Written evidence submitted by The Ornamental Aquatic Trade Association (OATA)

SUMMARY

• There should be greater coherence between the proposed Invasives Regulation and those proposed on Animal and Plant Health. This would be in line with calls from organisation including the WTO and CBD.
• Some key definitions eg of “environment” are missing
• The size of  the proposed list of 50 is arbitrary, strict criteria properly applied are required. That may end up being more or less than 50.
• One size does not fit all- provisions for controls at a regional and single MS level should be provided for
• Engaging with the public and industry in awareness raising is fundamental to the success of dealing with invasives
• In the future greater emphasis should be placed on investigating less visible, usually unintentional, pathways of introducing invasives

1).The Ornamental Aquatic Trade Association (OATA) submitted written evidence to the Environmental Audit Committees Wildlife Crime Inquiry in 2012[1]. Much of that evidence was about the issue of invasive non-native species. That evidence remains relevant and, to save rehearsing the points made in detail here, we wish it to be regarded as directly relevant and in effect part of this submission.

2). In brief OATA represents the interests of some 750 businesses in the ornamental fish industry supplying the needs of the several million households  which either have or own aquariums or garden ponds. Among our members are importers, breeders, wholesalers and retailers of a wide variety of aquatic plants and animals. OATA provides a Code of Conduct, training manuals and a variety of information materials, some of which I refer to below. The ornamental fish industry is significant in turnover and employs over 10,000 people. Nationally OATA has actively participated in public awareness-raising on our own volition  for well over a decade, and participated in the UK Non Native Species Strategy actively promoting the Be Plant Wise campaign, and continues to participate in UK Working Groups. Regionally we were lead authors in a Council of Europe “European Code Of Conduct On Pets And Invasive Alien Species"[2] and have attended and participated at meetings on the Convention on Biological Diversity on the topic. OATA accepts invasives are a problem and its members are seeking to be part of the solution. We certainly would not have attracted attention to ourselves by attending all the meetings we have over the last 20 years if this were not the case.

3). Our comments on the proposed Invasives Regulation relate to the text published by the European Commission on the 13th September[3]. We are aware discussion may have moved on in the interim.

4). OATA wants a Regulation that is practical, proportionate and which works because the key issues are comprehensible to all.

THE INTERNATIONAL CALL FOR COHERENCE BETWEEN INVASIVES AND OTHER RELATED POLICY AREAS

5). At a global level in fora, in which the UK participates, there have been calls for greater coherence between the areas of animal health, plant health and invasives. In our mind this is logical as all three areas are variously concerned with the prevention, control, mitigation or eradication of organisms that can be a nuisance i.e. pathogens when considering health or invasives. In each case it concerns species that invade either individual animals or plants or whole ecosystems. The invasive or pathogen enters an organism or ecosystem, increases in number and the organism or ecosystem is then killed or irrevocably changed or it recovers wholly or partially.

6). An example of such a call for coherence can be found in the Recommendations[4] of a meeting of the Standards and Trade Development Facility of the World Trade Organisation held in July 2012.[5] We endorse these and though we do not directly reference each in this response we believe these principles should be applied as widely and comprehensively as appropriate. Panellists (including OATA as an invited discussant) were officials, scientists and non-governmental and industry representatives. They came from national, regional or international organizations such as: the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); two of the international standard-setting organizations recognized specifically in the WTO’s SPS Agreement, the IPPC (for plants) and the OIE (for animals); the World Health Organization (WHO) and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO); organizations in the Pacific, Caribbean, North America and Europe; and agencies in the US, EU, New Zealand, Kenya, Sudan, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia and elsewhere.

THE INVASIVES REGULATION AND COHERENCE IN THE EU

7). At the moment wide-ranging new Regulations[6] are being formulated and placed under a “Control” Regulation.[7] This Regulation is subject to a consultation by the FSA ending January 9.[8] The Invasives Regulation is conspicuous by its absence from the long list of issues covered by the Control Regulation (food and feed law, rules on animal health and welfare, plant health, plant reproductive material, plant protection products). Its absence seems to fly in the face of discussions in the WTO and CBD.

8). Greater coherence between the Invasives Regulation and the Animal Plant Health Regimes could aid understanding and compliance with and enforcement of the Regulations and help avoid gaps between them. The Animal and Plant Health Regulations are produced by DG SANCO while the Invasives Regulation is produced by DG Environment. The style and structure of the SANCO and Environment Regulations are quite different.

9). The Animal Health Regulation is modelled on the Aquatic Animal Health Directive (Directive 2006/88[9]) which is regarded as the first risk-based piece of legislation in the field. It permits controls at various levels, including regional controls, of diseases which are exotic to the EU, and further allows Member States to take action against diseases of special concern to them. Diseases are listed according to specified criteria, rather than by number. As we will note later, this contrasts with the Invasives Regulation.

CUMULATIVE IMPACT

10). Coherence in the legislation is required to minimise costs. All authorities should however have a mind not just to the costs of one check or one permit but how a sector might be affected by the complete package of measures envisaged. A single business in the sector OATA represents might face checks for food, animals, plants, invasive species and endangered species. The cumulative cost of these should be proportional to the risks being managed otherwise the addition of just one more could break the metaphorical camel’s back.

LACK OF DEFINITION

11). The Regulation should in part be a risk communication tool. To ensure that is the case definitions need to be clear to ensure that everyone reading it interprets its meaning in the same way (as far as humanly possible anyway). An example of an omission from the list of definitions is the word “environment”. We believe that clearly understanding that term is fundamental in avoiding long winded and legalistic wrangles later on. After all we still live with the legal uncertainty of what the word “wild” is under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. The Scots approach is probably better than English law in this instance.

THE LIST OF 50

12). A list of species to which controls are applied cannot be infinite. This is not the case in animal or plant health nor should it be in the case with invasives. In the animal and plant health regimes the lists are constructed on the basis of strict criteria such as the impact on susceptible populations and economic harm. There should be no arbitrary number that can either be used as a target or a limit. Any limits should be defined by the criteria used and the need to be proportionate and ensure enforcement resources are used to best effect.

13). We would favour a regime of criteria that allow species to be listed and controlled at three levels:

• Those that are currently exotic to the EU
• A regional or zonal approach that allows controls to be placed on species that are found in some areas of EU (be they native or non-native) that could be invasive in other areas of the EU where they don’t currently occur
• A provision to permit Member States to take action or make additional controls as appropriate, and again applying appropriate proportionate criteria.

ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL

14). There is a vast range of bio-geographical zones in the EU ranging from semi-tropical to Arctic. A fundamental determinant of the likelihood of a species being invasive relates to that fact.

15). As drafted in September, the list of 50 would apply controls to the whole of the EU even if it could only cause a problem in a restricted range of habitats and climates in the EU. Potentially a species that causes problems in semi-tropical Cyprus might be banned in the tundra of Finland. This could lead to the perverse outcome that species offering the safest option in northern Europe could be removed from the market because of the problems they may cause in the south or vice versa. A regional or zonal approach must be used (as it is in plant and animal health) to address this issue to ensure “safe” species and trade opportunities are not unnecessarily lost.

16). In UK conditions, tropical fish species could not survive in either our freshwater or marine environments for more than a few hours. They pose no risk.

17). The UK should be able to maintain the controls it currently has, such as sales bans on certain aquatic species and the provisions of the Import of Live Fish Act. As drafted it is not clear if MS will be able to maintain such domestic controls.

LISTS OF HARMFUL OR SAFE SPECIES

18). We prefer short lists of harmful species appliedto control trade or ownership of species, if determined by strict criteria. These short lists are easier for all to manage. They can be amended in emergencies. The use of such provisions should be very transparent and must not be misused.

19). The history of practical experience shows that many thousands of species have been traded for decades or centuries without a problem. Such species should automatically be regarded as safe without the need for a cessation of trade while expensive risk assessments are carried out. The safe list should not start as a blank sheet onto which species are added only after a risk assessment. It should be populated with a list that reflects the practical knowledge gained over years of trade. Desk bound risk assessments can usually identify some theoretical risk: practical experience tells us the quantum of real risk as opposed to a list of all possible theoretical eventualities.

PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN CURE

20). CBD and others have repeatedly emphasised prevention is better than cure. We cannot disagree with that, subject to provisos on how lists of harmful and safe species might be drawn up. Prevention can have a number of elements including, but not limited to, banning imports. Prevention includes raising the awareness of the public that nothing kept in their house or garden should be released or allowed to escape or, in the case in Scotland, be “out of their control”. We applaud the Scots model. We have campaigned on such a message with Be Plant Wise and various posters about not releasing fish into the wild.

ENGAGING WITH THE PUBLIC AND INDUSTRY

21). The Recommendations from the WTO meeting noted above, emphasise the need to raise public awareness and engage with industry bodies. This should be emphasised in either the Regulation or in actions that flow from it. Industries can and do change buying decisions if they understand the issues, such that they have acted years in advance of the introduction of legislation. For example, OATA has made recommendations publicly on the plant species not to sell which pre-date the sales ban legislation by, in some instances, more than a decade. When evidence was provided to OATA about the invasive characteristics of  Ludwigia grandiflora we were able to recommend that our members cease trade in that species before it entered the market in any quantity. We would commend DEFRA, the devolved administrations and the Non Native Species Secretariat (NNSS) for their very active engagement with industry and pubic awareness raising campaigns. The agencies involved in such initiatives should be rightly proud of them; they represent a model from which other MS might learn valuable lessons.

22). An active pet trade can raise awareness in almost 50% of households in the UK and across the EU. By doing so we can play a part in changing not only awareness but the behaviours that can lead to problems.

PATHWAYS

23). It is useful to look at pathways of introduction of invasive species. However, care should be taken not to fall into the trap of looking ever more closely at what can be most easily seen. By way of example we would use the intentional import and distribution of pets and the unintentional introduction of a wide range of species with  produce e.g. fruit or other products.

24). Some pathways are very visible. The trade in pets is highly visible. Those imported must pass official scrutiny and inspection as they enter the country. The footfall of visitors to pet shops is possibly equivalent to the total population of the UK. The primary usual intention of pet owners is to keep them in captivity- and we need to continue to help owners make sure that is the case. The pet sector has taken initiatives both on its own and in partnership with government agencies. Yet still there are calls for greater scrutiny.

25). In the recent past, newspapers have reported spiders in bananas[10], black widow spiders (now breeding in the UK) in a crate imported from Texas[11] Peruvian frogs in salad[12], and deadly saw scale vipers discovered by a grandmother in a crate of slate being used to build her patio[13] with another being found in a sea container[14]. These sorts of goods clearly can carry quite large animals around the world. Press reports are not the most rigorous means by which a problem can be reviewed but who else is looking in a systematic manner. Once they arrive in a domestic setting there is likely to be little intent on keeping them captive.

PROPERTY

26). Article 27 of the proposal deals with what should happen to specimens held by “Keepers of commercial stock” acquired before a listing of an “Invasive species of Union concern”. The proposal is that any such stock is given away to zoos or ex-situ conservation projects within a two year period. There should be a system by which such owners do not suffer a complete loss, which could impact their livelihood, when they have acquired the stock legally and in good faith.

10 January 2014