THE MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION COMPENDIUM

MULTILATERAL / FISHERIES
First Update; pages 404-409


_________________________________________________

======================================

Code of Practice for Minimizing the Risks of Introducing Fish Species, Cairo, 1990

________________________________


Done at Cairo 25 October 1990
Primary source citation: Copy of text provided by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations


_________________________________________

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Provisional Agenda Item 6(c) (v) COMMITTEE FOR INLAND FISHERIES OF AFRICA "Eighth Session "Cairo, Egypt, 21-25 October 1990

CODE OF PRACTICE FOR MINIMIZING THE RISKS OF INTRODUCTION OF FISH SPECIES

"Background

During the Sixth Session of the Committee for Inland Fisheries of Africa (CIFA) the need was recognized for a Code of Practice to reduce the risks of introductions of inland aquatic species into and within Africa. Pursuant to the suggestion that each country nominate a national expert to serve on a CIFA correspondence working group to study and develop such a code a group was set up in October 1986 with the following membership:

P.M. Denyoh (Ghana); J. Yonazi (Tanzania); G.N. Shimang (Nigeria); N. Boulous (Egypt); S. Mashapha (Lesotho); M. Diagne (Senegal).

This group examined the existing EIFAC/ICES Code of Practice and suggested that this Code be considered for acceptance by the Committee subject to certain modifications to bring it into line with the needs of CIFA. These observations were transmitted to the Seventh Session of CIFA who mandated the Secretariat to finalize the Code on the basis of comments received and to circulate it to member countries for comment.

The amended Code was transmitted to all member countries on 20 June 1988 and, as no replies have been received either in favour or against the Code in its present form, this is submitted to the Committee for approval.

CODE OF PRACTICE

(a) "Recommended procedure prior to reaching a decision regarding proposed introductions (this procedure does not apply to introductions or transfers which are part of current commercial practice)

(i) Member countries contemplating any introduction should be requested to present to CIFA or a designated sub-group of CIFA at an early stage information on the species, area of origin, proposed place of introduction and objectives, with such information on its habitat, associated organisms, etc., as is available. CIFA should then consider the possible outcome of the introduction and offer advice whether to proceed with further evaluation.

(ii) Appropriate authorities of the importing country should examine each "candidate for admission" to assess the justification for the introduction, its relationship with other members of the ecosystem, details of its biology and ecology and the possibility of introducing associated pathogenic organisms and parasites.

(iii) The probable effects of introduction into the new area should be assessed carefully, including an examination of the effects of any previous introductions of this or similar species in other areas, and a prediction of the final range of the species assuming it could form breeding populations in natural waters.

(iv) The above procedures (i, ii and iii) should be carried out by following the Review and Decision Model as set out in Appendix 1. (b) "Recommended action. If the decision is taken to proceed with the introduction, the following action is recommended:

(i) A broodstock should be established in an approved quarantine situation. Broodstocks should be developed from stocks imported as eggs, in order to minimize the possibility of contamination by pathogenic organisms, parasites or by other species of fish. All effluents from establishments used for quarantine purposes should be sterilized in an approved manner.

(ii) Should the importation of eggs not be possible, importations of juvenile or adult fishes to serve as broodstock should only be made with fish accompanied by a certificate as to their perfect state of health. This broodstock should be maintained in an approved quarantine situation.

(iii) If no communicable pathogenic organisms including parasites become evident, the first generation progeny, but not the original import, of the introduced species can be transplanted to culture sites, or to the natural environment, preferably to small isolated and restricted river basins or lakes.

(c)"

"Recommended actions after introduction

(i) A continuing study should be made of the introduced species in its new environment and progress reports submitted to CIFA. (ii) Every effort should be made to contain the species within the water bodies or water courses into which introduction was intended.

(d) "Regulatory agencies of all member countries are encouraged to use the strongest possible measures to prevent unauthorized or unapproved introductions and transfers

(e) "Recommended procedure for introductions or transfers which are part of current commercial practice (the procedure laid down by the "Draft Convention to prevent the spread of major communicable fish diseases" should be adhered to, especially:)

(i) Periodic inspection (including adequate microscopic and microbiological examinations) by the receiving country of material for prior mass transplantation to confirm freedom from introducable pests and diseases. If inspection reveals any undesirable development, importation must be immediately discontinued. Findings and remedial actions should be reported to CIFA. (ii) Inspection and control of each consignment on arrival.

(iii) Quarantining or disinfection where appropriate.

(iv) Establishment of broodstocks certified free of specified pathogens.

While the codes give broad direction toward control of introductions and transfers, there is still a need for more specific instruction on their implementation, i.e., a checklist of procedures to be followed for consideration of an introduction and follow-up instructions should one be approved.

"Consideration of Requests for Introductions or Transfers at the National Level

Any country dealing with or contemplating introductions or transfers of aquatic organisms (marine or freshwater) between countries or within national boundaries should have or enact legislation for regulating such activity. A national coordination/consultation mechanism to review, recommend on and monitor (when approval is granted) any such activity should be established to advise administrators on the use of the regulating legislation.

This national committee or working group would ensure that all prospective applicants, private or government, wanting to introduce or transfer species would submit properly prepared requests to be vetted for acceptability. Such a working group could actually be duplicated on a regional basis to reflect different environment conditions. Continuity on the national scene could be addressed by regions periodically meeting to discuss common goals and regional concerns and through adoption of the Code of Practice. Appropriate regulations would be required to ensure compliance with approved protocols should permission be granted. Potential applicants would have to be made aware of the regulations through a national education campaign.

Where an introduction into one country may adversely affect another, the national working group on introductions and transfers should forward the application to a duly constituted group of interested CIFA member countries for a risk analysis and recommendations prior to making a decision on an application.

APPENDIX I Review and Decision Model for Evaluating Proposed Introductions of Aquatic Organisms

"Level of Review I

(a) Purpose of introduction. Does the proposing entity have valid reasons for introducing the aquatic organism? Could no native species serve the same function?

(b) Abundance in native range. Knowledge of the population abundance of the organism in its native range is an important aspect of the evaluation. Is it endangered, threatened or rare? Is it exploited from the wild or under culture?

(c) Communicable pathogenic organisms and parasites. The evaluation would include assessing the safeguards for avoiding transmission of communicable pathogenic organisms or parasites to the proposed receiving system(s).

(d) Site of introduction. It is important to discern from the outset whether the organism would be stocked in an open or closed system. Would it be stocked in or have potential access to a major drainage? If it is to be maintained in a closed system, the proposing entity must identify steps it would take to guard against accidental escape.

"Decision I

A proposal for an introduction would be rejected if:

reasons for introduction were not deemed valid;

the introduction is for reasons other than conservation where the organism is endangered, threatened, or rare in its native range, or the proposing entity has not established that adequate safeguards would be taken to avoid introduction of communicable pathogenic organisms and parasites. The proposal would be approved at this stage when the above criteria are met and provided that the introduction is perceived as being limited to a closed system. When this last condition is not fully met, the evaluation process would proceed to the next level of review.

"Level of Review II

This and subsequent levels of review are directed to experts selected by the Working Group. In Level II the acclimation potential is assessed (Question 5 of the "opinionnaire"). Should pertinent information be insufficient, as evidenced by more than 50 percent of the experts marking "don't know" on the "opinionnaire", the Working Group might suggest that the proposing entity conduct research with a limited number of specimens under confined conditions for the purpose of obtaining the required data. The Working Group may suggest that all research be conducted within the organism's native range.

"Decision II

The proposal for the introduction would be approved when there is a strong chance that the organism would not establish a self-sustaining population, or when evidence is insufficient for making a seasonable prediction.

"Level of Review III

The level of review is based on predicting the potential impact of the organism on the ecological integrity of the system(s) where it is proposed for introduction. In addition, the analysis of benefit and risk would include assessing the array of potential impacts on man. Review at this level requires detailed knowledge on the ecological relations of the organism in its native habitat, as well as considerable information on the community structure of the proposed receiving system(s).

"Decision III

The introduction would be rejected if the available information suggests (average "opinionnaire" values 2) that the organism would exert a major adverse impact on the receiving system(s) or on man. The proposal would be approved when indications are for the opposite outcomes. If the available information is not considered conclusive, the evaluation should proceed to Level of Review IV. "Level of Review IV

Level of Review IV requires development of a detailed literature review based on the format for a Food and Agriculture Organization (United Nations) Species Synopsis. However, additional sections concerning impacts of introduction (documented or potential) would also be required. Once the synopsis is prepared, this information will be sent again to the experts so they can attempt to arrive at a recommendation.

"Decision IV

On the basis of an analysis of the second round of "opinionnaire" data, the Working Group would either approve or reject the proposed introduction. Additional review (Level V) would be necessary whenever the current data base is not considered sufficient, or if it is unclear whether the introduction is desirable.

"Level of Review V

This level of review requires that research be conducted to complete the species synopsis or to assess the potential impact of the introduction on the indigenous flora and fauna and habitats. It might be suggested that research be conducted under controlled conditions near the site where the introduction is contemplated or the Working Group may suggest that all studies be carried out within the organism's native range.

"Decision V

Using all information collected at this stage, the Working Group should be able to make an informed recommendation regarding the proposed introduction. However, the Working Group may find it necessary to suggest additional research if important questions remain to be resolved. In such a situation, the fifth and final evaluation stage would become a loop of the "Review" and "Decision" models until a recommendation could be made.

"Table 1 Opinionnaire for appraisal of introductions of aquatic organisms. (Kohler and Stanley, in press)

 
, Response, +, +, +, +, +

 

, No, Unlikely, Possibly, Probably, Yes, Do not know

1. Is the need valid and are no native species available that could serve the stated need?, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, X

2. Is the organism safe from over- exploitation in its native range?, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, X

3. Are safeguards adequate to guard against importation of disease/parasites?, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, X

4. Would the introduction be limited to closed system?, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, X

5. Would the organism be unable to establish a self-sustaining population in the range of habitats that would be available?, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, X

6. Would the organism have mostly positive ecological impacts?, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, X

7. Would most consequences of the introduction be beneficial to humans?, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, X

8. Is data base adequate to develop a complete species synopsis?, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, X

9. Does data base indicate desirability for introduction?, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, X

10. Based on all available information,, do the benefits of the exotic fish introduction outweigh the risks?, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, X

Note:

Each member of an evaluation board or panel of experts should circle the number which closer matches his/her opinion regarding the probability for the occurrence of the event. If information is unavailable or too uncertain: "do not know" should be marked.

"Table 2 Review and decision model for evaluating proposed introduction of aquatic organisms (Kohler and Stanley, in press) (simplified by Steinmetz, 1987)

Review level, Opinionnaire value*, Decision

 

"Level of Review I, , 1. Is the need valid and are no native species available that could serve the stated need?, 2 2, - reject - to next question

2. Is the organism safe from over- exploitation in its native range?, 2 2, - reject - to next question

3. Are safeguards adequate to guard against importation of disease/parasites?, 2 2 , - reject - to next question

4. Would the introduction be limited to closed system?, 3 3, - approve - to review level II

"Level of Review II, , 5. Would the organism be unable to establish a self-sustaining population in the range of habitats that would be available?, 3 3, - approve - to review level III

"Level of Review III, , 6. Would the organism have mostly positive ecological impacts?, 2 3 2 3, - reject - to review level IV - to next question

7. Would most consequences of the introduction be beneficial to humans?, 2 3 2 3, - reject - to review level IV - approve

"Level of Review IV, , 8. Is data base adequate to develop complete species synopsis?, 3 3, - conduct detailed lit.rev.(1) - to next question

9. Does data base indicate desirability for introduction?, 2 3 2 3, - reject - conduct research (2) - approve

10. Would benefits exceed risks?, 2 3, - reject - approve

(1) Thereafter next step question 9

(2) Research focused on potential impact on indigenous species and habitats. Thereafter question 10. Value 3 2 restart research

* Refer to Table 1

 

Response

 

No

Unlikely

Possibly

Probably

Yes

Do not know

1. is the need valid and are no native species available that could serve the stated need?

1

2

3

4

5

X

 
2.Is the organism safe from over- exploitation in its native range?

 

1

2

3

4

5

X

 
3.Are safeguards adequate to guard against importation of
disease/parasites?

1

2

3

4

5

X

 
4.Would the introduction be limited to closed system?

1

2

3

4

5

X

 
5.Would the organism be unable to establish a self-sustaining opulation in the range of habitats that would be available?

1

2

3

4

5

X

 
6.Would the organism have mostly positive ecological impacts?

1

2

3

4

5

X

 
7.Would most consequences of the introduction be beneficial to humans?

1

2

3

4

5

X

 
8.Is data base adequate to develop a complete species synopsis?

1

2

3

4

5

X

 
9.Does data base indicate desirability for introduction?

1

2

3

4

5

X

 
10.Based on all available information,, do the benefits of the exotic fish introduction outweigh the risks?

1

2

3

4

5

X

Table 1. Opinionnaire for appraisal of introductions of aquatic organisms. (Kohler and Stanley, in press)

 

Table 2

Review and decision model for evaluating proposed introduction of aquatic organisms (Kohler and Stanely, in press) (simplified by Steinmetz, 1987)

Review Level

Opinionnaire value*

Decision

Level of Review I

 

 

 
1.Is the need valid and are no native species available that could serve the stated need?

 

2

- reject

2

- to next question

 
2.Is the organism safe from over- exploitation in its native range?

 

2

- reject

2

- to next question

 
3.Are safeguards adequate to guard against importation of disease/parasites?

2

- reject

2

- to next question

 
4.Would the introduction be limited to closed system?

3

-approve

3

- to review level II

 
Level of Review II

 

 

 

 
5.Would the organism be unable to establish a self-sustaining population in the range of habitats that would be available?

3

-approve

3

-to review level III

 
Level of Review III

 

 

 

 
6.Would the organism have mostly positive ecological impacts?

2

 

-reject

3

2

-to review level IV

3

 

-to next question

 
7.Would most consequences of the introduction be beneficial to humans?

2

 

-reject

3

2

-to review level IV

3

 

-approve

 
Level of Review IV

 

 

 
8.Is data base adequate to develop complete species synopsis?

 

3

-conduct detailed lit.rev.(1)

3

-to next question

 
9.Does data base indicate desirability for introduction?

2

 

-reject

3

2

-conduct research (2)

3

 

-approve

 
10.Would benefits exceed risks?

2

-reject

3

-approve

(1) Thereafter next step question 9

(2) Research focused on potential impact on indigenous species and habitats. Thereafter question 10. Value 3 2 restart research.

 

* Refer to Table 1.