Alien Species – Aquaculture WFD – MSFD Keith Jeffery Centre for the Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science DG ENV Workshop, 6 March 2014

Invasive alien species (IAS) Overview Threat to bio-diversity EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 Targets reduced risks from pathways and impact of IAS Guidance needs to explore and advise on Aquaculture, IAS – WFD - MSFD

Current EU Alien Species Aquaculture Regulation Well developed 708/2007 framework for MS CA’s – Permit system Routine movements – low risk Non-routine = Risk assessment Go ahead if low risk or mitigation Annex IV species 304/2011 (closed system) Derogation from permitting

New Alien Species Reg’s Covers all IAS areas (not just aquaculture) Proposal for new regulation COM(2013) 620 final Now at first draft stage (negotiations) Establish framework for action to reduce impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Core proposals Prevention, Early detection, Rapid eradication, Management established IAS.

Alien Species Aquaculture & WFD Common Interests Shellfish / Environmental concerns over IAS pests Sea Squirt, Slipper limpets, Mitten crabs Mitigation = Codes of conducts, best practice e.g. Bangor Mussels Producers Code of good practice. NOAA Finfish & Environmental concerns over Escapees Effects (genetics) and industry costs (€47.5 million) Mitigation = Legislative standards, NYTEK, ISO. EU PREVENT ESCAPE(outputs) Sterilization (potential new advances over triploidy)

Aquaculture of exotic species Non natives already in trade Industry wishes to continue sustainably Blue Growth - COM(2012) 673 final H2020 to unlock growth potential – new species Industry COP’s - should be natives (IUCN 2007, Hewett et al 2006) EC 708/2007 & 304/2011 provide framework IMPASSE reviewed Alien Species in Aquaculture Produced ENSARS (risk assessment scheme )

Accidental Introduction of IAS Seed stocks required Often not available locally to culture area Movements from one area to another Brings risk of unintentional transfer Requirements to check for IAS ? With movements of native seed within MS ? Any examples where this already happens ? Industry codes of practice become important Discuss example later

WFD & Alien species No mention in original WFD text further work supports inclusion. Potential anthropogenic impact ECOSTAT 2009 - Alien species & WFD implementation Major constraints & lack of information (Shine et al 2010) Subsequent work on ID and risk assessments of IAS UK approach to ID (High, medium, low or unknown impact) Subsequent ID of High impact IAS Where feasible and cost effective eradication Or focus on local containment

Procedure for using Alien species data in assessing ecological status Approach approved by UKTAG

WFD risk assessments include Annex IV species ? UK approach includes some species listed as Annex IV Common Carp (C. Carpio) pending assessment Pacific Oyster ( C. Gigas) ranked as moderate risk Stocking out for Angling purposes or escapees, spat ? Could jeopardize good ecological status ? Subject to interpretation Unclear if species listed in annex IV 708/2007 should be included in this process. If member states derogate and allowed to stock the wild ? Potential area for clarification

MSFD and Alien Species IAS explicitly covered under Descriptor 2 (GES indicators) ‘ non indigenous species introduced by human activities are at levels that do not adversely alter the ecosystem’ Commissions criteria for IAS is: Abundance and state of non indigenous species. Environmental impact of non indigenous species. OSPAR technical working group established for NE Atlantic. Developing common indicators across NE Atlantic.

UK Approach to Descriptor 2 Proposed Indicators Reduction in risk of introduction (pathways) Surveillance indicator (abundance/distribution) H/R areas Specific management plans – high risk species present. UK recognition of implications Additional measures - focus on high risk industries (aquaculture ?) More research on key pathways Additional monitoring at key locations

Regulation & best practices Achieving Alien species targets of WFD & MSFD requires : Appropriate Regulation & Sectoral Good Practices Examples UK regulatory approach to Alien Species in aquaculture. Bangor Mussel Producers – Code of good practice

UK – Alien species in aquaculture Alien species and locally absent species in Aquaculture (E&W) regulations 2011 Implements 708/2007, permitting mechanism, powers, Cefas FHI appointed Aquatic Animal Health (E&W) regulations 2008 APB’s require authorisation, specifies species that may be farmed**. Same regulator has responsibility (FHI) – gives advice to businesses Annex IV species Three mainstays of Aquaculture in E&W are all alien species Rainbows, Carp & Pacific Oyster (widespread prior to legislation) Have option to control but policy is to exempt from any regulatory control under ASR legislation Permitting No charge for license inspections, escape prevention standards. Annual inspections at same time as compliance under AAHR.** Closed sites (routine movements) Tilapia, Clarias, Barramundi, Pacific shrimp in enclosed systems

UK – Alien species in aquaculture Non routine movements Full risk assessment of proposed farm/ operation Two stages of scrutiny Report from UK NNSS confirms risk level (high, medium, low) Competent authority decides whether to grant a permit Costs borne by applicant. Key point ** Farms legally required to operate a bio-security measures plan to minimise risks of introducing disease. Concept, not currently applied to risks of introducing IAS as passengers.

Bangor mussel producers association Code of good practice

Thank you Comments for taking forward the guidance document welcome Examples of issues and best practice from other MS required