Council Regulation (EC) No 708/2007 of 11 June 2007 concerning use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture
Print Options
PrintThe Whole
Regulation
PrintThe Whole
Annex
PrintThis
Part
only
Changes over time for: PART 1
Timeline of Changes
This timeline shows the different versions taken from EUR-Lex before exit day and during the implementation period as well as any subsequent versions created after the implementation period as a result of changes made by UK legislation.
The dates for the EU versions are taken from the document dates on EUR-Lex and may not always coincide with when the changes came into force for the document.
For any versions created after the implementation period as a result of changes made by UK legislation the date will coincide with the earliest date on which the change (e.g an insertion, a repeal or a substitution) that was applied came into force. For further information see our guide to revised legislation on Understanding Legislation.
Status:
Point in time view as at 31/01/2020.
Changes to legislation:
There are currently no known outstanding effects by UK legislation for Council Regulation (EC) No 708/2007, PART 1.
Changes to Legislation
Revised legislation carried on this site may not be fully up to date. At the current time any known changes or effects made by subsequent legislation have been applied to the text of the legislation you are viewing by the editorial team. Please see ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ for details regarding the timescales for which new effects are identified and recorded on this site.
PART 1U.K.ECOLOGICAL AND GENETIC RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS
Step 1Likelihood of establishment and spreading beyond the intended area of introductionU.K.
|
|
|
|
Event | Likelihood(H, M, L) | Certainty(VC, RC, RU, VU) | Comments in support of assessment |
---|
The introduced or translocated species, escaped or dispersed, successfully colonises and maintains a population in the intended area of introduction beyond the control of the aquaculture facility. | | | |
The introduced species or translocated, escaped or dispersed, spreads beyond the intended area of introduction. | | | |
Final rating | | | |
Step 2Consequences of establishment and spreadingU.K.
|
|
Event | Likelihood(H, M, L) | Certainty(VC, RC, RU, VU) | Comments in support of assessment |
---|
Genetic mixing with local populations leads to a loss of genetic diversity. | | | |
Competition (food, space) with or predation on native populations leads to their extirpation. | | | |
Other undesirable events of ecological nature | | | |
Some of the abovementioned events persist even after removal of the introduced species. | | | |
Final rating | | | |
Step 3Risk potential associated to the alien and locally absent speciesU.K.
A single value is given based on the assessments done in Steps 1 and 2:
|
|
Component | Risk potential(H, M, L) | Certainty(VC, RC, RU, VU) | Comments in support of assessment |
---|
Establishment and spreading (step 1) | | | |
Ecological consequences (step 2) | | | |
Final rating of overall risk potential | | | |
The result of this assessment will be expressed in terms of the following risk levels:
A high-risk movement:
(a)
has a high risk of damaging biodiversity from spreading and other ecological consequences;
(b)
operates under farming conditions which would increase the risk of such damage;
(c)
involves an aquaculture facility which sells live aquatic animals for further farming or restocking;
(d)
as a consequence, the movement is of major concern (major mitigation measures are required). It is advised that the proposal be rejected unless mitigation procedures can be developed to reduce the risk to low.
A medium-risk movement:
(a)
has a medium risk of damaging biodiversity from spreading and other ecological consequences;
(b)
operates under farming conditions which would not necessarily increase the risk of such damage, taking account of the species and the containment conditions;
(c)
involves an aquaculture facility which sells its products mainly for human consumption;
(d)
as a consequence the movement is of moderate concern. It is advised that the proposal be rejected unless mitigation procedures can be developed to reduce the risk to low.
A low-risk movement:
(a)
has a low risk of damaging biodiversity from spreading and other ecological consequences.
(b)
operates under farming conditions which would not increase the risk of such damage;
(c)
involves an aquaculture facility which sells its products for human consumption only;
(d)
as a consequence the movement is of negligible concern. It is advised that the proposal be approved. Mitigation is not needed.
The proposal can only be approved as presented (no mitigating measures required) if the overall estimated risk potential is low and if the overall certainty for which the overall risk has been estimated is very certain or reasonably certain.
If, as a result of a first analysis, a high or medium category is attributed to the overall risk, then containment or mitigation proposals are to be incorporated in the application, which will be subject to subsequent risk analysis until the final rating for the overall risk becomes low with a very certain or reasonably certain assessment. Descriptions of these additional steps, together with detailed specifications of the containment or mitigation measures, will become an integral part of the risk assessment.
Back to top