Roundtable Session 2: Does Legislation Work in Protecting Vulnerable Species?

Abstract

As a result of discussions held at the Innsbruck CRAYNET meeting and the answers given to a subsequent questionnaire sent out to the National Co-ordinators of the 11 countries/regions, it is clear that most European countries aim at trying to protect their indigenous crayfish species (ICS) from overexploitation, habitat modification, pollution, and spread of non-indigenous crayfish species (NICS) and crayfish plague.Two detailed case studies are given for Austria and England plus a summary of the questionnaires. These clearly illustrate the different attitudes of countries to protecting and managing their ICS and NICS. The situation is highly complex and differs depending upon whether or not there is a tradition for eating crayfish. Consequently, harmonisation of national and regional regulations for ICS and NICS in Europe may not be possible in the short term.In many cases legislation has not prevented further destruction of populations of ICS and the spread of NICS. However, without such legislation the situation could have been a lot worse and some ICS could already have become critically endangered. The continued efforts by the crayfish community and national authorities have resulted in a scenario where there are still some countries without NICS, and in most European countries there are specific areas with numerous, viable populations of ICS that are considered valuable and are protected by the authorities as well as by local people. The situation has recently been improved by providing protection for Austropotamobius torrentium under Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive. A major objective must be to develop methods for eradicating nuisance populations of NICS before they spread any further. Key-words:Europe, legislation, crayfish, indigenous, non-indigenous, EU Habitats Directive. -810 -des 11 pays membres de CRAYNET, il est clair que la plupart des pays européens ont pour volonté d'essayer de protéger leurs écrevisses indigènes (Indigenous Crayfish Species, ICS) de la surexploitation, des modifications de l'habitat, de la pollution, et de la dissémination des écrevisses non indigènes (Non Indigenous Crayfish Species, NICS) ainsi que de la peste de l'écrevisse.Deux cas d'étude détaillés relatifs à l'Autriche et l'Angleterre sont présentés ainsi qu'un résumé des questionnaires. Ces analyses illustrent clairement les attitudes différentes des pays en ce qui concerne la protection et la gestion de leurs ICS et NICS. La situation est très complexe et diffère en fonction de l'existence ou non d'une tradition de consommation des écrevisses. En conséquence, l'harmonisation des lois au niveau national et régional concernant soit les écrevisses indigènes (ICS) ou les écrevisses non indigènes (NICS) en Europe semble ne pas être possible à un court terme.Dans la plupart des cas la législation n'a pas empêché la destruction de nouvelles populations indigènes et la dissémination des écrevisses non indigènes. Cependant, sans une telle législation, la situation aurait pu être pire et quelques espèces indigènes ...

A review of the ever increasing threat to European crayfish from non-indigenous crayfish species

“…Fishing regulations may relate to ICS, NICS or both. The relevant legislation relating to freshwater crayfish varies across Europe (Vigneux et al, 2002, Edsman andSmietana, 2004) and within states (Puky et al, 2005), and its efficacy has been questioned (Holdich and Pöckl, 2005). Variable controls in trans-national catchments, notably the Danube system, are particularly problematic in regard to the spread of species (Puky et al, 2005;Pârvulescu et al, 2009), and European legislation is not strong enough in this regard.…”

“…Given below are a series of examples of the type of legislation in force in Europe regarding ICS and NICS; space does not permit every country to be dealt with. Further details of the situation in Britain and of that in Austria can be found in Holdich and Pöckl (2005).…”

Ornamental trade as a pathway for Australian ­redclaw crayfish introduction and establishment

“…Trade is usually not regulated, as the risk of C. quadricarinatus establishment, for example, in temperate regions, is considered very low (Holdich & Pöckel 2005), and, so far, no naturalization of C. quadricarinatus originating from the ornamental pet trade has been documented. In Singapore, the redclaw crayfish is readily available in aquarium shops and wet markets at prices ranging from US$ 0.75 per animal for juveniles to US$ 2.50 for mature adult individuals, which makes the species easily obtainable by the public.…”

Imports of ornamental crayfish: the first decade from the Czech Republic’s perspective

“…In addition to obvious direct competition that is very harmful for indigenous crayfish species (hereafter referred to as ICS) in Europe, there is crayfish plague caused by the oomycete Aphanomyces astaci which is transmitted by North American crayfish species which are asymptomatic carriers (Edgerton et al, 2004;Kozubíková et al, 2007). The danger of unintended introduction of NICS is reflected on France, Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Spain, and Sweden, where the import of live ornamental crayfish is completely banned (Edsman, 2004;Holdich and Pöckl, 2005;Peay, 2009). Two feasible solutions were suggested in previous studies in perspective of the Czech Republic Svobodová et al (2010) preferred totally banned trade with ornamental crayfish, whereas.…”