Contributed papers II

International instruments

FAO mechanisms for the control and responsible use of alien species in fisheries

Devin M. Bartley
Felix J.B. Marttin
and Matthias Halwart

Introduction

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has pledged to assist its Members achieve three overarching global goals: i) access of all people at all times to sufficient, nutritionally adequate and safe food, ii) continued contribution of sustainable agriculture (including fisheries and forestry) and rural development to economic and social progress and well being, and iii) the conservation, improvement and sustainable use of natural resources for food and agriculture. FAO has developed five major strategies to accomplish these goals:

• contribute to the eradication of food insecurity and rural poverty;

• promote, develop and reinforce policy and regulatory frameworks for food, agriculture, fisheries and forestry;

• create sustainable increase in the supply and availability of food and other products from the crop, livestock, fisheries and forestry sectors;

• support the conservation, improvement and sustainable use of natural resources for food and agriculture; and

• improve decision making through the provision of information and assessments and fostering of knowledge management for food and agriculture.

The control and responsible use of alien species in fisheries can help the implementation of the above strategies. Alien species have been used effectively to increase production and value from aquatic ecosystems. However, the importation of alien species for fisheries has also led to economic loss and loss of native biodiversity from disease impacts, increased predation, competition, habitat destruction, and genetic degradation of local stocks. In order to maximize the benefits from alien species and minimize the harmful impacts of alien species, the FAO Fisheries Department has undertaken a variety of activities and partnerships that constitute a framework for the control and responsible use of alien species in fisheries. The purpose of this document is to review and promote awareness of the main mechanisms of that framework.

Framework for the control and responsible use of alien species in fisheries

The framework for the control and responsible use of alien species in fisheries consists of:

• An over-arching international agreement (the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries [CCRF], [FAO, 1995]);

• technical guidelines on how to implement the articles of that agreement in relation to alien species (the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea [ICES 1995] and the Code of Practice on the Introduction and Transfer of Marine Organisms [EIFAC, 1988]);

• further technical guidelines on how to address fish health concerns (the Asia Regional Technical Guidelines and Beijing Consensus [FAO/NACA, 2000]);

• an information source to help with assessing possible positive and negative impacts (the FAO Database on Introductions of Aquatic Species [DIAS, 2003]); and

• a mechanism to deal with lack of information (i.e. uncertainty) by application of a precautionary approach to species introductions.

The CCRF and the ICES guidelines are reviewed here; the mechanisms dealing with fish health are reviewed by Subasinghe et al. (this volume) and DIAS is reviewed by Marttin (this volume).

Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries

The FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) in 1991 called for the development of new concepts which would lead to responsible and sustained fisheries and aquaculture. Following significant developments in international fishing, such as, inter alia, the International Conference on Responsible Fishing in Cancun (1992, Mexico), the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Brazil, and the UN Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in New York, the FAO Governing Bodies recommended the formation of a global Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries which would be consistent with these instruments, and in a non-mandatory manner, establish principles and international standards of behaviour for responsible practices with a view to ensuring the effective conservation, management and development of living aquatic resources, with due respect for the ecosystem and biodiversity. The CCRF was unanimously adopted on 31October 1995 by the FAO Conference and is now the cornerstone for the work of the FAO Fisheries Department (FAO, 1995b). Although the CCRF is non-mandatory, countries, as members of FAO, are committed to its implementation to the extent possible. Certain parts of it are based on relevant rules of international law, including those reflected in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982¹. The Code also contains provisions that may be or have already been given binding effect by means of other obligatory legal instruments amongst the parties.

The CCRF contains several articles that deal with alien species. General principles relating in a non-specific manner to alien species are in Article 2f) to promote the contribution of fisheries to food security and food quality, giving priority to the nutritional needs of local communities and in Article 2g) promote protection of living aquatic resources and their environments and coastal areas. Article 7.2.2 (d) requires that fishery management should provide that biodiversity of aquatic habitats and ecosystems is conserved and endangered species are protected. Thus, the CCRF recognizes its obligation to improve production and protect the environment.

Aquaculture was found to be the main reason that aquatic species are purposely moved outside of their native range (Welcomme, 1988; Bartley and Casal, 1998). Therefore, Article 9, Aquaculture Development, contains several sections relating to alien species.

Article 9.1.2 “States should promote responsible development and management …including an advance evaluation of the effects of aquaculture development on genetic diversity and ecosystem integrity, based on best scientific evidence.

Article 9.2 addresses responsible development of aquaculture including culture-based fisheries within transboundary aquatic ecosystems. Particularly important under this article are:

9.2.3  “States should consult with their neighbouring States, as appropriate, before introducing non-indigenous species into transboundary aquatic systems;

9.2.4  that calls on states to create mechanisms such as databases and information networks to collect and share information on aquaculture development and

9.2.5  “States should cooperate in the development of appropriate mechanisms, when required, to monitor the impacts of inputs used in aquaculture”. The input here would be alien species.

Article 9.3 summarizes much of the overall position of the CCRF in regards to alien species:

9.3.1 States should conserve genetic diversity and maintain integrity of aquatic communities and ecosystems by appropriate management. In particular, efforts should be made 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 calls for States to “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 CCRF acknowledges that information will never be complete and development decisions will often need to be taken with a certain degree of uncertainty as to their impacts. Article 7.5 describes a precautionary approach wherein preference is given to protecting the aquatic environment. The absence of adequate scientific information on the impacts of an activity, e.g. the use of alien species, should not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take conservation and management measures. FAO and the Government of Sweden convened an expert consultation in order to define a precautionary approach in operational terms (FAO/Sweden, 1995). This consultation noted that due to the high probability that the impacts of an alien species in the natural environment are unpredictable and difficult, if not impossible to reverse, many species introductions are not precautionary. The consultation therefore recommended the use of codes of practice, such as the ICES/EIFAC codes described below as good precautionary measures.

In summary, the CCRF promotes the conservation of biological diversity and ecosystems through, inter alia, impact assessment, monitoring and evaluation, creation of useful databases and information sources, and calls on Members to cooperate in the process of using alien species through consultation and the creation of guidelines and codes of practice. Where there is uncertainty of impacts or lack of scientific information, the CCRF advocates a precautionary approach that gives preference to environmental conservation.

Codes of Practice: International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and the European Inland Fishery Advisory Commission (EIFAC)².

The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and the European Inland Fishery Advisory Commission (EIFAC) are two inter-governmental bodies that acknowledge the necessity of international cooperation in order to conserve and use responsibly living aquatic resources. The groups noted the great success derived from the growth of marine and freshwater aquaculture and established a set of procedures (EIFAC, 1988; ICES, 1995) to be followed in the European and North Atlantic region to address three main challenges from alien species: 1) to reduce the chance of disease transfer from the movement of aquatic species; 2) to reduce impacts of alien species on native aquatic biodiversity and 3) to address the impact that genetically altered stocks may have on related natural populations. These codes and procedures have been endorsed by the CCRF and have been adopted in principle by other regional bodies of FAO.

The basic code contains the requirements that:

1. the entity moving an exotic species develops a PROPOSAL, that would include location of facility, planned use, passport information, and source of the exotic species;
2. an independent REVIEW is made that evaluates the proposal and the impacts and risk/benefits of the proposed introduction, e.g. pathogens, ecological requirements/interactions, genetic concerns, socio-economic concerns, and local species most affected;
3. ADVICE and comments are communicated among the proposers, evaluators and decision makers and the independent review ADVISES to either accept, refine, or reject the proposal so that all parties understand the basis for any decision or action. Thus proposals can be refined and the review panel can request additional information on which to make their recommendation;
4. if approval to introduce a species is granted QUARANTINE, CONTAINMENT, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAMMES are implemented; and
5. the ONGOING PRACTICE of importing the (formerly) exotic species becomes subject to review and inspection that check the general condition of the shipments, e.g. checking that no pathogens are present, that the correct species is being shipped, etc.

The Code is general and can be adapted to specific circumstances and resource availability, but it should not lose any of the above requirements nor should it lose the rigor at which the requirements are applied. For example, a regulatory agency may require a proposal to contain a first evaluation of the risk/benefits and this evaluation would then be forwarded to an independent review or advisory panel; or the advisory panel could make the first evaluation of a proposal. Similarly, states may require quarantine procedures to be explicitly described in the proposal before approval is granted.

“Codes” are generally perceived as being cumbersome, bureaucratic, a hindrance to development and generally not very user-friendly. Thus, they tend to be ignored by those who need them the most, the local resource managers and fisheries/aquaculture developers. In fact, application of the above, even if not completely rigorous, should help promote good decisions, avoid costly mistakes, increase community/consumer satisfaction, and help improve the standard of life for the communities concerned.

Rigorous application of these principles will be more difficult, but can be facilitated by implementation guidelines and other mechanisms. One such mechanism to help with the decision to introduce an alien species is the opinionnaire (Annex III), (Kohler and Stanley, 1984).

References

Bartley, D.M., Subasinghe, R. & Coates, D. 1996. Draft framework for the responsible use of introduced species. EIFAC Publication EIFAC/XXIX/96/ Inf.8. Rome.

Bartley, D.M. &. Casal, C.V. 1998. Impact of introductions on the conservation and sustainable use of aquatic biodiversity. FAO Aquaculture Newsletter No 20. Rome.

DIAS. 2003. Database on Introductions of Aquatic Species. FAO. Available at http://www.fao.org/fi/statist/fisoft/dias/index.htm.

FAO. 1995a. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Rome.

FAO. 1995b. Report of the Twenty-first Session of the Committee on Fisheries. Rome. 10–13 March 1995. FAO Fisheries Report No, 524, paragraphs 23–29.

FAO/NACA. 2000. The Asia Regional Technical Guidelines on Health Management for the Responsible Movement of Live Aquatic Animals and The Beijing Consensus and Implementation Strategy. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 402. Rome.

FAO/Sweden. 1995. Precautionary Approach to Fisheries. Part 1: Guidelines on the precautionary approach to capture fisheries and species introductions. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 350/1. Rome.

ICES. 1995–1994. ICES Co-operative Research Report No. 204. Copenhagen.

Kohler, C.C. & Stanley, J.G. 1984. A suggested protocol for evaluating proposed exotic fish introductions in the United States. In W.R. Courtney, Jr. and J.R. Stauffer, Jr. eds. Distribution, biology, and management of exotic fishes, pp. 387–406. Baltimore. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Welcomme, R.L. 1988. International Introductions of Inland Aquatic Species. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 294. Rome.

¹ Full text of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 available at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm

² Based on Bartley, D.M., R. Subasinghe & D. Coates, 1996.

Mechanisms of the Convention on Biological Diversity for the control and responsible use of alien species in fisheries

Devin M. Bartley
and Isabel J. Fleischer

Introduction

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) arose from the UNCED process (the Earth Summit) in 1992 and came into force on 29 December of 1993 (CBD, 1994). It has the most signatories of any piece of international legislation and its articles are legally binding. The goals of the CBD are the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from such use. These processes are to be facilitated by appropriate access to genetic resources and transfer of relevant technologies, taking into account all rights over those resources and technologies. Further, the international community recognized that developing countries will require assistance in implementing the articles of the CBD, and therefore a funding mechanism, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) was established. The primary governing body of the CBD is the Conference of the Parties (COP). In recognizing the need for scientific and technical advice in order to implement the CBD, the Convention established a Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA). This body is the forum for a variety of scientific and technical assessments and discussions, including those pertaining to alien species. It operates under the authority of, and reports regularly to the COP.

The CBD is often perceived as a “conservation”convention, and indeed this is a vital part of its mandate. However, it was the inclusion of the “sustainable use”of biological diversity that has also been responsible for the numbers of countries joining this process. Alien species and alien genotypes (Table 1) are a component of biodiversity and have provided the world with agriculture benefits for millennia. Following domestication, usually but not always, in centers of origin, alien species and domesticated crops and animals have been moved around the world and now form the basis of a multi-billion dollar agriculture industry. The CBD recognized the contribution that agricultural biodiversity can make to improving the human condition, and noted the unique characteristics of this component of biological diversity.

Table 1. Definitions

The CBD further recognized the dangers of the global movement of species and genetically altered species. The CBD especially noted the opportunities and problems associated with modern biotechnology. Thus, a specific protocol on biosafety was created in 2000 to protect biological diversity from the potential risks posed by living modified organisms (LMOs) resulting from modern biotechnology; this is known as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The purpose of this document is to review and raise awareness of the main articles and mechanisms of the CBD that pertain to alien species, alien genotypes and living modified organisms.

General articles

Article 1 of the CBD sets out the main objectives of the Convention, namely the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from such use. Although not specifically mentioned, achieving these objectives is essential for the responsible use and control of alien species in fisheries. Article 3 sets out, as the guiding principle of the Convention, the sovereign rights of States to exploit their own biological diversity pursuant to national environmental policies and objectives, but that States have the responsibility not to cause environmental damage to other States beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. Thus, States are free to use responsibly alien species in national development, but should ensure that this does not adversely impact others, for example through transboundary or international water bodies.

In order to organize the work of implementing the Convention, the COP created 5 thematic areas based on ecosystem characteristics: Marine and Coastal Ecosystems, Inland Water Ecosystems, Agro-ecosystems, forests and dry and Sub-humid Lands. The programme of work for Marine and Coastal Ecosystems has been named the “Jakarta Mandate”, to signify that it was adopted at the second meeting of the COP in Jakarta, Indonesia. Alien species were identified as significant cross-cutting issue that is addressed by numerous thematic areas.

The Convention acknowledges the importance of planning and Article 6 states that “Each Contracting Party shall, in accordance with its particular conditions and capabilities:

1. Develop national strategies, plans or programmes for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity or adapt for this purpose existing strategies, plans or programmes which shall reflect, inter alia, the measures set out in this Convention relevant to the Contracting Party concerned; and

2. Integrate, as far as possible and as appropriate, the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity into relevant sectoral or cross-sectoral plans, programmes and policies.”

Thus, under the CBD countries are preparing National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAP).

Article 7 on identification and monitoring states in sections (a) and (b) that signatories should identify components of biological diversity important for sustainable use and monitor their status. In section 7(d) tates are called on to maintain and organize data derived from the above identification and monitoring. The CBD created a Clearing House Mechanism, coordinated by the Executive Secretary and overseen and guided by an Informal Advisory Committee (IAC) to promote awareness of the multiple needs and concerns facing various communities, countries and regions.

Article 14 on impact assessment and minimizing adverse impacts requires in section (a) the introduction of environmental impact assessment procedures where there is the likelihood of environmental damage from development. Article 14(c) promotes consultation and exchange of information regarding national activities that may have environmental consequences in neighbouring states through bilateral, regional or multi-lateral arrangements.

The emphasis of the CBD is on in situ conservation of biological diversity. Article 8(d) requires states to “Promote the protection of ecosystems, natural habitats and the maintenance of viable populations of species in natural surroundings.“

The Preamble to the CBD and Principle 15 in the Rio Declaration both promote a precautionary approach to development¹:

“In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”

Specific reference to precaution and alien species is made in the Jakarta Mandate²:

“(…) because of the difficulties of complete containment, introduction of alien species, products of selective breeding, and living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of marine and coastal biodiversity should be responsibly conducted using the precautionary approach.”

Articles on alien species

Alien species are specially listed in Article 8(h): “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 COP has also identified alien species as one of five programme elements in the work programme on marine and coastal biological diversity and on inland water biodiversity. The programme of work to implement the Jakarta Mandate identified three objectives relating to alien species:

• to achieve better understanding of the causes of the introduction of alien species and genotypes and the impact of such introductions on biological diversity;

• to identify gaps in existing or proposed legal instruments, guidelines and procedures to counteract the introduction of and the adverse effects exerted by alien species and genotypes which threaten ecosystems, habitats or species, paying particular attention to transboundary effects; and to collect information on national and international actions to address these problems, with a view to prepare for the development of a scientifically-based global strategy for dealing with the prevention, control and eradication of those alien species which threaten marine and coastal ecosystems, habitats and species;

• to establish an “incident list”on introductions of alien species and genotypes through the national reporting process or any other appropriate means.

The CBD specifically addressed alien species in the work programme on inland water biological diversity (decision IV/4, annex I, paragraph 8 [c] [vi]), and invited states in paragraph 9 (e) (iv) to “Undertake assessments in such inland water ecosystems which may be regarded as important. Furthermore, states should undertake assessments of threatened species and conduct inventories and impact assessments of alien species within their inland water ecosystems.”

Significant decisions have been taken by the COP in regards to implanting Article 8(h) and other articles of the CBD. The most recent decisions (COP VI) call for national strategies and action plans, and international action, collaboration, and funding. Relevant organizations and initiatives, as well as specific suggestions for national governments are listed in Annex 1. At its sixth meeting (COP VI), the Conference of the Parties also adopted 15 guiding principles for the prevention, introduction and mitigation of impacts of invasive alien species for the full and effective implementation of Article 8(h) of the CBD (Annex 2). These, “Guiding Principles For The Prevention, Introduction And Mitigation Of Impacts Of Alien Species That Threaten Ecosystems, Habitats Or Species”, inter alia:

• urge states, other governments and relevant bodies to give priority to the development and implementation of alien invasive species strategies and action plans;

• encourage parties to develop mechanisms for transboundary cooperation and regional and multilateral cooperation in order to deal with the issue, including the exchange of best practices;

• encourage parties to develop effective education, training and public-awareness measures, as well as to inform the public about the different aspects of the issue, including the risks posed by alien invasive species.

Decision IV/4 which was again noted in COP IV, called on international groups to assist in: (a) developing standardized terminology on alien species; (b) developing criteria for assessing risks from introduction of alien species; (c) developing processes for assessing the socio-economic implications of alien invasive species, particularly the implications for indigenous and local communities; (d) furthering research on the impact of alien invasive species on biological diversity; (e) developing means to enhance the capacity of ecosystems to resist or recover from alien species invasions; (f) developing a system for reporting new invasions of alien species and the spread of alien species into new areas; (g) assessing priorities for taxonomic work.

In addition to the NBSAP called for in Article 6 (above), the CBD has also requested countries to prepare thematic reports on alien species. These reports identify responsible individuals within a country. These reports have been completed by only a few countries in the Mekong/Lancang Region and those that have been completed have not focused on aquatic alien species.

At its Fifth meeting the COP, in decision V/8, requested the Executive Secretary of the CBD in collaboration with other international agencies, including FAO, to consider, inter alia, further development of the guiding principles and developing an international instrument to deal with alien species. The matter of an international instrument is still pending.

Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity

The Cartagena Protocol of the Convention on Biological Diversity, adopted on 29 January 2000 in Montreal, Canada, “seeks to protect biological diversity from the potential risks posed by LMOs resulting from modern biotechnology”.³ Thus, the scope of the Protocol is limited and does not include wild alien species, or those species genetically altered by selective breeding, hybridization, chromosome set manipulation, or sex reversal. For practical purposes at present the Protocol refers to transgenic organisms. Currently, there are no transgenic aquatic species available to the fisheries and aquaculture industry or to the consumer; genetically modified soy has been used in fish feed.

The Protocol establishes an advance informed agreement (AIA) procedure for ensuring that countries are provided with the information necessary to make informed decisions before agreeing to the import of LMOs into their territory. The Protocol advocates a precautionary approach and reaffirms the precaution language in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. The Protocol also establishes a Biosafety Clearing-House to facilitate the exchange of information on LMOs and to assist countries in the implementation of the Protocol. The Protocol includes a “savings clause”that states that nothing in the agreement shall alter the rights and obligations of parties under existing international law (e.g. WTO rules).

Key Elements of the Protocol

The Advance Informed Agreement Procedure

The Protocol creates an AIA procedure that requires exporters to seek consent from importers before the first shipment of LMOs meant to be introduced into the environment (such as seeds for planting, fish for release, and for bioremediation). However, it only applies to a small percentage of traded LMOs as it excludes LMO commodities that are intended for food, feed, or processing (LMO—FFPs), LMOs in transit and LMOs destined for contained use (e.g. vials for scientific research).

The party of export is obliged to notify (or ensure notification) in writing to the party of import, before the first intentional import of any given type of LMO. The party of import then has 90 days to acknowledge receipt of the notification, and advise that it intends to proceed with the Protocol's decision procedure, or according to its domestic regulatory framework. Importers are to make decisions on the import of LMOs intended for introduction into the environment based on a scientific risk assessment and within 270 days of notification of an intent to export.

Biosafety Clearing-House

The Protocol establishes an internet-based Biosafety Clearing-House to help countries exchange scientific, technical, environmental and legal information about living modified organisms. The agreement requires governments to provide the Biosafety Clearing-House with information concerning any final decisions on the domestic use of an LMO commodity within 15 days of making a decision. A pilot phase of the Clearing-House has been developed⁴.

LMO—FFPs

LMO—FFPs are not subject to the AIA procedure that covers other LMOs, but are covered by a separate, less restrictive, procedure outlined in Article 11. Parties making a final decision about the domestic use of an LMO must notify the other Parties of the decision through the Biosafety Clearing-House. Thus, while the AIA procedure lays first responsibility on the party of export to notify its intent to export, the procedure for LMO—FFPs lays first responsibility on potential importers to develop and announce regulations proactively. The result is less onerous for the exporters, who will not have to wait for the parties of import to respond to their notifications. As well, exporters of LMO—FFPs do not face the burden of proof established for exporters of other LMOs, who may have to conduct and finance risk assessments in support of their notifications.

Shipments of commodities that contain, or may contain, LMO—FFPs must be identified as such in their accompanying documentation. The details of this procedure still remain to be worked out, and are supposed to be settled within two years after the Protocol enters into force. Such shipments must also be accompanied by a list of other information, including the identity and relevant traits and characteristics of the LMOs, any requirements for safe handling, storage, transport and use, and information about the importers and exporters. These requirements are helpful to countries that are enacting domestic labelling schemes for LMOs and products thereof. But they are unwelcome for exporters, who will be forced either to segregate LMO and non-LMO commodities, or to label all exports “may contain LMO—FFPs”and likely pay the penalty in lower prices.

Science and Precaution

The Protocol contains a strong version of the precautionary principle. Whether the precautionary principle can be used in deciding to prohibit or restrict import of LMOs is not clear as it is limited by the structures of the WTO Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) Agreement⁵. But it is indicative that the burden of risk-proof is put on the party of export and notifier, who can be required to conduct and/or finance a risk assessment.

Liability

Article 27 commits the first meeting of the parties to put in place a process to elaborate rules and procedures on liability. It sets a period of four years for completion of this task.

Trade with non-parties

The Protocol states that the “transboundary movement of LMOs between parties and non-parties shall be consistent with the objective of this Protocol.”

Currently there are no LMOs available for the fisheries and aquaculture industry. However, trans-genic salmon are awaiting approval by regulatory agencies in the USA and trans-genic tilapia in Cuba are undergoing evaluation for commercial use. Thus, it will be opportune for the industry and governments to be aware of such protocols in the event LMOs become available.

References

CBD. 1994. Convention on Biological Diversity. Text and Annexes. UNEP/CBD/94/1. Switzerland.

ICES. 1995. ICES Code of Practice on the Introductions and Transfers of Marine Organisms - 1994. ICES Co-operative Research Report No. 204.

Annex 1

Excerpts from Decision VI/23⁶

Alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats or species

The following are selected sections from COP Decision VI/23 that calls for national action (for complete text of the Decision see footnote 6).

II. Guiding principles for the implementation of article 8(h)

Recognizing that invasive alien species represent one of the primary threats to biodiversity, especially in geographically and evolutionary isolated ecosystems, such as small island developing States, and that risks may be increasing due to increased global trade, transport, tourism and climate change, …

Recognizing the value of international instruments under section III, the Decision recommended, inter alia,

“Invites the International Plant Protection Convention, the Office International des Epizooties, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the International Maritime Organization, the World Health Organization and other relevant international instruments and organizations, as they elaborate further standards and agreements, or revise existing standards and agreements, including for risk assessment/analysis, to consider incorporating criteria related to the threats to biological diversity posed by invasive alien species; and invites further such instruments and organizations to report on any such ongoing, planned, or potential initiatives ”. Furthermore, under section IV OTHER OPTIONS the decision noted:

“Reaffirming the importance of national and regional invasive alien species strategies and action plans, and of international collaboration to address the threats to biodiversity of invasive alien species and the need for funding as a priority to implement existing strategies,

Noting the range of measures and the need to strengthen national capacities and international collaboration.

(a) National invasive alien species strategies and action plans

Urges Parties and other Governments, in implementing the Guiding Principles, and when developing, revising and implementing national biodiversity strategies and action plans to address the threats posed by invasive alien species, to:

1. Identify national needs and priorities;

2. Create mechanisms to coordinate national programmes;

3. Review, in the light of the Guiding Principles, relevant policies, legislation and institutions to identify gaps, inconsistencies and conflicts, and, as appropriate, adjust or develop policies, legislation and institutions;

4. Enhance cooperation between the various sectors, including the private sector that might provide pathways or vectors for the unintended transfer of invasive alien species, in order to improve prevention, early detection, eradication and/or control of invasive alien species, and in particular, ensure communication between focal points of respective relevant international instruments;

5. Promote awareness of the threats to biological diversity and related ecosystem goods and services posed by invasive alien species and of the means to address such threats, among policy makers at all levels of government, and in the private sector; quarantine, customs and other border officials; and the general public;

6. Facilitate the involvement of all stakeholder groups, including in particular indigenous and local communities, and the private sector, as well as all levels of government, in national invasive alien species strategies and action plans, and in decisions related to the use of alien species that may be invasive;

7. Collaborate with trading partners and neighbouring countries, regionally, and with other countries, as appropriate, in order to address threats of invasive alien species to biological diversity in ecosystems that cross international boundaries, to migratory species, and to address matters of common interest;

Urges existing regional organizations and networks to work cooperatively to actively support the development and implementation of invasive alien species strategies and action plans, and to develop regional strategies where appropriate.

Encourages Parties and other Governments, in undertaking this work and, in particular, when developing priority actions, to consider the need to:

1. Develop capacity to use risk assessment/analysis to address threats of invasive alien species to biological diversity, and incorporate such methodologies in environmental impact assessments, and strategic environmental assessments, as appropriate and relevant;

2. Develop financial measures, and other policies and tools, to promote activities to reduce the threat of invasive alien species;

3. When necessary, develop recommendations and strategies to take account of effects of alien species on populations and naturally occurring genetic diversity;

4. Incorporate invasive alien species considerations into national biodiversity strategies and action plans and into sectoral and cross-sectoral policies, strategies and plans, taking into account the ecosystem approach, and in order to ensure full implementation of the national invasive alien species strategies and action plans as called for in paragraph 6 of decision V/8 of the Conference of the Parties.

Notes the technical information developed by the Executive Secretary, the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice and the Global Invasive Species Programme and commends this information to Parties for use in national implementation of Article 8(h) and requests the Executive Secretary to ensure that the technical information developed within the Convention on Biological Diversity is readily available to Parties in an appropriate form, including through technical publications and the clearing-house mechanism;

Urges the Global Invasive Species Programme and other relevant organizations to evaluate known and potential pathways for the introduction of invasive alien species and identify opportunities to minimize incursions and manage risks, and:

1. Provide advice to Governments and organizations on actions to be taken at national and regional levels; and

2. Provide recommendations to the Conference of the Parties at its seventh meeting on actions to be taken at the international level; “…

Under section III (c) on assessment, information and tools the Decision, inter alia:

Urges Parties, Governments and relevant organizations, at the appropriate level, with the support of relevant international organizations to promote and carry out, as appropriate, research and assessments on:

The characteristics of invasive species and the vulnerability of ecosystems and habitats to invasion by alien species, and the impact of climate change on these parameters.

The impact of alien species on biological diversity;

Analysis of the importance of various pathways for the introduction of invasive alien species;

The socio-economic implications of invasive alien species particularly the implications for indigenous and local communities;

The development of environmentally benign methods to control and eradicate invasive alien species, including measures for use in quarantine and to control fouling of ship hulls;

The costs and benefits of the use of biocontrol agents to control and eradicate invasive alien species;

Means to enhance the capacity of ecosystems to resist or recover from alien species invasions;

Priorities for taxonomic work through, inter alia, the Global Taxonomy Initiatives.

Criteria for assessing risks from introduction of alien species to biological diversity at the genetic, species and ecosystem levels;

The use of the traditional knowledge of indigenous and local communities in the development and implementation of measures to address invasive alien species, in accordance with Article8(j) of the Convention;

Decides that the clearing-house mechanism will be used to facilitate scientific and technical cooperation on the topics listed under paragraph 24 above, in order to enhance the ability of the clearing-house mechanism to promote and facilitate scientific and technical cooperation, and welcomes the Global Invasive Species Programme as an international thematic focal point for alien species under the clearing-house mechanism, and calls on Parties, countries and relevant organizations to contribute to the creation and maintenance of the global information network, in particular to:

Ensure effective international cooperation and expertise sharing;

Provide information to assist countries to perform effective risk analysis;

Provide information on potential pathway of alien invasive species; and

Provide support for management and control efforts, particularly for locating technical support for rapid response activities;

“”Other sections of the Decision make suggestions to international organizations and the Secretariat of the CBD, and relate to capacity building and funding.

Annex 2

Guiding principles for the prevention, introduction and mitigation of impacts of alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats or species

Introduction

This document provides all Governments and organizations with guidance for developing effective strategies to minimize the spread and impact of invasive alien species. While each country faces unique challenges and will need to develop context-specific solutions, the Guiding Principles give governments clear direction and a set of goals to aim toward. The extent to which these Guiding Principles can be implemented ultimately depends on available resources. Their purpose is to assist governments to combat invasive alien species as an integral component of conservation and economic development. Because these 15 principles are non-binding, they can be more readily amended and expanded through the Convention on Biological Diversity's processes as we learn more about this problem and its effective solutions.

According to Article 3 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.

It should be noted that in the Guiding Principles below, the terms listed in footnote are used.

Also, while applying these Guiding Principles, due consideration must be given to the fact that ecosystems are dynamic over time and so the natural distribution of species might vary without involvement of a human agent.

A. General

Guiding principle 1: Precautionary approach

Given the unpredictability of the pathways and impacts on biological diversity of invasive alien species, efforts to identify and prevent unintentional introductions as well as decisions concerning intentional introductions should be based on the precautionary approach, in particular with reference to risk analysis, in accordance with the guiding principles below. The precautionary approach is that set forth in principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and in the preamble of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The precautionary approach should also be applied when considering eradication, containment and control measures in relation to alien species that have become established. Lack of scientific certainty about the various implications of an invasion should not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take appropriate eradication, containment and control measures.

Guiding principle 2: Three-stage hierarchical approach

Prevention is generally far more cost-effective and environmentally desirable than measures taken following introduction and establishment of an invasive alien species.

Priority should be given to preventing the introduction of invasive alien species, between and within States. If an invasive alien species has been introduced, early detection and rapid action are crucial to prevent its establishment. The preferred response is often to eradicate the organisms as soon as possible (principle 13). In the event that eradication is not feasible or resources are not available for its eradication, containment (principle 14) and long-term control measures (principle 15) should be implemented. Any examination of benefits and costs (environmental, economic and social) should be done on a long-term basis.

Guiding principle 3: Ecosystem approach

Measures to deal with invasive alien species should, as appropriate, be based on the ecosystem approach, as described in decision V/6 of the Conference of the Parties.

Guiding principle 4: The role of States

In the context of invasive alien species, States should recognize the risk that activities within their jurisdiction or control may pose to other States as a potential source of invasive alien species, and should take appropriate individual and cooperative actions to minimize that risk, including the provision of any available information on invasive behaviour or invasive potential of a species.

Examples of such activities include:

The intentional transfer of an invasive alien species to another State (even if it is harmless in the State of origin); and

The intentional introduction of an alien species into their own State if there is a risk of that species subsequently spreading (with or without a human vector) into another State and becoming invasive;

Activities that may lead to unintentional introductions, even where the introduced species is harmless in the state of origin.

To help States minimize the spread and impact of invasive alien species, States should identify, as far as possible, species that could become invasive and make such information available to other States.

Guiding principle 5: Research and monitoring

In order to develop an adequate knowledge base to address the problem, it is important that States undertake research on and monitoring of invasive alien species, as appropriate. These efforts should attempt to include a baseline taxonomic study of biodiversity. In addition to these data, monitoring is the key to early detection of new invasive alien species. Monitoring should include both targeted and general surveys, and benefit from the involvement of other sectors, including local communities. Research on an invasive alien species should include a thorough identification of the invasive species and should document: (a) the history and ecology of invasion (origin, pathways and time-period); (b) the biological characteristics of the invasive alien species; and (c) the associated impacts at the ecosystem, species and genetic level and also social and economic impacts, and how they change over time.

Guiding principle 6: Education and public awareness

Raising the public's awareness of the invasive alien species is crucial to the successful management of invasive alien species. Therefore, it is important that States should promote education and public awareness of the causes of invasion and the risks associated with the introduction of alien species. When mitigation measures are required, education and public-awareness-oriented programmes should be set in motion so as to engage local communities and appropriate sector groups in support of such measures.

B. Prevention

Guiding principle 7: Border control and quarantine measures

States should implement border controls and quarantine measures for alien species that are or could become invasive to ensure that:

Intentional introductions of alien species are subject to appropriate authorization (principle 10);

Unintentional or unauthorized introductions of alien species are minimized.

States should consider putting in place appropriate measures to control introductions of invasive alien species within the State according to national legislation and policies where they exist.

These measures should be based on a risk analysis of the threats posed by alien species and their potential pathways of entry. Existing appropriate governmental agencies or authorities should be strengthened and broadened as necessary, and staff should be properly trained to implement these measures. Early detection systems and regional and international coordination are essential to prevention.

Guiding principle 8: Exchange of information

States should assist in the development of an inventory and synthesis of relevant databases, including taxonomic and specimen databases, and the development of information systems and an interoperable distributed network of databases for compilation and dissemination of information on alien species for use in the context of any prevention, introduction, monitoring and mitigation activities. This information should include incident lists, potential threats to neighbouring countries, information on taxonomy, ecology and genetics of invasive alien species and on control methods, whenever available. The wide dissemination of this information, as well as national, regional and international guidelines, procedures and recommendations such as those being compiled by the Global Invasive Species Programme should also be facilitated through, inter alia, the clearing-house mechanism of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The States should provide all relevant information on their specific import requirements for alien species, in particular those that have already been identified as invasive, and make this information available to other States.

Guiding principle 9: Cooperation, including capacity-building

Depending on the situation, a State's response might be purely internal (within the country), or may require a cooperative effort between two or more countries. Such efforts may include:

Programmes developed to share information on invasive alien species, their potential uneasiness and invasion pathways, with a particular emphasis on cooperation among neighbouring countries, between trading partners, and among countries with similar ecosystems and histories of invasion. Particular attention should be paid where trading partners have similar environments;

Agreements between countries, on a bilateral or multilateral basis, should be developed and used to regulate trade in certain alien species, with a focus on particularly damaging invasive species;

Support for capacity-building programmes for States that lack the expertise and resources, including financial, to assess and reduce the risks and to mitigate the effects when introduction and establishment of alien species has taken place. Such capacity-building may involve technology transfer and the development of training programmes;

Cooperative research efforts and funding efforts toward the identification, prevention, early detection, monitoring and control of invasive alien species.

C. Introduction of species

Guiding principle 10: Intentional introduction

No first-time intentional introduction or subsequent introductions of an alien species already invasive or potentially invasive within a country should take place without prior authorization from a competent authority of the recipient State(s). An appropriate risk analysis, which may include an environmental impact assessment, should be carried out as part of the evaluation process before coming to a decision on whether or not to authorize a proposed introduction to the country or to new ecological regions within a country. States should make all efforts to permit only those species that are unlikely to threaten biological diversity. The burden of proof that a proposed introduction is unlikely to threaten biological diversity should be with the proposer of the introduction or be assigned as appropriate by the recipient State. Authorization of an introduction may, where appropriate, be accompanied by conditions (e.g., preparation of a mitigation plan, monitoring procedures, payment for assessment and management, or containment requirements).

Decisions concerning intentional introductions should be based on the precautionary approach, including within a risk analysis framework, set forth in principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the preamble of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Where there is a threat of reduction or loss of biological diversity, lack of sufficient scientific certainty and knowledge regarding an alien species should not prevent a competent authority from taking a decision with regard to the intentional introduction of such alien species to prevent the spread and adverse impact of invasive alien species.

Guiding principle 11: Unintentional introductions

All States should have in place provisions to address unintentional introductions (or intentional introductions that have become established and invasive). These could include statutory and regulatory measures and establishment or strengthening of institutions and agencies with appropriate responsibilities. Operational resources should be sufficient to allow for rapid and effective action.

Common pathways leading to unintentional introductions need to be identified and appropriate provisions to minimize such introductions should be in place. Sectoral activities, such as fisheries, agriculture, forestry, horticulture, shipping (including the discharge of ballast waters), ground and air transportation, construction projects, landscaping, aquaculture including ornamental aquaculture, tourism, the pet industry and game-farming, are often pathways for unintentional introductions. Environmental impact assessment of such activities should address the risk of unintentional introduction of invasive alien species. Wherever appropriate, a risk analysis of the unintentional introduction of invasive alien species should be conducted for these pathways.

D. Mitigation of impacts

Guiding principle 12: Mitigation of impacts

Once the establishment of an invasive alien species has been detected, States, individually and cooperatively, should take appropriate steps such as eradication, containment and control, to mitigate adverse effects. Techniques used for eradication, containment or control should be safe to humans, the environment and agriculture as well as ethically acceptable to stakeholders in the areas affected by the invasive alien species. Mitigation measures should take place in the earliest possible stage of invasion, on the basis of the precautionary approach. Consistent with national policy or legislation, an individual or entity responsible for the introduction of invasive alien species should bear the costs of control measures and biological diversity restoration where it is established that they failed to comply with the national laws and regulations. Hence, early detection of new introductions of potentially or known invasive alien species is important, and needs to be combined with the capacity to take rapid follow-up action.

Guiding principle 13: Eradication

Where it is feasible, eradication is often the best course of action to deal with the introduction and establishment of invasive alien species. The best opportunity for eradicating invasive alien species is in the early stages of invasion, when populations are small and localized; hence, early detection systems focused on high-risk entry points can be critically useful while post-eradication monitoring may be necessary. Community support is often essential to achieve success in eradication work, and is particularly effective when developed through consultation. Consideration should also be given to secondary effects on biological diversity.

Guiding principle 14: Containment

When eradication is not appropriate, limiting the spread (containment) of invasive alien species is often an appropriate strategy in cases where the range of the organisms or of a population is small enough to make such efforts feasible. Regular monitoring is essential and needs to be linked with quick action to eradicate any new outbreaks.

Guiding principle 15: Control

Control measures should focus on reducing the damage caused as well as reducing the number of the invasive alien species. Effective control will often rely on a range of integrated management techniques, including mechanical control, chemical control, biological control and habitat management, implemented according to existing national regulations and international codes.

Summary overview of health management and alien species in aquatic ecosystems

Michael Phillips
C.V. Mohan
and Rohana Subasinghe

Introduction

This presentation provided an introduction to aquatic animal health aspects of trans-boundary movement and introductions of alien species, noting the relevant international and regional agreements and suggestions for practical implementation in the Mekong/Lancang region.

Trans-boundary aquatic animal diseases are a major risk and an important constraint to the growth of aquaculture. Aquatic alien species could either be pathogens, that may cause trans-boundary aquatic animal diseases, or could harbor aquatic animal pathogens that lead to diseases and epizootics in aquaculture following introduction of alien species. Aquatic alien species, and aquatic animal pathogens, are trans-boundary problems with potential to impact on international trade, aquaculture and fisheries and the people whose livelihoods depend on aquatic resources.

Aquatic species have been moved around the world for various purposes. There are many examples of positive socio-economic benefits from introductions of aquatic species, including improved livelihoods, increased production and trade. However, there are equally cases where serious negative impacts have resulted. Where introductions are necessary, they should be conducted in a responsible and transparent way using appropriate measures to assess and manage risks.

Live aquatic animals are moved actively to support subsistence and commercial aquaculture in Asia. Live aquatic animals though appearing healthy, often carry serious pathogens. Examples of introduction of pathogens to new aquatic systems and hosts leading to serious consequences in the Asia-Pacific region include Epizootic Ulcerative Syndrome (EUS) in fresh and brackishwater fishes, WSSV and TSV in cultured shrimp and VNN in grouper. Continued occurrence of koi mass mortality in Indonesia and the recent outbreak of KHV in Japan are grim reminders of dangers associated with trans-boundary spread of pathogens. Careful examination of the history and spread of these diseases in the region indicate how irresponsible or ill-considered movements of live animals can impact aquaculture and wild fisheries resources. In many cases, these impacts are a direct result of absence of national and regional disease management strategies or non-compliance by stakeholders to such strategies.

Aquatic species are widely moved within and between countries and watersheds in the Mekong region and between the region and elsewhere. Therefore, the risk of trans-boundary aquatic animal disease problems in the region is considerable. Adaptation and adoption of relevant regional or international standards, codes or guidelines for trans-boundary movement could have far reaching positive implications for responsible development of subsistence and commercial aquaculture and fisheries in the Mekong/Lancang region.

International agreements

Various global instruments, codes of practice and guidelines (either voluntary or obligatory) exist that provide certain levels of protection, all aimed at minimizing the risks due to pathogens/diseases associated with aquatic animal movement (FAO/NACA, 2000). There are a number of international agreements that directly relate to health management and trans-boundary movement of live aquatic animals, or include provisions that consider the risks and management of risk associated with introduction of aquatic animal pathogens through trans-boundary movement. These include:

FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, created in 1995, sets out principles and international standards of behaviour for responsible practices with a view to ensuring the effective conservation, management and development of living aquatic resources, with due respect for the ecosystem and biodiversity.

Code of Practice on the Introductions and Transfers of Marine Organisms (ICES), created in 1973 and updated in 1994, gives recommended procedures and practices to reduce the risks of detrimental effects from the intentional introduction and transfer of marine (including brackish water) organisms. Endorsed by FAO Regional Fishery Bodies.

Cartagena protocol on Bio-safety, adopted in 2000 under the Convention on Biological Diversity and in force from September 2003, seeks to protect biological diversity from the potential risks posed by living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology.

Convention on Biological Diversity, adopted in 1992 and in force from 1993, its objectives are the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources.

World Trade Organization (WTO), established in 1995 is the only global international organization dealing with the rules of trade between nations. The Sanitary and Phyto-sanitary agreement specifically addresses the management of diseases and pathogens associated with trans-boundary movements.

World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), established in 1924, in association with WTO helps, inter alia, guarantee the sanitary safety of world trade by developing sanitary rules for international trade in animals and animal products.

Regional Technical Guidelines

Within Asia, The Asia Regional Technical Guidelines on Health Management for the Responsible Movement of Live Aquatic Animals and their associated implementation plan, the Beijing Consensus and Implementation Strategy (BCIS), (FAO/NACA, 2000) provide expert guidance for national and regional efforts in reducing the risks of disease due to trans-boundary movement of live aquatic animals.

The preparation of Technical Guidelines and the Manual of Procedures were jointly initiated by FAO and NACA in 1998 through an FAO Technical Cooperation Programme (TCP) Project -“Assistance for the Responsible Movement of Live Aquatic Animals”, with the participation of 21 countries from throughout the region. This program complemented FAO's efforts in assisting member countries to implement the relevant provisions in Article 9 - Aquaculture Development -of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF), at both the national and regional levels. The Technical Guidelines are supported by a detailed Manual of Procedures and Asia Diagnostic Guide (FAO/NACA, 2001; Bondad-Reantaso et al., 2001).

The Technical Guidelines provide valuable guidance for national and regional efforts to reduce these risks and a strong platform for mutual cooperation at the national, regional and international levels. There is strong technical and political endorsement from regional, inter-governmental and global organizations and a shared commitment from national governments to support its implementation.

Among the 21 governments adopting the Technical Guidelines include the countries of the Mekong/Lancang basin of China, Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam. Further strengthening their implementation in the Mekong region, and Southeast Asia, was their adoption as a policy document by the ASEAN Fisheries Working Group in 2001. The major elements of the Technical Guidelines are provided in Box I (Part I). The framework provided by the guidelines and implementation strategy (Box I, Part II is a comprehensive one that includes all major requirements for managing risk associated with live aquatic animal movements

Implementation

There has been considerable progress in implementation of the Technical Guidelines in several countries in Asia, however, progress in some countries is limited. As implementation of the Technical Guidelines is a long-term process, continuous effort to motivate and support governments in initiating their health management programs is required. Regional workshops where governments come together and share knowledge and lessons learnt have proved useful in the past, and should be initiated where appropriate to facilitate the process of implementation. Such actions may be required in the Mekong/Lancang region. Governments tend to give more attention to their international obligations when trade issues start to affect them, and aquatic animal diseases are becoming a more significant international trade issue. Commitment and willingness on the part of the governments is a primary basis for implementation of the Technical Guidelines.

Developing and implementing a regional reporting system is one of the elements contained in the Technical Guidelines. The NACA/OIE/FAO Quarterly Aquatic Animal Disease (QAAD) Reporting System is an example of such cooperation in the Asian Region. The NACA/OIE/FAO list includes all diseases listed by OIE plus diseases of concern to the region. A comprehensive surveillance program with data and reports collected in a national aquatic animal health information system can provide the basis for regional and international disease reporting.

Implementation (with special reference to the Mekong/Lancang system)

The Technical Guidelines emphasise the concept of “phased implementation” according to capacity and needs and the importance of cooperation in their implementation. The implementation strategy for the Technical Guidelines emphasizes “joint activities in risk reduction in shared watersheds” and gives specific mention of the need for cooperation in health management and responsible movement of live aquatic animals in the Mekong/Lancang river system. In some of the countries in the Mekong system, there is an urgent need to encourage governments to initiate programs to address national aquatic animal health management issues outlined in the Technical Guidelines.

Many epidemic aquatic animal diseases do not respect borders and can spread very rapidly from country to country. There is also a different capacity for health management among the countries in the Mekong/Lancang region. Neighbouring countries therefore should therefore cooperate closely in the control of these diseases. Part of this cooperation should be the rapid sharing of information on new disease occurrences and the spread of existing epidemic diseases to new areas, particularly near shared borders.

The following issues were presented for further consideration and discussion during the workshop:

• the importance of legislation and policy frameworks to support implementation;

• the need for national coordination and institutional cooperation, including between veterinary and fishery authorities, and identification of a “Competent” authority;

• the need to understand risks, and focus on key pathogens of concern for the Mekong/Lancang region;

• the importance of proper assessment of risk, and development of strategies for the region based on risk;

• building capacity for diagnostics, harmonization of approaches, and resource centres with clear responsibilities, including sharing of capacity among countries in the Mekong/Lancang region;

• disease zoning and cooperation within the Mekong/Lancang region, for example to maintain the reduce the risks of spread to watersheds with low disease incidence, or where there are particular risks to indigenous stocks;

• the importance of awareness and capacity building among stakeholders, including farmers and local extension officers;

• the need for effective communication on aquatic animal health issues and disease status among countries in the region to share knowledge on disease status, control measures, and to deal collectively with serious problems;

• the need for private sector/farmer participation and ownership;

• the need to be realistic about health management programs based on available financial resources, and make effective use of existing institutional resources;

• the importance of monitoring and evaluation of health management programs, and building systems gradually, with regular evaluation and exchange of experience.

Conclusion

Aquaculture in the Mekong/Lancang region is active, expanding and diversifying (Phillips,2002). Increased aquaculture development in the Mekong basin will likely lead to more aquatic animaldisease outbreaks, and serious disease outbreaks and pathogens could easily spread beyond watersheds and national boundaries. Although poorly understand, risks will include socio-economic impacts on the livelihoods of small-scale aquaculture farmers, and possibly impacts on wild fish species and fisheries. Stakeholders will also consider introduction of alien species and continue to move species between countries in the region. Aquaculture has suffered enormous losses due to trans-boundary diseases, and increasing risks are expected in future as aquaculture expands in the region.

Stakeholders intending to import live aquatic animals need to adopt more effective risk management measures, based on international and regional agreements. Such agreements should be specifically adapted -and made practical to implement -in the circumstances within the region. Data gathering, analysing and sharing information on the health of aquatic animals will become increasingly important to aid decision makers in developing sound policy. Such government policies, with active awareness raising and engagement by the farming community, will not only help in disease control but also facilitate responsible movement of aquatic animals both within and between countries in the Mekong/Lancang region. Only through strong resolve and commitment among stakeholders, can responsible health management and development of aquaculture be assured. In the Mekong/Lancang region, cooperation among all the riparian countries will be an essential element of responsible aquaculture development for the region.

This workshop should provide the basis for discussing an aquaculture health management strategy for the Mekong/Lancang region as part of the discussion on responsible trans-boundary movement of live aquatic animals.

References

FAO/NACA. 2000. Asia regional technical guidelines on health management for the responsible movement of live aquatic animals and the Beijing consensus and implementation strategy. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 402. Rome, FAO. 2000. 53pp.

FAO/NACA. 2001. Manual of procedures for the implementation of the Asia Regional Technical Guidelines on Health Management for the Responsible Movement of Live Aquatic Animals. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 402. Suppl. 1. Rome, FAO. 2001. 106pp.

Bondad-Reantaso, M.G., McGladdery, S.E., East, I. and Subasinghe, R.P. (Eds.) (2001). Asia Diagnostic Guide to Aquatic Animal Diseases. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 402, Supplement 2. Rome, FAO. 240 pp.

NACA/FAO. 2003. Quarterly Aquatic Animal Disease Report (Asia and Pacific Region). 2003/4, October to December 2003.

Phillips, M.J. 2002. Freshwater aquaculture in the lower Mekong basin. Mekong River Commission Technical Paper Number 7. Mekong River Commission, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. 62 pp.

¹ Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992). United Nations General Assembly report A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I). New York.

² The Jakarta Mandate on Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity is part of the Ministerial Statement on the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, as adopted at the Second Ordinary Meeting of the Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, 6–17 November 1995, Jakarta, Indonesia.

³ Cartagena is the name of the city in Colombia where the Biosafety Protocol was originally scheduled to be concluded and adopted in February 1999. However, due to a number of outstanding issues, the Protocol was finalized and adopted a year later on 29January 2000 in Montreal, Canada.

⁴ Pilot phase of the CBD Clearing-House. September 2003. CBD. Available at http://bch.biodiv.org/ Pilot/Home.aspx

⁵ Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, Uruguya Round Agreement (Article 1–11). WTO. Available at www.wto.org

⁶ COP 6 - Sixth Ordinary Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, The Hague. The Netherlands (7–19 April 2002). Decision VI/23. http://www.biodiv.org/decisions/default.asp?lg=0&dec=VI/23)