82
and effi ciency, as well as lowering the costs of both damage and undertaken actions
(COM/2013/0620fi nal).
The Committee on Fisheries ( 2013 ) and the Committee on International Trade
( 2013 ) of the European Parliament formulated their opinions on the proposal. The
former Committee concentrated on matters that were of relevance to the marine
environment or aquaculture. A proposed amendment, among others, was with
regard to the list of invasive species of importance to the EU. It was felt that such a
list should be kept open and regularly revised and that it should take into account
that there are invasive species native to some European regions but alien to others.
In other words, the required course of action might differ between Member States
(MS). Moreover, it was felt that the public should be kept informed and that a scientifi c advisory group should be established since scientifi c advice is seen as a ‘key
to the successful implementation and oversight of the proposed legislation’ (Lemke
et al. 2010 ). Opinions were taken into consideration by the Committee on the
Environment, Public Health and Food Safety ( 2013 ) and included in the amendments laid down in its draft report on the proposed EC legislation mentioned above.
Finally, the Council adopted a new regulation on IAS and published it in the
Offi cial Journal of the European Union on 4 November 2014.
10 The new regulation
entered into force on 1 January 2015 with its main objectives being to ‘prevent,
minimise and mitigate the adverse effects of invasive alien species on biodiversity
and related ecosystem services , and on human health and safety as well as to reduce
their social and economic impact’.
11 The IAS problem was to be addressed in a
comprehensive way through three main types of interventions, i.e. prevention, early
detection and rapid eradication. It was also stated that IAS that were already widely
spread needed to be managed.
Nevertheless, at present there are a few mechanisms to support synchronisation
of approaches between neighbouring countries or countries in the Baltic subregion,
including Russia. Moreover, so far there is no common EU ballast water policy. It
seems that the EU is leaning towards ratifying and implementing the BWM
Convention. According to the 2013 Proposal (2013/0307COD), Member States that
identifi ed ballast waters as an important pathway would have to include in their
action plans measures of the BWMC (Article 11 of the proposal). However, Member
States are not obliged to ratify the Convention by the new EU regulation , as it is
stated in the document: ‘Action should build on the experience gained in the Union
and in Member States in managing certain pathways, including measures established through the International Convention for the Control and Management of
Ships Ballast Water and Sediments adopted in 2004. Accordingly, the Commission
should take all appropriate steps to encourage Member States to ratify that
Convention’.
12 Moreover, it was stressed by the Committee on Fisheries in its draft
note that although ballast water and hull fouling are the most signifi cant vectors of
AS introduction, only fi ve Member States have ratifi ed the BWMC. The Committee
10 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/index_en.htm
11 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R1143&from=EN
12 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R1143&from=EN
K. Smolarz et al.
and effi ciency, as well as lowering the costs of both damage and undertaken actions
(COM/2013/0620fi nal).
The Committee on Fisheries ( 2013 ) and the Committee on International Trade
( 2013 ) of the European Parliament formulated their opinions on the proposal. The
former Committee concentrated on matters that were of relevance to the marine
environment or aquaculture. A proposed amendment, among others, was with
regard to the list of invasive species of importance to the EU. It was felt that such a
list should be kept open and regularly revised and that it should take into account
that there are invasive species native to some European regions but alien to others.
In other words, the required course of action might differ between Member States
(MS). Moreover, it was felt that the public should be kept informed and that a scientifi c advisory group should be established since scientifi c advice is seen as a ‘key
to the successful implementation and oversight of the proposed legislation’ (Lemke
et al. 2010 ). Opinions were taken into consideration by the Committee on the
Environment, Public Health and Food Safety ( 2013 ) and included in the amendments laid down in its draft report on the proposed EC legislation mentioned above.
Finally, the Council adopted a new regulation on IAS and published it in the
Offi cial Journal of the European Union on 4 November 2014.
10 The new regulation
entered into force on 1 January 2015 with its main objectives being to ‘prevent,
minimise and mitigate the adverse effects of invasive alien species on biodiversity
and related ecosystem services , and on human health and safety as well as to reduce
their social and economic impact’.
11 The IAS problem was to be addressed in a
comprehensive way through three main types of interventions, i.e. prevention, early
detection and rapid eradication. It was also stated that IAS that were already widely
spread needed to be managed.
Nevertheless, at present there are a few mechanisms to support synchronisation
of approaches between neighbouring countries or countries in the Baltic subregion,
including Russia. Moreover, so far there is no common EU ballast water policy. It
seems that the EU is leaning towards ratifying and implementing the BWM
Convention. According to the 2013 Proposal (2013/0307COD), Member States that
identifi ed ballast waters as an important pathway would have to include in their
action plans measures of the BWMC (Article 11 of the proposal). However, Member
States are not obliged to ratify the Convention by the new EU regulation , as it is
stated in the document: ‘Action should build on the experience gained in the Union
and in Member States in managing certain pathways, including measures established through the International Convention for the Control and Management of
Ships Ballast Water and Sediments adopted in 2004. Accordingly, the Commission
should take all appropriate steps to encourage Member States to ratify that
Convention’.
12 Moreover, it was stressed by the Committee on Fisheries in its draft
note that although ballast water and hull fouling are the most signifi cant vectors of
AS introduction, only fi ve Member States have ratifi ed the BWMC. The Committee
10 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/index_en.htm
11 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R1143&from=EN
12 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R1143&from=EN
K. Smolarz et al.