ROUNDTABLE SESSION 2: DOES LEGISLATION WORK IN PROTECTING VULNERABLE SPECIES?

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