encountered in the development of aquaculture."
Dr. Beamish: "…The regulation does not deal with all risks in the context of alien species. It relates to those making proposals for aquaculture installations and who wish to introduce a new species for the purposes of farming. It will also regulate that environment. Species which are accidentally introduced on, say, the hulls of boats, in ballast water or through pet shops are not dealt with in the regulation. Those risks are encountered in other spheres.
The main non-indigenous species we are currently farming are the Pacific oyster, rainbow trout, Manila clam and abalone. By and large, they have been successful introductions, with no major impacts. The regulation provides that we will have to take a much more structured approach in decision-making in the introduction of other species. In food production terms the aquaculture industry is very young and likely to grow rapidly during the next ten to 15 years. Many species are being tested and the subject of trials around the world. If Ireland wants a piece of the action, it has to be open to diversification. The future does not lie in salmon or oyster production. While there are risks, there are also benefits. The regulation provides a framework for dealing with those risks. People are interested in introducing barramundi and Pacific white shrimp. If we want to maintain economic activity in our coastal communities, we must be open to diversification and the extension of aquaculture activity.
Deputy Broughan asked about the negative aspects of the regulation. Obviously, it provides a regulatory framework which will impose on us some obligations. However, on balance, it will be to our benefit in avoiding ecological or other impacts which may be detected by use of the framework and allow us to export species in a structured way."
Deputy Broughan: "Will the authority be established under the 1996 Act?"
Dr. Beamish: "We are only dealing with a proposal at this stage. Dr. McMahon is a member of the aquaculture advisory committee. We anticipate that the expert committee established under the regulation will operate within that framework. It may be a sub-committee within that structure. We also envisage that the Marine Institute, BIM and the national parks and wildlife service will be represented on the committee. It may also be necessary to include someone who can offer expert zoological advice. There is already in place a structure dealing with the licensing of aquaculture activity and it is proposed that this committee will fit within that structure."
Dr. Terry McMahon: "The question was asked as to whether there had been any detrimental effects in the accidental or deliberate introduction of aquaculture species. To date there have been no such effects. So far as we can determine, none of the species introduced has had a significant ecological impact. However, two issues arise. Countries such as New Zealand which have introduced the Pacific oyster have noted that it is outperforming the native oyster. We must also consider the possible introduction of non-target species, namely, species of shellfish dredged in an area outside Ireland. While the target species may not have had any significant impact, an attached seaweed, pest or parasite could be accidentally introduced during its introduction. One of the aims of the regulation is to assess the risks associated with the introduction of non-target species with target aquaculture species."
Parliamentary Debates 2006 (our emphases in bold)
References
Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: A strategy for the sustainable development of European aquaculture. COM(2002)511 final.
Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Biodiversity Action Plan for Fisheries, COM(2001)162 final.
Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Towards a strategy to protect and conserve the marine environment. COM(2002)539 final.
Parliamentary Debates. 2006. Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. Scrutiny of EU Proposals. Parliamentary Debates (Official Report - Unrevised), Vol. No. 73. 6-06-2006, Page 5.
Proposal for a Council Regulation concerning use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture. COM(2006)154 final.