EN    EN EN
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 8.4.2009 
SEC(2009) 453 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
 
accompanying the 
COMMUNICATION FROM TH E COMMISSION TO  
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 
 
Building a sustainable future for aquaculture 
 
A new impetus for the Strategy for the Sustainable Development of European 
Aquaculture 
  
Impact Assessment  
{COM(2009) 162 final} 
{SEC(2009) 454} 
 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Procedural issues and consultation of Interested Parties ..............................................4 
1.1. Introduction.............................................................................................................. .....4 
1.2. The consultation process...............................................................................................4 1.3. General overview on feedback and contributi ons received from the consultation exercise
............................................................................................................................... .......5 
1.4. Interservice Steering Group..........................................................................................7 1.5. Impact assessment – board opinion ..............................................................................7 2. What issue/problem is the policy/ proposal expected to tackle? ...................................8 
2.1. What is aquaculture?.....................................................................................................8  
2.2. Aquaculture as an answer to in creasing demand for aquatic food ...............................9 
2.3. Economic, social, and environmenta l dimensions of aquaculture..............................11 
2.4. What is the problem and why is action required?.......................................................12 2.5. Main factors influencing the developmen t of the aquaculture industry and underlying 
drivers of the problem.................................................................................................16 
2.6. Who is affected? .........................................................................................................2 5 
2.7. Does the EU have the right to act? .............................................................................26 3. What is the overall policy objective in terms of expected impacts?...........................28 
3.1. General objective ........................................................................................................2 8 
3.2. Strategic and policy-orientated objectives..................................................................28 4. What main policy optio ns are available to achieve the objective? .............................30 
5. Analysis of impacts.....................................................................................................31 5.1. General considerations................................................................................................31 5.2. Possible action to contribute achieving the objectives and their incremental effect under 
Option 2 ......................................................................................................................3 6 
5.3. Likely economic, social a nd environmental impacts..................................................42 
5.4. Overall estimates of possible environmen tal and socio-economic impacts depending on 
aquaculture growth scenarios......................................................................................48 
6. Comparing options......................................................................................................52 6.1. Comparing options......................................................................................................52 6.2. Preferred option .......................................................................................................... 58 
7. Monitoring and evaluation..........................................................................................58 
 
EN 3   EN ANNEX I ........................................................................................................................ ..........60 
ANNEX II....................................................................................................................... ..........87 
ANNEX III...................................................................................................................... ........106 
ANNEX IV ....................................................................................................................... ......122 
 
EN 4   EN 1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
1.1. Introduction 
This Impact Assessment accompanies the Commi ssion’s communication for a “strategy for the 
sustainable development of European aquacultur e”. It assesses and comp ares different possible 
options for the framework under which public authori ties in the EU could take  to provide the best 
conditions for sustainable growth of aquaculture in Europe, ensuring both adequate supplies of 
healthy seafood and compliance with high European standards (especially e nvironmental and health 
protection). This document is without prejudice to th e final content of the St rategy to be adopted by 
the Commission. 
It has to be highlighted that, given that the Commission Communication is a political initiative and 
envisages action for public authorities across a wide  range of different policy areas, this document 
is mainly based on qualitative analyses. It cannot analyse the impacts of eac h individual action; nor 
can it foresee the evolution of the European aquaculture industry in the future, as this largely 
depends on the decisions and action economic opera tors. Any specific legi slative proposals that 
may be presented subsequently to this Stra tegy for sustainable development of European 
aquaculture and that would normally require an im pact assessment will be accompanied by separate 
specific impact assessments. 
This initiative is referred to under ite m 2008/MARE/012 in th e Commission 2008 Work 
Programme. This impact assessment is based on the results of a broad stakeholder consultation exercise and internal and external data and reports. 
1.2. The consultation process 
This initiative started in spri ng 2007 in the form of a broad consultation exercise conducted by the 
Commission (DG MARE, formerly  DG FISH) on the opportunities for the development of 
Community aquaculture, with reference in par ticular to an earlier Communication of 2002 on an 
European aquaculture strategy (COM(2002)511 final). 
The Commission’s minimum standards for consulta tion have been met. The consultation phase 
lasted practically until the end of 2007 and wa s organised through three different types of 
consultation: 
• An internet-wide consultation exercise was initiated on 10 May 2007 (through “Your Voice in 
Europe” and the DG FISH – now DG MARE – we bsite). In order to provide guidance and 
facilitate the contribution fr om any interested party, DG MARE prepared a consultation 
document, together with other Commission DGs  (ENV, SANCO, RDT), highlighting the mains 
issues where opinions were sought. This consultation document was accompanied by 
background facts and figures  on European aquaculture.
1 This internet consultation exercise 
lasted until 16 July, but wr itten contributions continue d to be received later. 
• In parallel with the consultatio n published on the internet, specific consultation meetings were 
organised with representatives and members of each  of the main stakeholders and civil society 
                                                 
1 The consultation documents can be found at the following address: 
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/governance/consultations/consultation_100507_en.htm . 
 
EN 5   EN groups, namely finfish producers, shellfish producers, the fish feed industry, NGOs, and social 
partners. A similar invitation for a specifi c consultation meeting was offered to the 
representatives of the aquatic food processing and marketi ng sector, but this invitation was 
declined. 
• As a third step, the Commission organised a larg e stakeholder conference in Brussels on 15-16 
November 2007 in order to discuss the main ch allenges to the sustainable development of 
aquaculture in Europe and in particular the role of public authorities in this context.2 
An overarching follow-up and information excha nge on this initiative was conducted in the 
framework of the Advisory Committee for Fisher ies and Aquaculture (ACFA) and its Working 
Group 2, which is specifically dedicated to aqua culture. ACFA is the formal consultative body for 
the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). Both the ACFA  plenary session and its Working group 2 meet 
several times a year.3 
The initiative and consultation process were ac companied by a number of events on aquaculture 
organised by the European Parliament (Speci al hearings by the Intergroup on Sustainable 
Development in October 20074 and by the Committee on Fisherie s in March 2008). The Council of 
Fisheries Ministers also held an informal lunc htime debate on aquaculture at their June 2008 
meeting (under the Slovenian Presidency). Very recently, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) also contributed to the organisation of an Intern ational Aquaculture Conference 
(Brussels, September 2008).
5 
1.3. General overview on feedback and contri butions received from the consultation 
exercise 
Participants at each of the spec ific stakeholder meetings welcomed  this initiative and all expressed 
their satisfaction at being consu lted. Generally, these meetings were  held in “listening mode” and 
provided participants with the chance to air their concerns and problems. The choice of issue to be 
looked at and the extent of the di scussion on each subject were left to the various parties concerned. 
Stakeholder representatives attending these meeti ngs were also invited to submit their views in 
writing, preferably via the internet consultation  process. Depending on th eir availability, other 
Commission DGs (notably DG SANCO and DG ENV) also participated in those consultation 
meetings. 
Despite the official closure date for internet consultation of 16 Jul y, a number of written 
contributions continued to be received until the end of July, and two additional submissions were 
received by DG FISH around mid-September.  
In total, 46 written inputs had been submitted by 25 September 2007, which can be grouped into 
different categories of stakeholder:  
– Aquaculture producer organisa tions or businesses (14) 
– Feed industry (4) 
                                                 
2 See http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/meetings_events/events/archives/events_2007/conference_151107_en.htm . 
3 Minutes of the meetings are available at: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cf p/governance/acfa/minutes_en.htm . 
4 See http://www.ebcd.org/MeetingsEPISD2007-2007.htm . 
5 See http://www.ebcd.org/ . 
 
EN 6   EN – NGOs (4) 
– Scientists or scientific bodies (9) 
– Social partners (1) 
– Public bodies or similar (11); at nation al level (3) and regi onal/local level (8) 
– Regional interest groups (2) 
– Others (1) 
The contributions received were all rather substan tial, most of them being presented in accordance 
with the main chapters and associated questions set out in the consultation document prepared by 
DG FISH, namely: 
– The need for a Community strategy 
– The economic outlook of aquaculture in Europe 
– The environmental challenges faced by aquaculture, in term s of both the impact of 
aquaculture on the aquatic environment, and the strong dependency of aquaculture on an 
environment (water) of high quality 
– The challenges of providing healthy food, wh ile ensuring animal health and welfare 
– The prospects of a new area of domestic ation (new species, feed limitations) 
– The need to overcome space limitation throu gh spatial planning and/or technological 
innovation 
– The possibilities under the European Fisheries Fund 
– The strategic importance of research. 
The Conference on “European Aquaculture and its O pportunities for Development” held in Brussels 
in November 2007 crowned the consultation process. The event was attended by some 200 participants, including professionals from different sectors, representatives of national and regional 
authorities, scientists, non-governmental organisa tions and other stakehol ders, and the debate 
centred on the main problems and challenges facing the sustainable developm ent of aquaculture in 
Europe and in particular the role of the public authorities in this context. The Conference was also 
attended by represen tatives from several Commission DGs. 
There was quasi-consensus during the whole consu ltation process in favour of a Community-wide 
Strategy for the sustainable development of aqu aculture. The Conference e nded on the conclusion, 
already expressed in numerous written contributions  received, of the usefulness of developing a 
reviewed strategy to reflect evolving circumstances and challenges and to focus on the sustainable development of the sector through proactive measures , providing a level playi ng field and striking a 
better balance between environmental conservation and development of the aquaculture business. 
 
EN 7   EN 1.4. Interservice Steering Group 
Following this consultation exercise, an Interser vice Steering Group was formally set up in January 
2008. Given the importance of their respective policies with regard to the sustainable development 
of European aquaculture, DGs E NV, SANCO, RTD, TRADE, ENTR and the Secretariat-General 
were invited to partic ipate in this Group.  
The evaluation of the opportuni ties and challenges for European  aquaculture, mainly conducted 
through the broad consultation proce ss in 2007, identified a wide va riety of different bottlenecks 
individually and collectively aff ecting the aquaculture sector. Th e Steering Group agreed that the 
overall objective of EU should be to help create a suitable business environment for the aquaculture 
industry that complies in full with the high EU level of consumer and environmental protection 
established by the Treaty. 
In order to take account of the extensive and varied  input received in the consultation, the Steering 
Group decided to set up thematic working groups (o n topics such as envir onmental issues, animal 
health issues, market issues, research and innov ation, etc.). These working groups brought together 
representatives from the main DGs  concerned, under the lead DG for th e policy issue at stake, with 
the task of providing the Steeri ng Group with input on the respec tive themes of interest and 
identifying possible measures and their potential impact (environment, social, economic aspects). 
Each working group was asked to consider the challenges faced by the aquaculture sector under its 
respective theme of work and to  envisage options to addre ss these specific problems.  
The working groups focused on action that ma y fall under the responsib ility of the public 
authorities and on action th at would benefit from an efficient and effective EU added value (vs. 
possible action that would fall under national competence by virtue of the principle of subsidiarity). 
The groups were also asked to consider possible action under the principle of  proportionality and in 
the light of work undertaken or in preparation. These measures  should not pre-empt possible 
horizontal or large-scale initiatives in the medi um term (e.g. post-2012 EU financing policies and 
instruments), which would go well beyond this sector -specific initiative. C onsequently, the working 
groups focused on concrete measures considered to be feasible within the next few years. 
The Interservice Steering Group met four times between January and September 2008, but did not 
establish a specific or separate impact assessme nt. Moreover, considering that a Communication on 
a Strategy is primarily designed to establish genera l guidance principles, any specific action to be 
considered subsequently to this Strategy will be accompanied by an impact assessment. 
1.5. Impact assessment – board opinion 
A draft impact assessment report was submitted to the Impact Assessment Board on 29 October. 
Following a discussion between the Board and DG MARE on 19 November, the Impact 
Assessment Board presented its opinion on 24 November, in wh ich it called for a number of 
important changes to the report,  to which DG MARE had agreed. 
The general opinion was as follows:  
“The report should better present and integrate th e changes to the strategy which have resulted 
from the impact assessment work. In this context, it s hould assess more fully  the outcome of the 
strategy of 2002 and present the lessons learned. The reasons for providing support to this specific economic sector should be furt her justified. The sustainability cr iteria should be clarified. The 
definition and presentation of the options should be improved and the possible actions should be 
 
EN 8   EN linked clearly to the problems and objectives. The assessment should include a reasonable 
quantification of the impacts. 
During the meeting with the Board, DG MARE agreed to  revise the impact assessment on this basis. 
Given the nature of the recommendations, the Board would like to examine a revised draft IA report 
on which it will issue a new opinion”. 
Numerous changes were made as a result of the Board’s opinion. Section 2 of the report has been 
significantly revised to give a fu ller description of the evaluati on of the 2002 strategy. The report 
also underscores the justification to refocus some of the strategi c objectives compared to 2002, and 
reformulates some of the strategic and policy object ives (cf. section 3). The other sections have 
been adapted accordingly where necessary. It also clarifies the results of the assessment and the 
limits of the initiative as regards Community financial fra meworks adopted by the Council and 
providing possible support to measures in aquacu lture (“FIFG and EFF regulations”) (see section 
2), notably through a better presentation of the po ssibilities that had been envisaged under Option 2 
(section 4 & 5.1). The actions pla nned under option 2 have been incorporated from the annexes 
directly in the main text (Section 5.2). Similarl y, the numerous factors and drivers contributing to 
the situation (cf. section 2.5) are described in fa r more detail (by incorporating into the main body 
of this report, data from the annex of the earlie r draft). The aim was to improve the readability of 
the report and to show a clear li nk between the specific problems identified, the possible measures 
envisaged and their contribution to the strategic and policy obj ectives. Further elaboration on 
overall quantitative estimates of imp acts has been provided under section 5.4. 
On 4 February 2009, the Impact Assessment Board submitted a new opinion on the revised draft IA 
report, where it recognised the positive aspects of the first changes made, but also considered that 
the report would benefit from ma king the criteria defining sustaina bility more explicit (monitoring 
indicators) and reworking the tabl e of possible measures in secti on 5.2 to bring it more into line 
with the text. The IA Board also made a number  of recommendations regarding presentation of the 
draft report.  
This final report addresses the second sets of co mments from the Board, while  keeping the first set 
of comments in mind. 
2. WHAT ISSUE /PROBLEM IS THE POLICY /PROPOSAL EXPECTED TO TACKLE ? 
The general issue, presented in mo re detail below, is that, while aquaculture in the EU guarantees 
the availability of products that are healthy, safe  and of good quality, promotes high animal health 
and welfare standards, and is re gulated and managed in an envi ronmentally sound industry, the EU 
aquaculture industry is stagnating  in terms of overall production, in direct contrast with the 
economic development and growth observed globally  in this industry. Desp ite numerous assets, 
such as the high quality of aquaculture products,  the high demand for aquatic food by EU citizens 
and top European research and t echnological innovation in this relatively new farming activity, the 
Community aquaculture sector fa ces a number of challenges that are preventing it from taking full 
advantage of development opportunities in this industry. 
2.1. What is aquaculture? 
Aquaculture consists of rearing or cultivating aquatic organisms (i.e. plants and animals) using 
techniques designed to increase  the production of the organism s in question beyond the natural 
capacity of the environment. It also differs from capture fisheries by virtue of the fact that these 
 
EN 9   EN aquatic organisms remain the property of the na tural or legal person throughout the rearing and 
cultivation stage, up to and including harvesting. 
The European Aquaculture is a very  varied industry. While cultivati on of aquatic plants and algae is 
still marginal in Europe, farming of aquatic animal s is mainly composed of three major sub-sectors: 
marine shellfish farming (e.g. oysters and mussels), marine finfish farming (salmon, sea bass and sea bream being the most important) and freshwater finfish farming (trout, car p, eel, etc.). Most of 
the EU production is made up of  about ten major species, whereas  data from FAO indicate that 
there are about one hundred different aquatic species farmed in Europe.
6 In addition, aquatic species 
can be farmed by a variety of different methods  and with varied tec hniques: from fully open 
systems to totally closed and controlled recirc ulation systems, and from extensive to highly 
intensive production on land, in lakes, in ponds fed by rivers or even groundwat er, at sea in lagoons, 
or near the shore or offshore, etc. 
There are also a wide variety of types of enterpri ses, ranging from part-time subsistence activities 
among rural families (in particular for traditiona l fresh water fish species) to publicly traded 
international corporations (especially for marine  fish species such as  salmon, sea bass or sea 
bream). With very few exceptions (e.g. polychaet e worms for bait, ornamental fish), all EU 
aquaculture production is intended as food for human consumption. 
A more detailed description of the main sub-sectors of European aqu aculture is given in Annex I of 
this report. 
2.2. Aquaculture as an answer to increasing demand for aquatic food 
The data referred to in this Impact Assessment Re port have been extracted from different sources 
and may be subject to minor variation. However, th is does not change the gl obal analysis of trends 
and the overall evaluation. 
At global level, aquaculture production is growi ng more rapidly than any other food sector. The 
contribution of world aquaculture to global supp lies increased from 3.9%  of total production by 
weight in 1970 to 27.1% in 2000 and to 34.0% in 2005.7 
Projections of global trends obs erved since 1990 on fisheries and aquaculture production and on 
per-capita consumption levels indica te that if capture fisheries is kept at current levels, which may 
appear rather optimistic in view of the state of  stocks or the possible consequences of climate 
change, global aquaculture production should rise  to around 70 million tonnes by 2025 if current 
consumption levels are maintained or even 91 million tonnes if consumption levels increase, as is the case in many countries. The very important ro le that aquaculture is expected to play in 
satisfying the present and future demand for seafood is also confirmed by numerous recent 
prospective studies, such as: 
– “Aquaculture 2020 – Transcending the Barriers – as long as…” (Foresight analysis, The 
Research Council of Norway, 2005)
8 
                                                 
6 See http://www.fao.org/fishery/factsheets/en . 
7 J. Nierentz:  Overview of production and trade – the role of aquaculture fish supply; in the proceedings of 
“FAO Global Trade Conference on Aquaculture”, Ch ina, May 2007. 
8 See: http://www.forskningsradet.no/CSStorage/Flex_attachment/Aquaculture_2020_eng.pdf. 
 
EN 10   EN – “Driving forces for aquaculture – Different scenarios towards 2030 ” (by Ms K. 
Gravningen in the proceedings of the FAO global trade Conference on aquaculture – 
China, 29-31, May 2007)9 
– “Cinq scenarios pour la pisciculture française en 2021” (INRA – Septembre 2007)10 
– “Prospective analysis of the aquaculture sector in the EU”  (Joint Research Centre, IPTS 
Seville, September 2008)11 
Projections of global demand for fish  and seafood for human consumption 
 
020406080100120140160180
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030Million tonnesAdditional aquaculture production required to meet rising population & consumption
Aquaculture supply to meet rising population at static per capita consumption
Static capture fisheries production
Worst case capture fisheries production
 Minimum 
supp ly gap Maximum 
supp ly gap  
 
Source: JRC prospective analysis 
Total fish production in Eu rope is dominated by capture fisheries,  and is on the dec line. In 2004, the 
combined production from capture fisheries and a quaculture was 7.3 millions  tonnes (live weight 
equivalent). The average produc tion for 2002-2004 was 16% lower th an the average for 1994-96. In 
2005, aquaculture accounted for around 18%  of Europe’s aquatic food production. This proportion 
is gradually increasing, but mainly  due to a trend of d eclining capture fisherie s, as EU aquaculture 
production has not increased. Rising EU demand has so far been mainly met by rising fish imports 
(today, imports make up roughly 60-65% of  total fish supply to the EU). 
                                                 
9 See: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a1454e/a1454e00.pdf , pp. 19-26. 
10 See: http://www.inra.fr/coordination_piscicole/content/dow nload/3282/30855/version/1/file/prospective.pdf ;  
The English version: Scenarios for French fish farming to 2021: 
http://www.inra.fr/coordination_piscicole/content/downloa d/3350/31214/version/1/file/prospective_anglais.pdf
. 
11  Prospective analysis of the aquaculture sector in the EU Part 1: synthesis report and part 2: Characterisation of 
emerging aquaculture systems – cf. http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications . 
 
EN 11   EN Figure: European fish production  
(aquaculture & capture fisheries – live fish equivalent – EU-25) 
012345678910
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004Millions of tonnes (live weight)Aquaculture Fisheries
 
Source: JRC prospective analys is, based on Eurostat 2007 
On the other hand, average per-capita consumption in Europe has risen substant ially over the last 40 
years (about 24 kg fish/person/year in 2005 – data for EU25) and could well continue to increase.12  
2.3. Economic, social, and environmental dimensions of aquaculture  
Total aquaculture production in the EU was close to 1.3 million tonnes, worth some €2.9 billion,13 
in 2005. Most of this production is destined for the EU market. Despite the constant increase, 
exports of EU aquaculture produ cts remain limited (about 67 000 t onnes “live weight equivalent”, 
worth €278 millions, in 200714), while imports of fish into the EU continue to increase appreciably 
to fill the gap between demand and production (s ee above). Market challenges and production costs 
(fish fry, fish feed, labour, etc.) greatly influence the competitiveness of the EU aquaculture 
industry. 
Direct employment in the EU aquaculture sector is, according to the data available, approximately 
65 000 full-time jobs. In terms of the structure of the sector, the vast majo rity of enterprises are 
SMEs, although a small number of la rger enterprises do play  a significant role in  some specific sub-
sectors, particularly the salmon and sea bass/sea bream industries. More f acts and figures on the EU 
aquaculture industry and its socio-economic dimensions are provided in Annex I. 
Aquaculture plays an important role in wealth  creation, in local and regional structuring and 
development and therefore in social cohesion. There are aquaculture pr oduction sites in most 
regions of the EU and they contribute to employme nt and wealth in every part of Europe, be they 
coastal areas (shellfish and mari ne fish farming) or inland ar eas (freshwater aquaculture). The 
                                                 
12 According to their Operational Programmes for the Eu ropean Fisheries Fund, a nu mber of Member States 
expect a further increase in national fish consumption levels (e.g. BG, RO, CZ, SI, MT, DK) over the period 2007-2013. 
13 Source: Eurostat EU-27 (2005). 
14 Source: AND International; see Annex I. 
 
EN 12   EN aquaculture industry contributes to the development of regions, be they peripheral and rural areas or 
more urbanised zones (e.g. with the developm ent of closed recirculation systems).  
The aquaculture sector also makes an active contri bution to the conservation of the environment. As 
users of high quality water, fish and shellfish farmers actively ensure that water quality is maintained by the authorities responsible and other users. Extensive aquaculture in freshwater or 
along Europe’s coastlines is also a major play er in the conservation of wetlands and the 
preservation of the high biological diversity found in these somewhat fragile natural areas. The 
overall area of freshwater farming ponds in the EU-15 was about 60 000 ha, but since enlargement 
of the EU in 2004, this area for the EU-27 represents over 340 000 ha.
15 
2.4. What is the problem and why is action required? 
2.4.1.  The “2002 aquaculture strategy” 
In 2002, the European Commission presented a Co mmunication on a Strategy for the sustainable 
development of European aquaculture (COM(2002)511 final). 
As part of its vision for the future, the 2002 Strategy aimed at aquaculture “ reaching the status of a 
stable industry, guaranteeing long-term secure empl oyment, being able to cope with the main 
problems identified while ensuring he alth and environm ental protection” .  
This vision also stated that “ Aquaculture in the EU had developed well in the last two decades, and 
this was partly allowed by the many Community in itiatives that have been taken to support this 
sector. The Union had already a vast legal arm oury on aquaculture, and activities to enhance the 
legal framework were progressing. However, there wa s still room for further improvement, and the 
recent slowdown of growth had to be addressed” . 
In this 2002 strategy, the Commission defined three objectives, namely: 
– guaranteeing the availability of products th at are healthy, safe and of good quality, while 
promoting high animal health and welfare standards; 
– ensuring an environmentally sound industry; 
– creating long-term secure employment, in pa rticular in fisheries-dependent areas. 
This latter objective was particularly important in political terms at the time of adoption of the 2002 
Communication for a Strategy for EU aquaculture, as this period coincided with a major debate 
within the Council and the Eur opean Parliament on the Commission proposal tabled earlier in 2002 
for a reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (COM (2002)185 final), and part icularly its possible 
consequences on jobs losses  in the fisheries sector. 
The strategy recognised that the employment object ive was ambitious and foresaw an increase of 
8000 to 10000 Full Time Equivalent  jobs in aquacultu re over the 2003-2008 period. However, the 
2002 Strategy also highlighted that the success of this objective would depend on four sub-
objectives: 
                                                 
15 Laszlo Varadi;“Extensive aquacultu re in freshwater and its contributio n to rural development”; November 
2007. See: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/meetings_events/ events/archives/events_2007/151107/varadi.pdf . 
 
EN 13   EN – Increasing the European Union’ s aquaculture production growth  rate to 4% per year.  
– Solving the conflicts for space that were hindering the developmen t of aquaculture in 
some areas. 
– Promoting market development.  
– Improving governance in the aquaculture sector. 
To address the main problems and challenges for th is sector, this strategy proposed a number of 
measures to be taken at different levels by diff erent parties: the Community, Member States and 
also economic operators. 
2.4.2.  Evaluation of the “2002 Aquacultu re strategy” and lessons learned 
General considerations  
In essence, the EU-level measures identified in  2002 consisted of establishing (i.e. completing or 
reviewing) a regulatory context to ensure a high level of environmental, consumer and animal 
protection while creating a supportive framework to  encourage the sustainable development of 
aquaculture (through fisheries structural funds in  particular) and to stimulate research and 
innovation (through Community Research Programmes). 
One of the major strengths of this strategy  was certainly its political impact. This 2002 
Communication was welcomed by the Council and the European Parliament and by all stakeholders 
in general. It was the first time that the aquaculture sector had been at the forefront of a debate at 
EU level. 
However, as will be further expa nded in this report, one of the prime weaknesses of this strategy 
may have been in defining social and economic gr owth targets at EU level for a relatively new 
economic sector with a variety of  sub-sectors that was largely de pendent on a fast changing market 
environment and a legal and administrative framewor k that relied on actions  and decisions falling 
primarily within the responsibility  of national or regional public au thorities, and on decisions of 
economic operators, including consumers. 
Main deliverables  
At the beginning of 2007, a simplified mid-term a ssessment of the strategy allowed to draw the 
following main conclusions. 
The actions identified in the 2002 Strategy as fa lling under EU responsibility had been launched. 
Initiatives of a legislative and financial nature th at were put forward and in  some cases implemented 
consisted of:  
– amending the Financial Instrument for Fish eries Guidance (FIFG) in 2004 and providing 
additional support measures for a sustainable aquaculture sect or. The FIFG thus allowed 
Member States to support a number of measures  in line with the objec tives of the Strategy, 
not only towards more producti on where there were good market  prospects (e.g. measures 
to support investment or innovation in new a quatic species or speci es with interesting 
market prospects), but also towards increa sed environmental protection (e.g. development 
of techniques which substantially reduced environmental impacts; adhesion to Eco-
Management and Audit System), plus meas ures relating to publ ic health issues 
 
EN 14   EN (particularly in the shellfish sector in the cas e of toxic algal blooms) and projects promoted 
by the professional organisations, notably sm all-scale studies and research projects; 
– adopting the European Fisheries Fund16 for the 2007-2013 period. This builds on the same 
objectives and provides general support for the same type of measures (even additional 
support in some cases, such as aqua-envir onmental measures and animal health);  
– establishing EU rules to pr event risks to the environmen t due to the use of “non- 
indigenous species” in aquaculture;17 
– establishing EU rules on organic farming18, including for aquatic farming; 
– revising the EU “veterinary pharmaceutical package”19 in 2004; 
– revising the EU “animal health and diseas e control package” in aquatic animals20 in 2006; 
– revising and updating the “food hygiene package and consumer safety legislation” that also 
applies to aquatic food; 
– pursuing a supportive research policy (under the 6th Framew ork Programme) followed by 
the launch of the 7th Framework Programme. 
Other non-legislative initiatives of  interest to aquaculture were also set in motion (notably the 
follow-up to the recommendation on integrated coas tal zone management and the development of 
the new maritime policy). Further analysis – as announced in the 2002 strategy – did not prompt the 
Commission to consider that there was any need to develop any furthe r specific legislation (notably 
in the case of GM fish or the risks of escape in aquaculture). 
Contribution of theses de liverables to the objectives  
The above deliverables all made a significant contribution to two of the strategy’s objectives, 
namely: 
– guaranteeing the availability of products th at are healthy, safe and of good quality, while 
promoting high animal health and welfare standards; 
– ensuring an environmentally sound industry. 
As stated above, these objectives were not only achieved through addi tional or reviewed legislative 
measures. The FIFG provided financial support for priority measures in aquaculture geared to 
environmental protection, animal health and welfar e, consumer protection, as  well as investment in 
innovation and production (notably for new species  or production of sp ecies with good market 
prospects). Eligibility fo r FIFG support was to last  until the end of 2008. Moreover, FIFG-
supported research projects measures would only de liver several years after the financial framework 
had been put in place. 
                                                 
16 Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006. 
17 Regulation (EC) No 708/2007. 18 Regulation (EC) No 834/2007. 
19 Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and Directive 2004/28/EC. 
20 Directive 2006/88/EC. 
 
EN 15   EN As far as the 2002 objective of creating additio nal employment between 2002 and the end of 2008 
was concerned, data on employment in aquaculture were not available on a regular basis. A first 
study was launched in 2004,21 and a new assessment should have been made as from 2009 to assess 
employment trends during the period defined in the Strategy. In parallel, as regards a wider 
monitoring of the evoluti on of the sector at the EU level, the Commissi on presented proposals for 
improved monitoring of indicators in the aquacultu re sector (new proposals for the collection of 
statistics and data on aquaculture22). 
However, statistics on the volume of aquaculture production were, and continue to be, regularly 
available. As shown in the preceding chapter, m onitoring of these data demonstrated that the 
prospects for average annual tota l growth of 4% in Community aquaculture produc tion - identified 
as a necessary condition to increase the total number of  jobs in this sector - had not materialised. At 
the same time, worldwide aquacu lture production continued to grow  at a rate of close to 7 -9%, 
similar to the annual growth already obser ved between 1995 and 1999 (see figure below).23  
Evolution of the total aquaculture production in EU-
27 and in the World                                
(reference year 1995: Index based on quantity pr oduced) 
050100150200250
1995
1996
1997
1998
19992000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005IndexEU-27 production
G lobal production
 
This general stagnation of the ove rall EU production is not however reflected evenly across all the 
main aquaculture subsectors and in all Member St ates. Production of marine finfish species (notably 
sea bass and sea bream in some Mediterranean count ries,) continued to incr ease in general (with 
some annual variations), while a general decline was observed in a number of freshwater finfish 
species and shellfish, which make up about half  of total volume of EU production. Financial 
assistance provided by the Community to  investment in aquaculture, desi gned to act as a catalyst for 
investment and start-up and to encourage European  investors, has certainly stimulated growth in 
production, particularly in sea ba ss and sea bream. However, as  required with Community funds, 
grants of this kind are only made available wher e there are good market pr ospects and should not be 
allocated where there is a threat of overproducti on. Moreover, many of the m easures eligible under 
the FIFG are for non-production support (i.e. to increase environmental protection, to develop 
organic production, to improve c onsumer protection, etc.) and do not necessarily convert into 
changes in the volume of production. 
                                                 
21 Employment in the fisheries sector: current situation (FISH/2004/4); 
See http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/studies/employment_study_2006.pdf . 
22 COM(2006)864 final and COM(2007)196 final . 
23 According to recent communication from the FAO (i n “fish-farmer” magazine; Nov/Dec 2008), there are 
already signs that the rapid growth in the sector at gl obal level is also starting to slow down (6% a year from 
2004-2006). 
 
EN 16   EN As a result of this overall sta gnation, total EU aquaculture produc tion made up a mere 2% of the 
worldwide aquaculture production in 2005, which is well below its 4% share in 1996 and far less 
than the EU’s worldwide share of wild fish production (6.1%) in 2005.  
In conclusion, a simplified mid-term evaluation of  the 2002 Strategy for aquaculture indicated that 
one of its main objectives in te rms of production growth prospect s and job creation would not be 
achieved: overall EU aquaculture production does not benefit from the gr owth opportunities and 
economic prospects of this sector at a global leve l. As a consequence, the EU’s dependence on fish 
and shellfish imports, much of it farmed, is on the increase.  
In view of this general problem, the Commission initiated a broad consulta tion exercise in 2007 on 
the opportunities and challenges of European aqu aculture. This tied in with the collection of 
additional information and figures, which made for a more thorough evaluation of the situation, its 
main influencing factors and the major drivers of the problem, which are further described in 
section 2.5. 
2.5. Main factors influencing the development of  the aquaculture industry and underlying 
drivers of the problem 
One of the aims of the consultation exercise in 2007 was to provide an update of the main 
challenges facing the aquaculture industry. Annex II contains an ove rview of the outcome of this 
consultation exercise. 
To sum up, the Community aquacultur e sector still faces a series of  obstacles and challenges which 
seriously affect production. The high Community standards put European aquaculture at the 
forefront of sustainable development in the wo rld, in terms of both social and environmental 
impacts, but combined with other drivers, particularly economic a nd market ones, it makes it more 
difficult to compete price-wise w ith third-country producers (especia lly in Asia and South America 
where aquaculture production growth is the hi ghest in the world). Th e consultation process 
emphasised the need to unlock the potential of Eu ropean aquaculture and to  make full use of its 
assets and innovative capacity. Farmers may leav e the business if it is no longer sufficiently 
profitable or if it is no t given due recognition of its values, not ably in structuring rural areas and 
preserving their environmental features. Significant challenges also lie ahead for the aquaculture sector because of the intense competition for space and access to water it f aces with other economic 
developments or societal demands. There is gene rally a need for better coordination of existing 
policies and for some challenges to be deal t with at EU, nationa l and local levels.  
As regard issues that ar e within the remits  and responsibilities of public  authorities, the various 
branches or sub-sectors of the Community aquacultu re industry generally face the same challenges, 
although not necessarily to the same degree or under the same form depending on their specific 
needs. These challenges also depend to a large degree on the business envi ronment established at 
national or local level. 
In addition to the Community financial support fra mework (FIFG and EFF), which allows Member 
States to contribute to a number of policy objectives re garding aquaculture, as referred to earlier, 
there are many other factors and pol icies that influence the development of aquaculture in the EU. 
Although some are inherently  interdisciplinary or cr oss-cutting in nature,  these main factors and 
drivers are as follows: 
 
EN 17   EN 2.5.1.  The aquaculture industry in the EU needs to pr ove it is environmenta lly sustainable, while 
also being highly dependent on the availa bility of primary natural resources.  
The EU has put in place a wide range of legislative measures , often of a horizontal nature, to 
ensure that the development of economic activities,  including aquaculture, is sustainable from an 
environmental point of view. As announced in the 2002 Strategy, these pr ovisions have been 
completed by specific rules on the use of “alien species” (i.e. non- indigenous aquatic species) in 
aquaculture,24 in order to prevent any ne gative impact on the environmen t, and to ensure a level 
playing field in the EU regarding authorisa tion given in Member States for such use. 
Addressing the  environmental effects of aquaculture su ch as eutrophication, on-growing of wild-
caught fish (tuna, eels), risks cr eated by escapees, alien species or  moved and restocked fish, is a 
considerable challenge for the aquaculture industry. 
Numerous EU-funded research projects  have already allowed expe rience to be gained and 
knowledge to be improved to address specific environmental problems and to reduce the 
environmental impact of aquaculture or to enha nce the basis of an ec osystem approach. Major 
environmental impacts of aquaculture have been a ssociated with uneaten feed, fish faeces or dead 
fish, and especially high-input/high- output intensive systems, the effects of which include discharge 
of suspended solids, and nutrient a nd organic enrichment of recipien t waters resulting in the build-
up of anoxic sediments, changes in benthic co mmunities and eutrophication. However, the effects 
of fish farm effluents have been rather extensivel y studied and do not appear to be as far reaching as 
initially feared.25 The ECASA research project,26 for example, part of which was to develop a 
toolbox for marine aquaculture e nvironmental impact assessments, studied the effects of fish 
farming in the Mediterranean and found that siting cages at a reas onable distance from Posidonia 
beds, a natural habitat type to be  protected under the Natura 2000 network (Directive 92/43/EEC), 
could be compatible with the objective of conser vation of this priority marine natural habitat. 
Another environmental impact ofte n mentioned in relation to aqu aculture is escaped fish. There 
have been many research project s carried out on the potential im pact (interbreeding with wild 
population; spread of diseases; competition fo r living space, etc.) of escaped farm fish.27 Efforts are 
currently geared to minimising the number of  escapees, especially through improved cage 
technology, through legal requirements for m onitoring and reporting and through proper 
management and compliance with codes for practice for recapture of escapees.28 
The aquaculture industry is also very active in li miting any negative impact on the environment, as 
demonstrated for example by the set-up of Guidelines or codes of good practice at European,29 
regional30 and local level.31  
                                                 
24 COM(2006)154 final. 
25 Institute of Aquaculture, Stirling University, UK: “response to the EU consultation document on the 
opportunities for the development of Community aquaculture”. 
26 See http://www. ecasa.org.uk/ . 
27 See, for example, FP6 research projects such as GE NIMPACT (genetic impact of aquaculture on native 
populations) or IMPASSE (invasive alien species in aquaculture). 
28 http://www.euraquaculture.info/f iles/consensus_brochure_web.pdf. 
29 See, for example, the code of conduct developed by the Federation of European Aquaculture Producers 
(FEAP) (http://www.aquamedia.org).  
30 See, for example, “Guides for sustainable development of Mediterranean aquaculture – interactions between 
aquaculture and environment”; BIOGES & IUCN workshop – Las Palmas, 26-28 October 2006. 
31 See, for example, the “Association of Scottish shellf ish growers Code of Good practice” - Oct 2005; or the 
“Code of Good practice for Scottish Finfish aquaculture”- Jan 2006. 
 
EN 18   EN Extensive aquaculture is also us ually seen as an environmentall y friendly way of producing fish, 
especially with regard to its role in wetlands  and biodiversity conserva tion. However, extensive 
finfish or shellfish aquaculture  can be subject to intense pr edation from protected birds32 and there 
are often claims of insufficient management of such conflicts. 
Aquaculture is an efficient user of water; land-based farms return nearly all of the water 
downstream of the abstraction poi nt while sea water passes through cages. Technologies for 
cleaning water (removing wastes and contaminan ts) are already available, but the further 
development of new technologies to decrease effluent is al so likely to be significant. 
The farming of fish is also an efficient user of feed, which makes aquaculture rank highly when 
compared with traditional terrestrial animal farming. Aquaculture does not only provide high 
quality protein and other necessary dietary ingred ients (e.g. unsaturated fatty acids), but farmed 
carnivorous fish convert manufactur ed feed into edible flesh w ith maximum efficiency. Farmed 
salmon convert approximately 1.2 kg of feed into 1 kg of fish, while, on a comp arable basis, poultry 
converts between 3 to 5 kg of feed into 1 kg of flesh and pigs requ ire approximately 8 kg of feed to 
make 1 kg of flesh.33 
However, as a “new” industry, a major problem for aquaculture is that  it also feels the 
consequences of societal trends  more acutely (precautionary a pproach) and aquaculture may not 
always be seen as an equal player with other industries, includ ing terrestrial animal farming. 
In this context, Member States may establish their own additional environmental protection 
rules  (provided that the EU environment level is not  undermined and that the Treaty is respected). 
This “gold-plating” of environm ental law may create additional obs tacles or administrative burdens 
for the aquaculture industry. On organic discha rge to waters, for example, some national 
environmental legislation is claimed to make it more and more difficult to obtain new licences for 
aquaculture farms, or even to renew licences for long established farms, in  particular in certain 
northern Member States. On nature protection, for ex ample, there is still an  important debate going 
on in several Member States (particularly NL) on whether some aquaculture practices can continue 
to exist in Natura 2000 areas or on the ex cessive use of the precautionary principle.  
At the opposite end of the scale, aquaculture production is also highly dependent on a high 
quality environment . This is not only valid for farming fish species such as Salmonids, which are 
very demanding in terms of water quality and oxygen, and have to face increased competition for 
scarce water resources (in particular  from agriculture, urbanisation, et c.), it is an increasing concern 
for most aquaculture sector s, especially in view of the possibl e consequences of global warming. As 
such, fish producers have a strong interest in protecting and managing th e water on which their 
activity depends. This is even more the case fo r shellfish producers, w ho are a very important 
interest group and advocate high sea water quality standards.  
Because of possible changes in sea water conditions , shellfish farmers are already frequently faced 
with harmful algal blooms that cau se severe economic damage (direct public health threats and also 
subsequent loss of image among consumers). She llfish farming can also be excluded from the 
market because of microbiological risks, sometimes due to insufficient management and control of 
environmental pollution in production areas. The Directive on the qua lity of shellfish waters has 
been instrumental to shellfish producers in havi ng Member States take the necessary measures to 
                                                 
32 Directive 79/409/EEC. 
33 CONSENSUS project – see http://www.euraquaculture.info/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1 . 
 
EN 19   EN ensure that the sector benefits from access to the high quality water needed to produce safe food. In 
future, proper implementation of the Water Framew ork Directive and the Ma rine Strategy Directive 
should be instrumental in ensuri ng high quality water. However, th e fact that the Water Framework 
Directive repeals the Directive on quality of shellfish waters in 2013 is creating some legal 
uncertainty on the protection of new shellfish gr owing areas, thus trig gering significant concern 
among producers about their future prospects. 
2.5.2.  The aquaculture industry must produ ce safe and healthy aquatic food. 
The aquaculture industry must produce safe and healthy aquatic food for the consumer  and 
comply with all EU legislation to that end.  This challenge is not only full y shared by the industry; it 
is seen as a sine qua non for their business and its image. 
In this context, a number of remaining problems were raised during the consultation process, with 
specific differences between shellfish and finfish production, which are inhe rent in the biology of 
these groups of animals and in the production methods. However, al l the aquaculture sub-sectors 
call for measures that are  science-based  and for level playing field to be ensured for all forms and 
sources of aquatic food. 
The aquatic environment directly impacts on the pot ential safety for consumers of water-filtering 
molluscs, in particular as regards the risk of concentrating bacteria  and viruses found in waters, or 
natural biotoxins produced by unfor eseeable toxic algal blooms. To guarantee a high level of 
consumer protection, therefore, the competent au thorities have an impor tant responsibility for 
addressing such risks, not only by means of preven tive measures and requirements to protect water 
quality, but also through surveillance and mark et prohibition where necessary. However, closing 
market access to products originating from a gi ven shellfish growing area on the grounds of 
potential risks to consumers has significant econo mic consequences on the shellfish business. 
Scientifically solid identification and characterisa tion of these risks is th erefore required, as is a 
level playing field.  
Regarding microbiological risks, some producer organisations ha ve developed risk assessment 
models and contingency plans to de al with pollution risks that often develop in coastal areas after 
heavy rainfall and flooding of inland waters, but, as already mentioned in the previous section, the 
repeal of the shellfish waters quality Directive by 2013 is cause for major concern. In addition, 
shellfish producers consider that  changes introduced a few years ago in the mouse bioassay test to 
check for the presence of marine toxins in mollusc s have led to an increas ing number of “false 
positives”, with significant subsequent economic lo sses, without increasing the apparent level of 
protection afforded to consumers. According to  the producers, this also leads some national 
reference laboratories not applying  the reference control methods the same way, leading not only to 
different ways of implementing EU law, but also to  the absence of a level playing field for operators 
in the Member States. 
Where finfish aquaculture is concerned, the EU feed law package , through restricting the use of 
animal by-products, assessing the safe ty of feed additives or preven ting contaminants, helps to give 
full guarantees to consumers by addressing risks a ll along the food chain. However, this may create 
economic disincentives or the absen ce of a level playing field if some  of these restrictions are not, 
and cannot be made compulsory out side the EU (e.g. some rules on f eeding fish with fish products 
are not applied outside the EU, but the aquaculture products deri ved from fish fed under these 
different conditions can enter the EU market). 
 
EN 20   EN 2.5.3.  The aquaculture industry in the EU must comp ly with strict Commun ity rules on animal 
health, while ensuring a high level of animal welfare. 
Optimal health in farmed animals (disease and parasi te control) is necessary to meet their welfare 
needs. However, good health and husbandry conditions suited to the physiological needs of farmed animals are also prerequisites for optimal growth  and production performance. Animal health and 
welfare is therefore intrinsical ly linked to business performan ce. Guaranteeing the welfare of 
farmed fish also contributes to a better image for the aquaculture industry. Progress c ontinues to be 
made and Community research programmes play an  important role in num erous areas, such as 
seafood quality and safety, welfare of a quaculture animals, and disease control.
34 
The legislative framework for  disease control  in aquatic animals was s ubject to a full review in 
200635 and is being developed through a number of implementing measures. This new package  on 
the health control of aquatic an imal was generally welcomed by th e industry, but specific problems 
had arisen for some specific provisions beca use of the possible economic and operational 
consequences for given business se ctors. These problems are usually of highly technical nature and 
relate in the main to the list of diseases covered by the Directive, the risk management to be applied 
for possible vector or susceptible species, and also specific measures taken at a national level. There 
is also a constant need to revi se and update Community legislation on animal health in aquaculture 
to bring it into line with new situations and scientif ic progress. Some stakeholders feel that some of 
these problems come from the fact that diseases in aquatic animals are of less interest to and less 
dedication by the public authorities compared to di seases in terrestrial mammals or birds (e.g. BSE, 
avian flu, foot and mouth disease, bluetongue). 
As far as animal welfare  is concerned, the EU legal framewor k for the welfare of farmed animals 
may also cover farmed fish, but it does not provide  specific standards. However, some existing 
provisions of a general nature ar e neither appropriate nor necessar ily properly implemented because 
they have been developed on the basis of approaches  taken for terrestrial animals. For example, the 
Regulation (EC No 1/2005) on trans port provides that animals s hould be fed during transport, 
however feeding fish prior to or during transpor t quickly leads to poor we lfare and death of the 
transported animals, mainly because of changes in  water quality in transport tanks. As another 
example, some fish producers noted during the c onsultation process that some training courses on 
animal welfare, as required for drivers, do not addr ess the specific needs of the transport of fish. An 
important factor surrounding this problem is the fact  that the scientific knowledge in fish is still 
very poor and, for some species, even lacking, making it difficult to establish sound practice. 
In terms of health, prevention is better than cure, a nd this is also the motto of the EU Animal Health 
Strategy. Vaccine developments have proved to be real success stories in some aquaculture sectors (e.g. salmon), significantly reduc ing fish mortalities while also  lessening the need for drugs. 
However, health problems continue to be a real challenge for sustainable a quaculture, beca use of an 
insufficient science base  and the lack of veterinary medicinal products  authorised for use in a 
given fish species (notably for hi gh value brood stock or for the early sensitive development stage 
in hatcheries and nurseries). Additional difficulties stem from the need, as a prerequisite to using any veterinary medicine, to ensure that products that derive from treated farmed animals do not 
contain any residue that may pr esent a risk to consumers.  
                                                
 
34 See, for example, FP6 Research projects such as WEAL TH (Welfare and health in  sustainable aquaculture), 
AQUAFIRST (genetic and genomic approaches for stre ss and disease resistance), EUROCARP (disease and 
stress-resistant carp), PATHMEDA (p athogens and parasites in Medite rranean aquaculture), PIMAQUABI 
(pathogens and immune responses of molluscs). 
35 Directive 2006/88/EC . 
 
EN 21   EN As announced in the 2002 Strategy, the veterina ry pharmaceutical legisla tion was reviewed in 
2004,36 but this has only partly allowe d the problem of insufficiency of veterinary medicines that 
can be used by the animal heath pr ofessionals to be addr essed. Member States also set up a specific 
task force to deal with this issue, with a specific recommendati on in 2007 to address this issue.37 
The regulatory framework for setting maximum residue  limits (MRLs) of ac tive substances in food 
is currently also under review.38  
Part of the problem of the unavailability of veteri nary medicines is down to economics, as the costs 
of developing and marketing a spec ific drug for a given disease and a given fish species may not be 
profitable for a pharmaceutical  company. But the consultation exerci se also highlighted the fact that 
aquaculture producers and their professiona l organisations, and even some parts  of the animal 
health professional sector, genera lly lacked sufficient knowledge of  existing possibilities. On the 
other hand, nor did a number of co mpetent public authorities appear to be sufficiently aware of the 
practical aspects and difficulties regarding treatments in aquatic animals as compared with terrestrial animals (including the use of disinfectants or biocides  to clean farming equipment and 
facilities). Legal and administrative provisions (n otably at MS level) may therefore make for 
additional obstacles. 
2.5.4.  The EU aquaculture industry has probl ems with access to space and water. 
The European natural environment provides very su itable conditions for grow ing a number of high 
value aquaculture species. However, the increasing competition for space  is a major challenge for 
the further development of freshwater fish farmin g and aquaculture producti on sites in coastal areas. 
Public acceptance  of aquaculture development in an area is often inversely proportional to the 
population density and especially th e tourist attractiveness of the area. Extensive aquaculture in 
inland ponds and wetlands or in coastal lagoons also faces increased competition from other economic developments (urbanisation, ag riculture, industry, tourism, etc.).  
In these circumstances, technological innovations  in farming systems provide the means for the 
aquaculture industry to maximise the value added per unit of space and/or water used, and to do so 
in a way that reassures regulators and the general public that aquaculture activities are safe and well 
managed. Closed recirculation systems have b een developed for some years now and these 
interesting developments may pave the way for fu rther expansion in other locations, provided they 
are economically competitive (not only because of higher investment requirements, but also often 
higher running costs). Furthermore,  as maritime activities continue to thrive, there will be 
increasing competition for the use of space wh ile the needs of the local population and the 
protection and conservation require ments of the marine environmen t have to be respected. Moving 
aquaculture offshore  is also seen as a possible way to avoi d the conflict for sp ace in coastal areas 
and reduce the environmental impact, but the promis es of such technology wi ll only be fulfilled 
through further research a nd technological improvement
39 and economic considerations. 
The competition for space is holding back the development, or even the maintenance, of all forms 
of aquaculture. The uncertainty on possible siting a nd the lack of guidance and reliable data for the 
possible location of an economic activity and its con tinuity over time (because of the need to renew 
                                                 
36 Directive 2001/82/EC as amended by Directive 2004/28/EC . 
37 http://www.hma.eu/203.html  http://www.hma.eu/uploads/media/TF_R eport_Availability_Vet_Medicines.pdf . 
38 Cf. COM(2007)194 and its impact assessment, with the special focus on availability of veterinary medicines 
SEC(2007)484 & SEC(2007)485. 
39 See, for example, FP6 Research projects such as GRRAS (growth retardation problem in recirculation 
aquaculture systems), SUBFISHCAGE (development of  a cost effective submersible cage system)…. 
 
EN 22   EN licences) creates uncertainty for investors, incr eases the risk of conf licts and means lost 
opportunities to benefit from syne rgy between aquaculture  activities and protec tion of the aquatic 
environment. 
2.5.5.  The EU aquaculture industry operates within  a highly competitive and market-driven 
business environment.  
The aquaculture industry operates within a highly competitive and market driven business 
environment ; to which the above factors contribute positiv ely or negatively. In this context, the 
capacity of the sector to develop and be competit ive on the EU and international markets depends 
on its ability to be cost-effective and to offer pro ducts that meet demand-side  expectations in terms 
of quantity, time to market and quality. Consumer  protection, animal welfare and environmental 
considerations are crucial for the image of aqu aculture and possible dema rcation of its products 
(labels) in the minds of European  citizens and consumers, and also for the way this industry is seen 
by the public authorities. 
In addition to the points described above, a number of other factors affect the economic 
performance of the aquaculture s ector; these are illustrated in th e paragraphs below (more detailed 
information is provided in Annex I). 
Competition with imported fish 
As referred to in section 2.2, the demand for aquatic food is on the increase. In the EU this demand 
is largely met by imports of fish, much of which is of farmed origi n. As an illustration, EU imports 
of farmed fish and shellfish increased from about 351 000 tonnes in 1999 to about 1 272 000 tonnes 
in 2007 (while exports of the main species in creased from approximately 30 000 to 67 000 tonnes 
over the same period). While farmed salmon accounts fo r most of this increa se as regards marine 
species, the growth was even more spectacular in low-price freshwater farmed fish (imports of 
freshwater fish increased from about 2 100 tonnes in 1999 to over 393 000 tonnes in 2007, mainly 
due to imports of pangasius  from Vietnam – see Annex I, Tables 6 and 7). 
These low-price imports compete directly with EU  fish production. Moreove r, consumer awareness 
on these new imported products and their producti on methods (from a health or environmental 
viewpoint in particular) is very limited. Thus, the pr ice factor remains the main driver of choice. In 
contrast, some European fish farming sectors have been facing repeated “bad press” in recent years, with the attendant damage to their image. 
Structure of the EU aquaculture sector  (size of firms, consolidation and vertical integration, 
access to finance and markets) 
With the exception of salmon farming and to a lesse r extent the sea bass and sea bream sector, the 
EU aquaculture industry is stil l largely dominated by SMEs. The to tal number of aquaculture firms 
in the EU was over 14 000 in 2005  (see Table 5 in Annex I); and EU  aquaculture firms are not only 
small on average in terms of employees , but also in terms of turnover.  
Horizontal consolidation and vertic al integration (in particular hatc heries and fish feed production) 
has taken place and continues to take place mainly in marine fish production, the products of which 
are also by far the most widespread in terms of  markets. Freshwater aquaculture and shellfish 
production are almost exclus ively dominated by independent SMEs , probably due to the fact that 
these firms may have been established for a fair ly long period, and that large-scale economies may 
not be as significant for the mass production of farmed marine fish. 
 
EN 23   EN The aquaculture production industry is still very frag mented and isolated from the other players in 
the marketing chain. This structure has also majo r consequences for the challenges faced by the 
industry. Aquaculture firms find it very difficult to access finance, possibly more difficult than 
SMEs in other economic sectors. Indeed, not only  is aquaculture a rela tively unknown sector to 
investors, like any new devel oping industry, early business failu res may have given it a poor 
reputation in some Member States . Aquaculture also has a long pr oduction cycle (it generally takes 
at least 2-3 years to produce fish  of marketable size), which mean s a significant time lag between a 
loan being taken out for site development and suffi cient product sales to start making repayments.  
In addition, a significant proportion of  the assets of a trad itional aquaculture enterprise lie in the 
value of the stock, which makes any disease or a bnormal mortality in the fi sh stock a significant 
risk to the economic viability of an enterpri se. The long production cycles also make it more 
difficult for producers to cope with market pri ce fluctuations (because of the large amounts of 
imports or because of serious disruption in regional  markets for some species due to the lack of a 
cohesive approach and insufficiently well pl anned production). The pr esent credit crunch and 
financial crisis may certainly make these pr oblems worse in the short and medium term. 
Moreover, as for most SMEs, aquaculture SMEs ha ve great difficulty in accessing markets, not only 
international or fast growing ones, but also larg e markets to which access is largely controlled by a 
very small number of powerful supermarket ch ains, especially where aquaculture producer 
organisations are not sufficiently established or efficient. Difficulties accessing the requisite 
information, complicated administrative procedures  impossible to cope w ith by small aquaculture 
entrepreneurs, and problems of intergenerational transmission of small aquaculture enterprises were also highlighted during the consultation process. 
Production costs and limits on fish feed 
The problems the EU aquaculture sector has coping with  lower labour or envi ronmental protection 
costs in third countries (notably in South America or Asia) have al ready been mentioned. Similarly, 
high investment technologies and power-consumi ng production systems (e .g. indoor recirculation 
systems) push up overall production costs.  
Shellfish farming has higher labour force needs th an finfish farming. However, labour costs in 
finfish farming only make up about 10% of producti on costs, most of the operating costs being 
linked to feed (and depreciatio n of high investment production sy stems such as indoor farming 
systems) (see Table 8 in Annex I). 
Regarding feed, the main aquaculture species wa nted by the European market are carnivorous 
species. This raises the question of  the possible non-sustainability of industrial fisheries that provide 
wild fish to produce the fishmeal and fish oil (FMFO) that is still indispensable for feeding 
carnivorous farmed fish and shrimps. But FMFO ar e available on the global market. While most of 
today’s fish oil is used in aquaculture, fishmeal is  also used to feed terrestrial farmed animals and 
pets.  
The market price of FMFO in comp arison with other types of feed raw material is a major factor 
influencing the final choice of animal feed ma nufacturers. The growth of aquaculture creates 
increased demand and higher prices for fishmeal and fish oil, as this resource is limited. The vast 
majority of aquaculture production on a global scale (herbivorous species such as carp and tilapia) 
uses feed with very little or no fishmeal. Howeve r, the increasing importance of omega 3 fatty acids 
content in aquatic food, which depend on the nutriti onal value of the feed given to the farmed 
animals, may also lead to an increase in the us e of fish oil in this latter group of species. 
 
EN 24   EN In view of its important contribu tion to the image of aquaculture pr oducts, the fishmeal and fish oil 
producing industry is currently developing measur es to demonstrate that their products are 
sustainable and originate from well and sustainably managed capture fisheries. 
In addition, as FMFO are of limite d availability, signifi cant progress has been made in developing 
new feeding sources, new forms of  proteins and omega-3 fatty acid s, and in reducing the proportion 
of fishmeal and marine oils in the commercial diets of species such as salmonids and shrimp (although there are limits to these reductions b ecause of the basic physiological needs of 
carnivorous species). 
The pros and cons of using substitute fishmeal and fish oil in fish diets have to be addressed, given 
that consumer perception also driv es the needs of the sectors. Krill is often quoted as one of the new 
marine resources that may become an alternative to  fish as a source of mari ne oil and meal, but, in 
the light of its particular importance to the ecosy stem, views differ as to whether it can provide a 
significant fraction of feeding material in the futu re. Vegetable protein con centrates have already 
made for significant reductions in the fraction of fish protein in the feed of some species (e.g. 
salmon, shrimps), but this should not just be seen in terms of  physiological needs, production 
performance and environmental im pacts (potentially increased effl uents from fish farms). As 
regards the increasing share of GM plant protein on the market, consumer information and choices 
will be the drivers of wh ether the aquaculture industry and the fi sh feed industry consider of using 
GM plants as a substitute for fishmeal or fish oil. 
Importance of R& D 
Domestication of aquatic animals is far from being achieved and the a quaculture industry needs 
significant additional knowledge. The same goes fo r farming and production techniques. The need 
for continued research and technological developm ent is crucial for the competitiveness of the EU 
industry, particularly in the context of co mpetition with other pa rts of the world.  
However, as the EU aquaculture sector is mainly composed of SMEs, it is very limited when it 
comes to undertaking sufficient research and de velopment and putting innova tion into practice off 
its bat. Since some companies tend to grow in size, there is also a trend towards company-led research. In 2008 industry leaders established a European Aquaculture  Technology and Innovation 
Platform (EATIP), in a bid to maintain its worl d leadership, to provide a strategic vision and to 
define priorities for the European aquaculture s ector with regard to re search and technological 
development. 
Community research programmes have been instru mental in putting EU aqu aculture at the cutting 
edge of technological development. FP7 should also  help to continue this trend. However, the 
consultation exercise in 2007 also highlighted a number of weakne sses that stopped the sector from 
maximising the benefits, these being insufficient coordination of national and Community efforts, 
insufficient involvement of economic operators in the settin g of research prioriti es and a insufficient 
transfer and dissemination of RTD results. 
2.5.6.  The aquaculture industry has to operate within a governance framework that is still far 
from being optimal. 
The sector is clearly in need of a level playing field  and improved governance  at EU, national and 
local level. In most member States, aquacultu re producers have established professional 
organisations to represent the sector  and certain subsectors (finfish vs . shellfish). A large part of the 
aquaculture industry is also well or ganised and represented at EU leve l, which allows it to dialogue 
 
EN 25   EN with the Community administration. The Adviso ry Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture 
(ACFA), and in particular its wo rking group II on aquaculture, has been a useful co nsultation body, 
but further improvements to c onsultation may be achieved a nd the Commission services are 
currently looking at ho w the ACFA works. 
However, establishing the practicalities for the aquaculture business, such as licensing  requirements 
and implementing general standards set at EU level, remains primarily a matter for national or even 
regional public authorities; but because of the vari ed dimensions of the aquaculture industry, and 
depending also on the administrative organisation of the Member Stat es, it may also fall within the 
scope of a number of different administrations at different levels. National or regional gold-plating 
of environmental protection rules may create additional obstacles and administrative burdens for the aquaculture industry or may be used to justif y a NIMBY (“Not In My Back Yard”) policy at 
regional or local level. During th e consultation process, some produ cers claimed that some Member 
States require more than 20 diffe rent licences and permits to open and run an aquaculture farm. 
Better awareness of the reality of this business  is part of this challenge, and the preparation of this 
strategy and the process leading to it may already have made a contribution in this respect. 
A common denominator that emerged from the cons ultation exercise was the clear call for the 
Commission to renew the Strategy for aquaculture of  2002 and thus to take some form of political 
leadership. 
2.6. Who is affected? 
The first targets of this initiative are the Comm unity and Member States public authorities, and 
other public administrations at regional and local level. The pol itical leadership embodied in a 
strategy and the concrete measures identified to promote the sustainable development of European 
aquaculture make this initiative of high in terest to all other key players, namely: 
• Aquaculture producers are the most  directly concerned by the above  issues. They have to look 
for ways to farm aquatic animals to the high EU  standards and market their products in a highly 
competitive environment. They need to be adapta ble to rapid market changes – not only in the 
aquatic food they produce but also  in feeding material on which they depend – and they need 
their business to remain profitable over time while coping with significant time factors (it takes several years to breed and growth aquatic anim als) and depending on crucial external factors 
such as the quality of the wate r needed or climatic conditions. 
• Aquaculture-related industries include technol ogy or other material or service providing 
industries (e.g. pumps, aquaculture service vessels), but the most important is the fish feed 
manufacturing industry. While raw mate rial for feed (fishmeal and fish  oil, feed of plants origin) 
is available on the global market, the manufacturi ng of formulated fish feed is generally more 
regional and the fish feed industry usually deve lops close to the majo r aquaculture production 
areas. 
• The final consumers and all European citize ns (including NGOs and other associations 
representing civil society) have a legitimate in terest in sustainable development. They demand 
high quality and healthy aquatic food products at the lowest price possible, while receiving all the information they need on these products to make informed choices. 
• The intermediate and final players in the market ing chain (wholesalers, im porters and processors 
of fish and other aquatic food products) are a ll important shapers of the market. Retailers, 
 
EN 26   EN especially supermarkets, are playing an increasi ng role in establishing the characteristics and 
prices of the aquatic f ood they sell. In this context, the capture fishing sector should not be 
omitted. As the aquaculture industry can guarantee a stable supply of standardised products in 
terms of size and quality, it can be seen as being in competition with or as a substitute for a 
declining fishing industry. However, in view of  the ever increasing de mand for aquatic food, 
aquaculture should first be seen as  a necessary complement to captu re fisheries to fill in the gap 
between supply and demand. 
2.7. Does the EU have the right to act? 
As illustrated in the previous sections, EU aquaculture is a business sector with multiple 
dimensions. It produces high quality and high value food. It plays an important role in wealth 
creation and in local a nd regional development, especially in rural and coastal areas. From a 
traditional and in some ways empirical activity, some fish farming sectors have developed into high-tech, cutting-edge industries, having the mean s when properly managed to cope with high 
levels of environmental protection.  
The rationale for coordinated Community policy guidance stems from the multiplicity of EU policy 
areas, with their respective legal bases, which have an influence on th e way aquaculture can 
develop and actually evolves: 
• Aquaculture is first and foremost about farming of  aquatic livestock: it therefore has to comply 
with the EU objectives of high productivity, equ itable standard of living for farmers, stable 
markets, and security of supply (cf. Articles 32-38 of the Treaty). In concrete terms, aquaculture 
is part of the Common Fisheries Policy (Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002) and the Council 
decided in particular that sp ecific EU support should be provi ded to aquaculture from the 
European Fisheries Fund (Regulation (EC) No 1168/2006). 
• Aquaculture is about farming animals with the aim of produc ing food: the development of 
aquaculture therefore not only to meet the objec tive of ensuring a high level of protection of 
health and welfare of farmed animals (cf. Article 37 of the Treaty), it also ha s to be seen in terms 
of food policy; and aquaculture activities and products have thus to comply with the high EU 
food safety and consumer protection sta ndards (cf. Articles 152 -153 the Treaty). 
• The EU aims to ensure a high level of protectio n of the environment. Aquaculture is about the 
use of high quality natura l resources, primarily water: it ha s to be sustainable and compatible 
with these high levels of environmental pr otection (cf. Articles 174-175 of the Treaty). 
• Aquaculture is also about entrepreneurship and business development: it must therefore be seen 
as part of the Lisbon process. As an economic and commercial activity, a quaculture also has to 
abide by the rules of the internal market and trade and competition policies. It must also keep to 
the European objectives of economic and social  cohesion, rural and regional development, 
employment, and education, etc. Aquaculture benefits from policy support instruments, particularly the European Fisheries Fund, and the Community Framework Programmes for 
Research and Technological Development. 
• Finally, aquaculture is mostly about farming mari ne organisms: the development of aquaculture 
at sea and in coastal areas has to be on an equal footing with other activitie s, such as fishing, and 
also be seen in the context of the developm ent of an integrated European maritime policy. 
 
EN 27   EN A Community Strategy should make  for a common vision under which EU public authorities would 
take a consistent approach in the different policy domains, giving thereby also clearer perspectives 
to the sector as well to all citizens. 
However, the factors shaping the aquaculture sector  and the drivers describe d in previous sections 
also have a very clear dimension of subsid iarity. The development of aquaculture also 
fundamentally depends on the prior ities and decisions taken at nati onal and/or regional level, in 
accordance with the principle of su bsidiarity. Issues such as settin g stricter environmental rules, 
access to water and space, allocatio n or renewal of licences to operate an aquaculture farm remain 
fully within the remit of nationa l and local authoritie s. Their standpoint a nd ways of governance, 
when implementing general EU approaches, are crucial to the economic prospects and actual 
development of aquaculture at regional and national, and hence at EU level. 
 
EN 28   EN 3. WHAT IS THE OVERALL POLICY OBJECTIVE IN TERMS OF EXPECTED IMPACTS ? 
3.1. General objective 
The overall objective of this initiative is to give po litical impetus and leadership at EU level, and 
thus to help unlock the potential for the sustaina ble development of European aquaculture. The aim 
is to identify the strategic principles that should drive the development of this sector. In this context 
it sets out a vision for this sector and the role of the public authorities in an effort to create the best environment in which the EU farm ing industry can make optimum us e of its innovative capacities 
and further develop its contributio n to the supply of healthy and high quality  aquatic food to EU 
citizens, in full compliance with high environmental and public health standards. In this respect, it 
also aims to address a number of bottlenecks that the sector is  facing today by way of possible 
action to be taken by th e public authorities. 
Given the primary role of entrep reneurs and markets in developing  this sector and its diverse 
subsectors, however, and also the major role that national and local authorities play in shaping the 
development of aquaculture farms in the EU– no tably licensing for production and access to space 
and water – the objective of this st rategy is not to provide the aquacu lture sector with advice on best 
economic choices, or to establish production or development targets for the sector at EU level. 
3.2. Strategic and policy-orientated objectives 
On the basis of the experience ga ined and the evaluation made of the 2002 Strategy, the strategic 
objectives for the sustainable development of EU aquaculture should be as follows: 
* For the environmental pillar of sustainability: maintaining a high level of protection of the 
environment (in line with the 2002 Strategy). 
* For the socio-economic pillar of sustainability : ensuring a high level of protection of consumers 
and of farmed animals, but moving away from th e production-target-orientated objectives to give 
more focus to competitiveness in the sector and better governance. 
As such, the strategic objectives of this initiative will contribute to both the Lisbon agenda  and the 
agenda of the Renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy (as adopted by the European 
Council on 15-16 June 2006),
40 in particular as regards the key challenges for sustainable 
production and consumption, conserva tion and management of natura l resources and public health. 
In view of the various challenges and problems fa cing the European aquaculture sector, as outlined 
in the previous sections, these strategic objec tives should be met through a number of general 
policy-orientated objectiv es, in particular by: 
– giving the highest priority to rese arch and technological development; 
– ensuring that aquaculture can compete on an equal footing for access to space; 
– by contributing to the ability of the aquaculture business to  cope with market demands; 
– helping to ensure the presence of European  aquaculture on the international scene;  
                                                 
40 See http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st10/st10917.en06.pdf . 
 
EN 29   EN – ensuring that aquaculture has a low impact on the natural environment;  
– providing the aquaculture industry with a high  quality aquatic environment to match its 
needs; 
– shaping an efficient animal farming industr y, through securing animal  health and animal 
welfare, addressing the need for specific ve terinary medicines and providing high quality 
and sustainable feeding-stuffs for fish; 
– ensuring consumer health protection and recognis ing the health benefits of aquatic food;  
– improving governance in the design and implem entation of policies and measures that 
influence the development of aquaculture, notably with the view to ensuring proper 
stakeholder participation, providing a level playing field and reducing the administrative 
burden.  
Fixed time horizons to assess these strategic and policy objectives are not preset. However, the 
measures that may be identified as part of this initiative to address a number of bottlenecks facing the aquaculture sector re late to ongoing measures, some to ne w (mainly non-legislat ive) initiatives 
and some to medium-term initiatives, such as th e review of EU financing instruments by 2012 and 
the reform of the CFP. All these measures should be delivered over a period of 3-4 years. If any of 
these measures requires the use of the budget, it would be within the present budget framework, and 
under the principle of “no new money”. 
In view of the governance-related dimension of th ese objectives and the major role of national and 
regional public authorities, the success of this strategy will first require it to be fully endorsed by the Member States (at all administrative levels).  
Progress in delivering the various me asures will be monitored, in pa rticular within the framework of 
the Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aqu aculture, which provides a forum for regular 
consultation of all stakeholders. Monitoring will also cover the actua l evolution of the aquaculture 
sector (mainly by way of the indicators established in 2008 w ithin the new instruments on 
aquaculture statistics and data collection in the fi sheries and aquaculture sect or; see also chapter 7). 
More specifically, the economic di mension of the sustainable develo pment of aquaculture will be 
monitored by statistical producti on indicators (in terms of bot h the volume and the value of 
aquaculture production) and by the growth of this production vis- à-vis global prod uction and its 
importance in terms of markets and trade. 
The social dimension of aquacu lture can be monitored through th e level of employment in the 
sector, and through business structure indicators of aquaculture sub-s ectors, notably in terms of the 
social roles of SMEs and the role of aquaculture in  structuring coastal and ru ral areas. However, the 
collection of information on these indicators is pr imarily a national concern, and it needs to be 
recalled in this context that, in 2008, the Council did not include re quirements for colle cting data on 
freshwater aquaculture in the scope of the Regulation establishing an EU framework for the 
collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector (Regul ation (EC) No 2008/199). 
Finally, as regards the environmenta l sustainability of aquaculture, Member States have to ensure 
that all appropriate legislation is complied wi th, including, where relevant, the monitoring of 
environmental quality indicators (e.g. water quality parameters in  the case of water protection 
legislation). More generally, monitoring the increase  in area dedicated to extensive aquaculture may 
provide a gross indicator of the positive role of extensive a quaculture in wetland conservation. 
 
EN 30   EN 4. WHAT MAIN POLICY OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVE ? 
This section focuses on the three broad policy options that were considered.  
However, although the detailed drivers and challenge s for the development of  EU aquaculture cover 
a broad range of areas, this analys is does not scrutinise every specifi c option for measures to tackle 
each specific problem. It looks instead at the best approach for achieving the general policy 
objective. In addition, any individu al legislative action that may be  identified under th is initiative 
would be subject to an own im pact assessment as appropriate if subsequently taken by the 
Commission. 
Option 1: Status quo (baseline option) 
This option implies continuing with  the current situation. This w ould mean developing a “business 
as before” approach, on the basis of the principles  and overall policy objectives put forward in the 
2002 Strategy for aquaculture. In ot her words, no new integrated in itiative for European aquaculture 
would be taken at this stage, and no set of  possible new measures would be identified.  
Option 2: Developing a new Strategy for European aquaculture  
This second policy option could reiterate the type of initiati ve taken by the Commission in 2002 and 
thus take the form of a document of a political nature setting out a Strategy for EU aquaculture 
(Communication from the Commission). This St rategy would provide a general vision on the 
prospects for this sector and set out the main principles a nd updated strategic objectives. In 
providing leadership in favour of the sustainabl e development of this i ndustry, this political 
initiative would identify the need for action at  EU, national and regional level, and call on the 
public authorities in the Member States to take  action and help achieve  those objectives. This 
Communication for a reviewed Stra tegy for Community aquaculture would serve as a basis for a 
continued debate with the other European institu tions and the main players concerned from civil 
society. Endorsement of these principles and obj ectives would secure a high degree of political 
commitment and would give guidance to the Commission for possible further action. 
Possible sub-options: 
Sub-option 2.1 : This would build on the ex isting strategy of 2002, keeping to the same principles 
and all its general objectives. It would mainly consist of complementing it by an updated set of 
measures to be taken by stakeholders in different policy areas to address the bottlenecks highlighted during the 2007 consultation and evaluation process. 
Sub-option 2.2 : This would be a renewed strategy, based on general principles but with reviewed 
and updated strategic objectives as identified u nder section 3 and based on the evaluation of the 
2002 strategy. It would also include action to be taken by the public auth orities in differe nt fields to 
address both the bottlenecks highlighted during the 2007 consultation process and the general 
challenges that EU aquaculture may continue to f ace. In envisaging also some possible lines for 
future orientation of Community instruments, th is option would allow spar king a debate with the 
other institutions and stakeholders on medium -term initiatives (e.g. possible priorities for 
Community financial support after 2013). 
Sub-option 2.3 : This would amount to developing a Stra tegy along the lines of sub-option 2.2, but 
include a parallel legislative proposal to amend th e “aquaculture-related" aspects of the European 
Fisheries Fund, with the view to refocus and repr ioritise the different possibilities to support 
 
EN 31   EN measures in the aquaculture sector to give it more leverage in one or  the other of th e environmental, 
social and economic facets of sustainable development. 
Option 3: Developing a specific Community policy for aquaculture 
The third option would be to develop the necessa ry provisions to allow for a fully fledged 
Community approach to managing EU aquaculture development. 
This kind of “Community aquaculture policy” would concretise by taking the form of a single (but 
comprehensive) legal framework, to serve as an  overall reference base , with legally binding 
objectives and principles to be implemented at EU  and Member State levels  to promote and manage 
the sustainable development of aquaculture in Europe. This could come somewhere between a 
Common Fisheries Policy (addre ssing only capture fisheries) a nd a Common Agriculture Policy 
(and its specific dimensions regarding the farming of terrestrial animals and products). It should 
include a comprehensive set of rules ranging from  production-orientated objectives to market 
organisation, production standards,  structural support, etc. 
5. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS  
5.1. General considerations 
Option 1: Status quo (baseline option) 
The continuation of current EU policies and measur es would continue to have an impact, with 
greater or lesser benefits to the aquaculture industry. As regards coordination, improved governance 
or implementation issues, it is difficult to anticipat e what type of progress could be achieved over 
the long run at EU and Member Stat e level, but the main impact of option 1 woul d be to lessen the 
pace of measures conducive to aquaculture deve lopment, and probably an increased risk of 
divergent approaches across Me mber States and regions.  
Furthermore, as highlighted in  earlier sections, this is compounded by several sub-problems 
afflicting the aquaculture industry in the current economic climate: 
– problems of implementing and c oordinating existing policies; 
– gaps not properly addressed by esta blished or planned measures; and 
– need across the board for improved gove rnance and a level playing field. 
These problems will be left unattended. Therefore, one of the main negative impacts of option 1  
would be not to address the remaining bottlen ecks, which need action by the public powers and 
would mean that some of the barriers to EU aquaculture development would therefore remain. 
Another negative impact would be to keep with an objective that will not be achieved judging by 
how the sector has evolved since 2000 and consid ering that the market and business environment 
changes very fast.  
Thus, by opting for Option 1, the Commission would be failing to respond to the quasi-consensus 
that emerged from the consultation exercise in 2007 for a review of the 2002 strategy; it would not 
therefore back up the political impetus given 6 years ago, which may have gradually slowed down 
since then. 
 
EN 32   EN This “inaction” may represent a missed political oppor tunity – or even a polit ical failure – given the 
political support and EU leadership from the Commission called for repeatedly by a number of 
policy-makers (Members States, MEPs, etc.) and EU  aquaculture stakeholde rs in the consultation 
process over the last 18 months. 
Nor would maintaining the current situation make for a more consistent and coordinated approach 
to this sector at the Community level, includi ng between the Commission‘ s various Directorates-
General with responsibility in this area. It could even give the false impre ssion that no new legal or 
administrative burdens are being created or that no public money is currently available to steer 
development in this sector. 
Option 2: developing a new Strategy for EU aquaculture  
All European policies that apply directly or indirectly to aquaculture contribute to determine how 
Europe’s aquaculture business devel ops – or not. This alone is suffi cient justification for defining a 
common vision for the sustainable development of  EU aquaculture. Devel oping a new strategy will 
allow the underlining strategic objectives to be reviewed, and action to be identified to address some of the underlying problems highlighted above (c f. Section 2). This would make for a coherent 
approach, adapted to new and developing circumst ances, and would address the present challenges 
facing the sector. 
Reiterating a European initiative for aquaculture would also be of high political significance, 
especially in a sector where the principle of subs idiarity often prevails. The main added value of 
this option is to be found theref ore in the political si gnal European Commission would be sending 
out to the other European institutions, to the indus try and to the general public at large, namely, 
recognising the increasing importance of the aquacu lture industry in providing the safe and healthy 
food that consumers want. The public authorities − particularly national and regional − should also 
recognise the economic value and socio-te rritorial importance of this sector. 
In the light of experience with the 2002 Strategy and it s assessment, however, the option of keeping 
the targets established in 2002 or setting new possible quantitative growth targets for EU 
aquaculture, as part of a new St rategy, was not regarded as right and has not be retained. This was 
not either called for during the consultation pr ocess. Indeed, aquacultu re development also 
fundamentally depends on the priorities and d ecisions taken at nationa l and regional level, 
according to subsidiarity principle. Issues such as access to water, competition for space, allocation 
or renewal of licences to run an aquaculture farm or the setting of stricter environmental rules are 
all within the remit of the national or local author ities, and their stance is crucial as regards the 
economic prospects for the overall aquaculture pr oduction at EU level. Moreover, the economic 
operators themselves have the prim e role to play in the actual development of this industry, and 
hence on trends in terms of aquaculture pro duction in the EU or competitiveness. Business 
structures and employment cannot  be dictated by EU public aut horities alone within such a 
Strategy. For all these reasons, s ub-option 2.1 was rapidly discarded.
 
A general political initiative for a strategy for aquaculture could benefit from some "reinforcement" 
by a parallel proposal to change the current possibili ties for EU financial support, in particular the 
fund designed to support the sustainable development of this sector, namely the European Fisheries 
Fund. If the new strategy is to review some of its objectives compared wi th 2002, the general aim of 
amending the EFF would be to review those provisi ons that have not suffici ently delivered or not 
contributed to the identified objectives in the past, or to amend the conditions for accessing EU 
funding to give more leverage to achieving some of the renewed objectives. 
 
EN 33   EN The rapid growth of seabass and seabream aquacultu re in the Mediterranean, particularly in Greece, 
is certainly for an important part related to  support made available by Member States using 
available Community funds. In other cases, financial support has gone  into amplifying the 
environmental dimension of the aquaculture sector , without necessarily making significant changes 
to overall production. However, proposing to amend the EU financia l support instrument 
specifically to review some of its provisions that may benefit the aquacultur e sector would require a 
comprehensive evaluation of the results achieved to  date and an assessment of the possible value 
and expected impacts of these changes. In this re gard, the following additi onal considerations were 
made during this assessment:  
– The use of the EU financing available for proj ects eligible under the FIFG was up to of 
2008. Moreover, the amendments made to the FIFG in 2004 could not deliver immediately. 
A time for administrative adjustment was need ed before new projects and measures could 
benefit from these provisions, and it would take  several years for these projects to deliver. 
A full ex post evaluation of the FIFG was due to start as soon as pos sible after the end of 
implementation of the instrument, namely, in early 2009. It was thus felt neither 
proportionate nor cost-efficient to launch a detailed evaluati on of the FIFG, already in 
2007 or 2008 (or even only of the components  that might have had an impact on 
aquaculture). 
– Following the adoption of the new “European Fi sheries Fund” at the end of 2006, the year 
2007 and the beginning of 2008 was the period when the Member States only started to 
implement the first steps of EFF, namel y, formulating national strategic plans and 
operational programmes. At such an early stag e, it was not appropriate to change the 
conditions of the EFF. As a result, the “EFF as pects” of the broad stakeholder consultation 
exercise conducted in 2007 on EU aquacult ure (see Section 1.2) focused mainly on the 
“governance aspects” of this first impl ementation phase by the Member states. 
– Moreover, depending on the evaluation of the EU financial support instruments and their 
impact on a given objective, the option of refocusing EU suppor t may be seen as being too 
ambitious and may not receive the backing of the Member States. Proposing this in parallel with a new Communication for a Strategy withou t sufficient consultation and debate would 
not be the right way forward. 
In view of the above considerations, sub-option 2.3 
was also rapidly discarded in the course of the 
assessment period , and sub-option 2.2 therefore remained th e only valid sub-option to be further 
evaluated under Option 2. 
It should be noted that the 2008 fuel crisis and the current economic crisis  have not changed the 
above conclusions, which in any case are without prejudice to possible Comm ission initiative in the 
much wider and urgent context of addressing the economic crisis in all i ndustrial sectors of the 
Community. 
This option 2 for a new Strategy therefore focuses on the role of the public authorities, primarily at 
EU level, in designing their policies and shaping the way for sustainable development of European 
aquaculture. Option 2 sets out a vision, guiding principles and stra tegic objectives, as a framework 
in which the aquaculture industry should be able to develop in a sustainable manner, making it 
possible for its different branches to  develop their full pot ential in the light of both their assets and 
their constraints. It identifies also possible ac tion by the public authori ties to address certain 
bottlenecks highlighted during the c onsultation and evaluation process. 
 
EN 34   EN Option 2 is expected to have a si gnificant leverage effect in raising the importance and the strategic 
dimension of aquaculture at Member States and regional or local administration levels. Option 2 
would accelerate the pace of EU an d national action to establish the right framework conditions for 
aquaculture to fully develop its potential. By increasi ng the level of coordination and governance at 
EU and national level, by providi ng leadership, by recognising the value of EU aquaculture and by 
restoring confidence in the outl ook for the aquaculture industry, Option 2 would give substantial 
added value to Community action, part icularly in the following areas: 
The cross-border dimension of the remain ing specific problems  of EU aquaculture : Section 2 above 
has highlighted a number of remaining problems  that are hampering the development of EU 
aquaculture and clearly have a major cross-border EU dimension. The environmental challenge 
facing SMEs clearly also has, by definition, a cr oss-border dimension. Another example concerns 
market tools (e.g. labels) and recognition of the hi gh value of aquaculture and its products, and the 
still rather low awareness of the public authorities and the public in general of  this rather new, but 
very diverse industry. By virtue of  its scale and scope, the EU level is best suited to fostering the 
three pillars of sustainability of this industry in these areas, be it from an environmental, economic 
and social point of view, and thus tackling negative cross-border exte rnalities such as the lack of a 
level playing field. 
Spill-over and synergy:  For most of the issues mentioned above, the EU and the Member States 
each appear to have an important complementary role  to play. In line with the Lisbon Strategy for 
Growth and Jobs, therefore, ther e is a strong case, fo r developing inter-linkages between national 
policies and coordinating their approaches to generate spill-over and synergy. Action taken by 
national public authoriti es in favour of – or against – their own aquaculture business has an impact 
on other countries’ aquaculture deve lopment and affects the EU’s inte rnal and external markets. In 
such cases, purely regional and na tional views or strategies – or simply the absence of sufficient 
consideration of this sector  by the public authorities – w ould be suboptimal: cross-border 
externalities and other prospects for the EU aquacu lture business as a whole (and associated sectors, 
such as the fish feed industry or the technology-providing industr y) would be largely overlooked. 
Aquaculture development is essentially interdisci plinary, and thus  there is much potential for 
synergy between measures within or across policy domains, particularly within the new European 
Maritime policy and the European Research agenda. For example, better access to finance and innovation and skills, coupled with reduced admini strative burden and incr eased entrepreneurship, 
is also intrinsically related to promoting the new “Small Business Act” for Europe. 
Some issues clearly fall more within the remit of the Member States than others. This is typically 
the case of licensing procedures and allocati on of access to space and water that influence 
aquaculture’s growth potential. These problems are don national or regional legislation and are 
mainly outside the EU’s jurisd iction. However, as stated a bove, Community leadership in 
promoting aquaculture may have significant levera ge effects and can go a long way to unlocking 
such bottlenecks. Other useful action could consis t of mutual learning and increased monitoring of 
the aquaculture industry and its various sub-sectors. 
Finally, reviewing the strategy in the light of the present situation also means a renewed debate 
within the now expanded European Union. Th e 2002 Strategy for European aquaculture was 
discussed within the former EU-15 Members States  and it was not part of the negotiations on the 
“acquis communautaire ” that have since led to the two successive enlargements of the EU. A 
review of the EU strategy for aquaculture would now allow a debate at EU-27 level. 
 
 
EN 35   EN Option 3: Developing a specific Community policy for aquaculture 
Option 3 basically embodies all the objectives of  Option 2, but it builds further on Option 2 and 
establishes a comprehensive sector  policy framework at EU level. 
In relation to the objective of ensuring sustaina ble growth, the additional content of Option 3 is 
basically to set production ta rgets at Community level. 
Concerning the objective to increase competit iveness, many areas relevant to aquaculture 
development are mainly in the remit of the Memb er States, or even depend on regional and local 
authorities (e.g. space allocation and spatial pl anning, licensing and se tting of associated 
requirements, regional development policy, etc.).  Establishing an EU  policy framework for 
aquaculture will require the EU a ssuming responsibility for a significant part of these areas. This 
would include setting market and production standards and rules, prov iding structural support, etc.) 
On the objective of improving governance, Option 3 will require the EU to  develop policies to 
promote harmonisation and a level play ing field across the Member States. 
Since business development in aquaculture in Eur ope also depends on the investment possibilities 
and willingness of entrepreneurs to invest, establishing a regulat ory framework with principles, 
legally binding objectives and prod uction targets to be met at EU and Member State level would 
appear to be in contradiction w ith the principle of subsidiarity. 
In addition, the development of an integrated  Community aquaculture policy initiated by the 
creation of a single legislative reference framework would require  a fundamental review of the 
current EU legal architecture. De veloping a single legal framework to encompass all the dimensions 
of this sector (production management, markets, financial support, environm ent, health, controls, 
etc.) would require a parallel co mprehensive assessment and review of existing provisions relating 
to aquaculture under the Common Fish eries Policy set of legislation – and part icularly the “basic 
CFP Regulation” ((EC) No 2371/2002). Such a fundament al change in approach to aquaculture at 
EU level would call for furthe r parallel changes to the provi sions developed under other EU 
Policies, e.g. the Common Agriculture Po licy or the Animal Health Policy.  
Moreover, developing a single legislative framework to encompass all the dimensions of 
aquaculture may also − logically − be accompanied by possible organisational changes in the 
internal structure and tasks of some Commission Directorate-Generals to ensure coordinated 
follow-up and best use of resources. 
In the light of the above, Option 3 is not considered as being a vi able alternative to tackling the 
problems identified at this stag e. The fundamental questions ra ised in relation to the overall 
institutional set-up, including the co nsequences on subsidiarity, woul d have a negative impact that 
would outweigh any social, economi c and environmental benefits resulting from this option. For 
these reasons, this option – which was only referred  to in a few of the contributions received during 
the consultation process – is ther efore discarded, before any more detailed analysis of impacts. 
 
EN 36   EN 5.2. Possible action to contribute achieving the objectiv es and their incremental effect under Option 2 
As described in Section 1.4, preparation of this initiative also looked at what could be done (or not) to ad dress the main prob lems and challenges 
summarised in Sections 2.4 and 2.5. The tabl e below provides an overview of possible act ion that would fall within the responsi bility of the public 
authorities, and help achieve the different objectives identified in Section 3. These measures are all cumulative and complemen tary. Most of them are 
of non-legislative and could be impl emented within 2 to 4 years.  
Annex III of the report provides more detailed information about th ese possible measures and their incremental effect. It also provides information 
about possible action that was considered, but not pursued.  
Actors Problem/issue 
identified Possible action by public authorities  
Commission Member 
States Objective being contributed to. 
- Monitor  developments regard ing the problem of escapees  X (X) • Not properly 
managed, 
aquaculture => 
negative impact on 
the environment  - Pursue supporting research  on interactions betw een environment and 
aquaculture.  X X • Ensuring a high level of protection of the 
environment. 
 
- Ensure  that the level of protection of shellfis h waters is maintained  (2009 and 
onwards). X X 
- Enhance information  to ensure proper implementa tion of the Water Framework 
Directive (WFD) and of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive as regards 
aquaculture activities; Develop guidelines (possibly 2009-2012). X  
- Assess  the need to review some parts of the  EU water protection legal 
framework  (possibly 2009-2010) X  • Aquaculture  is 
highly dependent 
on water  resources 
of high quality  
• Legal uncertainty  
on guarantying 
shellfish waters 
quality after 2013  
- Recognise the importance of fish and shellfish farmers in contributing to 
environment priorities; ensure fair treatment to the aquaculture industry  and 
consider it an equal player  with other ec onomic activities.  X • Ensuring a high level of protection of the 
environment and a high le vel of public health. 
• Improving competitiveness and governance 
• Aquatic 
environment  - Re-examine the situation  once EFSA has completed a full review of marine 
biotoxin related issues (2009-2010)  X  • Ensuring consumer health protection  
 
EN 37   EN - Support the development of alternative methods  and standards for these 
detection methods.  X X directly impacts on 
safety  for 
consumers  
• “False positive”  
safety tests  lead to 
economic losses  - Evaluate  how to make more widespread use of risk assessment and risk 
prevention tools  X X • Improving competitiveness  
• Scientific opinions  
are addressing only 
one policy issue  
(related risks)  - Continue  to base  evaluation and assessments on scientific advice  
- Request scientific advice to provide fo r a more integrated assessment  of fish 
related issues (including hea lth benefits related to the consumption of aquatic food)  X  • Recognising health benefit of aquatic food 
contributes to both the competitiveness objective 
and the consumer protection agenda  
- Keep under review  (by 2011) the list of important diseases for aquatic 
animals . X  
- Assess additional guarantees  for some diseases taken at Member State level  
(2009-2010)  X  
- Pursue assessment of preventative measures  in relation to vector and 
susceptible species, on the basis of scientific advice and research.   X  • Specific problems 
related to some parts of the aquatic 
animal health 
Directive  (2006/88)  
• Diseases in aquatic 
animals attract low 
level of attention.  
- Assess the present financial instruments available  to support measures 
dedicated to the health of aquatic animals (by 2011, as part of the action plan on 
animal health).  X  • Securing animal health  
• Contributing to shaping a performing animal 
industry, thereby improving competitiveness.  
- Seek advice on fish welfare on a species-dependent basis , and further promote 
animal welfare research  X  
- Promote the need  for a species-dependent approach in international fora  
addressing fish welfare  X  
- Assess fish welfare issues in aquaculture  (by 2011) in order to evaluate the 
value of non-legislative or possible legislative measures, (2009).  X  • Scientific 
knowledge in fish 
welfare  is still very 
poor. 
• Some EU welfare 
legislation is not 
perfectly suited  to 
aquatic animals  
- Propose revision of some provisions of the “animal transport Regulation”41 X  • Ensuring animal welfare 
• Contributing to shaping a performing animal 
industry, thereby improving competitiveness. 
                                                 
41 Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations 
 
EN 38   EN - Adopt the proposal for a new regulation on Maximum Residue Limits  (while 
seeking to ensure provisions of particular interest to aquaculture).   Council 
and EP 
- Implement the recommendations made by the “Availability Task Force”  
(2009-2010).  X X • Lack of veterinary 
medical products 
for fish  
• Insufficient 
knowledge on 
practicalities and 
needs  (between 
stakeholders and 
public authorities)  - Improve information exchanges  between the competent authorities and the 
different stakeholders of fish health (2009-2010). 
 X X • Ensuring a high level of animal health and welfare  
• Contributing to the competitiveness objective  
- Promote Integrated Coastal Zone Management  and launch action as foreseen 
within the roadmap for maritime spatial planning42 (2009).  X X 
- Develop marine spatial planning systems   X • Increasing 
competition for 
space and water  
(and “gold-plating” 
of environmental 
protection rules) => 
creates uncertainty 
for investors.  - Ensure that “inland” spatial planning  fully integrates the needs and values of 
freshwater aquaculture.   X • Improving competitiveness and governance 
• Optimising environmental performance by means 
of appropriate assessment s and optimal location of 
farms. 
- Assess and address needs of the aquaculture  sector within the context of the 
review of the market policy  of fisheries and aquaculture products (2009).  X  
- Assess and develop the value of labelling possibilities  (to allow the aquaculture 
sector to benefit from compliance w ith high environmental standards).  X  
- Envisage a possible simplification  and review of the custom nomenclature  
(2009-2011).  X  
- Continue international cooperation on labelling and aquaculture 
certification  issues, notably with the FAO.  X  • The aquaculture 
industry remains 
very fragmented  
and isolated from 
the other players in 
the marketing chain.  
• The aquaculture 
industry is facing 
business challenges  
and is competing 
within a global 
market  - Make full use of the possibilities availa ble under the Euro pean Fisheries 
Fund  to support market initiatives , promotions campaigns, etc.   X • Improving competitiveness and governance 
(enabling the aquaculture business to cope with market demands) 
 
                                                 
42 COM(2008)791 final. 
 
EN 39   EN - Raise awareness  in the aquaculture sector of the “ Small Business Act for 
Europe”43 and implement  it (e.g. simplify licensing procedures for aquaculture 
operations through e-government and one-stop-shop solutions (2009-2012). X X •  Numerous red tape 
and administrative 
challenges  
=> creates 
uncertainty and 
discourages investment - Member States to ensure that licences are allocated for reasonable periods of 
time compatible with the specificity and the needs of aquatic farming, and with 
clear conditions for renewal, clear pro cedures and established time limits to 
decision.   X • Improving governance (and thereby also 
competitiveness). 
- Contribute to meeting the need for in formation (in particular under the 
possibilities available in European Fisheries Fund).  X • Aquaculture still 
has a rather 
negative image 
- Make sure that information (e.g. outcome  of studies supported by public bodies) 
is made publicly available (Internet).  X X • Contributing to the objective of better governance, 
and improving competitiveness. 
- Promote research  for feed substitution and for optimisation of feeding regimes X X 
- Ensure that EU feed law is developed in a way that allows maximising the use 
of high value raw material while  preventing food-borne risks  and act towards 
increasing the availability of necessary feed additives  for fish.  X  • Availability of fish 
meal and fish oil  is 
limited 
• Absence of level 
playing field  if EU 
restrictions on feed 
cannot be applied 
outside the EU - Contribute to adequate information  on feeding behaviour and needs of fish to 
ensure that EU legislation adequately covers the needs for aquaculture 
development  X X • Ensuring that feeding-stuffs for fish are both from 
sustainably managed sour ces and of high quality, 
thereby contributing to both the competitiveness 
objective and the sustainable development agenda.   
 
- Make a special effort on RDT priorities for aquaculture (2009-2013). X X 
- Ensure that public funded proj ects benefit the EU industry through greater 
involvement of EU business.  X X 
- Promote optimisation of key research infrastructures, reinforce networks and 
integration into broader science networks (in the context of the new Maritime 
Policy and its strategic research agenda (2009-2013). X  • Sill very limited 
science base  of 
aquaculture  
• Insufficiency of 
coordination,  of 
involvement  of 
economic operators 
and low level of 
transfer and 
dissemination  of - Better promote the exploitation and dissemination  of EU funded aquaculture 
research projects  (2009-2013). X  • Giving highest priority to research and 
technological development,  thereby contributing to 
the competitiveness objective. 
                                                 
43 COM(2008)394 – see http://ec.europa.eu/enterpri se/entrepreneurship/sba_en.htm . 
 
EN 40   EN - Consider, with the Member States and the European Technology Platform for 
Aquaculture, the future opportunity for la unching a Joint Technology Initiative 
(JTI)44 in aquaculture (possibly by 2011). X  RTD results  
• Risks of neglecting 
the importance of  
extensive and 
traditional 
aquaculture.  - Recall the value  and importance of traditiona l and extensive forms of 
aquaculture X  
- Assess if EU aquaculture industries have  an interest in joining working groups 
established to develop ma rket access partnerships. X  
- Promote  the need for sustainability  in aquaculture when participating in 
international fora  as well as at regional and bilateral level.  X X • EU leadership in 
R&D  is not always 
best exploited to 
the benefit of the 
EU industry on the 
international 
scene .  - Develop, in the context of its new an imal health action plan, an export 
Strategy  in order to strengthen the Commu nity role in negotiating exports 
conditions related with an imal and public health i ssues under the SPS agreement 
(2009-2011)  X  • Contributing to Europe being a reference on the 
international scene and to the competitiveness 
objective  
• Promoting environmental sustainability outside EU 
- Ensure that support for aquaculture is continued within the Operational 
programmes (e.g. priorities such as supporting innovation or environmental values 
in aquaculture) (2009).  X • MS may decide to 
allocate a  low share 
of EFF funds to 
aquaculture 
projects . - Begin exploring possible future direction  of Community support)  X X • Contributing through EFF to the social, economic 
and environmental dimensions of aquaculture. 
- Contribute to better mutual understanding  of the scope and aims of EU 
environmental legislation X X • Uneven situation 
because of different 
interpretation and 
implementation of 
EU legislation - Facilitate a level playing field by developing guidance documents and 
organising specific workshops  with stakeholders and national authorities (2009-
2011).  X  • Ensuring a level playing field among operators and 
among Member States, thereby contributing to the 
objective of better governance 
                                                 
44 Joint Technology Initiatives are proposed as a means of implem enting the Strategic Research Agendas (SRAs) of a limited number  of European Technology Platforms 
(ETPs). The dedicated structures implementing the JTIs will be independent legal entities that will manage research projects in  an integrated way, with industry joining 
forces with other stakeholders. 
 
EN 41   EN • Gold plating of 
environmental rules 
and NIMBY policy 
(“Not In My Back 
Yard”) at regional 
level. - Ensure that EU animal health and public health law is properly implemented and 
in a comparable way (with additional guidance or with FVO inspection “on the 
spot”).  X  
- Assess the need to revise the place and role of the aquaculture industry in the 
Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture  (by 2011) X  • Aquaculture 
industry has limited 
means to provide 
input to public 
authorities or to 
dialogue with 
scientists 
 - Improve the consultation process  with the aquaculture sector in the 
framework of the research agenda  X X • Contributing through the involvement of 
stakeholders in policy development to better 
governance. 
- Ensure that the new instruments for statistics and data collection are 
implemented to deliver the necessary i ndicators (cf. section 7) X X 
- Actively participate in international fora  (notably the FAO) for the 
development and collection of global and harmonised indicators  X X • The collection  of 
reliable indicators 
on aquaculture is 
difficult or not 
considered 
worthwhile by public authorities. - Establish a price monitoring system  for fish and aquaculture products 
throughout the marketing chain.  X  • Ensuring regular monitoring of the aquaculture 
industry, thereby making for better governance and 
public action based on facts. 
 
 
 
 
EN 42   EN 5.3. Likely economic, social and environmental impacts45  
5.3.1.  Impacts of Option 1 (Baseline option) 
As stated above, under a “status quo” situation, EU  policies will continue to deliver on the policy 
objectives identified above though several key measur es focusing on some of the main determinants 
of growth, in particular s upport for R&D and innova tion, support for sustai nable development 
investment and access to finance. In parallel , the EU’s environmental protection policy will 
continue to ensure a high level of protection of the environment, but  the way environmental 
protection is implemented at national level a nd the insufficient consideration of aquaculture 
stakeholders and their needs may through up seri ous challenges to the se ctor, as was clearly 
expressed during the consultation process. 
5.3.1.1.  Economic impacts 
A number of initiatives are already ongoing under th is first option and will result in support for 
R&D, public funding of some measures in the a quaculture sector, notably  through the EFF, and 
other action that may contribute to  the objectives identified earlier. 
For instance, the previous Framework Programme for Research (FP6) had been highly successful in 
contributing to research projects  in support of aquaculture (75 aquaculture projects were co-
financed for a total of €98 million, of which about half, making up about a third of the budget, were 
funded under the FP6 programme dedicated to SM Es). The projects have not yet all been 
completed, and they will continue to deliver an  increased knowledge base  for aquaculture. The 
Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Deve lopment (FP7) is operational 
and it also includes a number of incentives for aquaculture-ori entated research and for SME 
participation. 
As regards another source of pub lic funding, the European Fisher ies Fund (EFF) is the largest 
Community funding instrument benefiting the aqu aculture development. Around 29% of the total 
EFF allocation, an amount of about €1 275 million fo r the 2007-2013 period, is initially planned to 
be spent under the so-called “Axi s 2”, which covers measures for both the aquaculture and the fish 
processing sectors. According to the Operational Programmes available from the Member States at 
the time of this assessment, a total investment of about €2.15 bi llion of public m oney (national + 
EU money) would be made available over the 2007-2013 period under Axis 2 to support 
aquaculture and processing. 
Total aquaculture production in the EU is curren tly in the order of about 1.3 million tonnes (cf. 
more detailed data in previous sections and in Annex I). Accord ing to the information and data 
provided by the Member States in their first  national Operational Progra mmes (OPs), the figure 
below illustrates the estimated increase in nati onal production levels by 2013/2015 (depending on 
MS data). These figures are provisional and may change with possible modi fication of the OPs and 
actual use of EFF. 
                                                 
45 See Annex IV. 
 
EN 43   EN Aquaculture production and prospects for increase (according to EFF first operational 
programmes) :  
0 50.000 100.000 150.000 200.000 250.000 300.000 350.000 
ES FR IT UK EL NL DE IE DK PL HU CZ FI SE RO PT MT CY AT BG LT SK SI LV EE BE
Member StatePr oduct i on (t)
Current situation
2013/2015
 
It needs to be stressed, however, that these figures may not reflect actual developments as they 
depend on a number of caveats:  
– The European Fisheries Fund (EFF) Regul ation adopted in 2006 provides numerous 
possibilities for financial support for the sustai nable development of aquaculture (e.g. not 
only productive investment and i nnovation, but also measures dealing with environmental 
protection, health issues, etc.). However, as  the EFF provides the possibility within the 
same chapter (namely priority Axis 2) of support for both the aquaculture and the 
processing sectors, it is not po ssible to say exactly what the specific prospects are for the 
aquaculture sector from the EFF and national budgets. 
– Notwithstanding the uncertainty  surrounding some of the indi cators used by the Member 
States and the possible limits of comparability of data, all the objectives and indicators for 
future prospects available in the Member States Operational Programmes are probably based on optimal development and support scenar ios. Real developments and funding will 
not only depend on the priority measures that Member States decide  to support using EFF 
contributions, but also on the need for operato rs to tender for such support and to co-invest 
in those measures. This would mean at least that business prospects are favourable for this 
sector, and that aquaculture producers can actually expect to cope with the problems and 
challenges identified above. Without Member States implementing parallel measures 
called for under a new Strategy (e.g. addre ssing aquaculture licensing difficulties, 
simplifying administrative burdens, ensuring  a level playing field, etc.), funding 
opportunities in favour of innovation and productiv e investment may not deliver their full 
potential. 
– Moreover, in the context of the fuel crisis  of 2008 and its significant impact on operating 
costs for capture fisheries, the Counc il adopted of a “Fuel crisis package”
46 in July 2008. 
This package creates additional incentives for possible support for the capture fisheries sector and the restructuring and adjustment of the fishing fleet. This may lead in the 
coming months to reprogramming by Member  States. However, within an overall 
unchanged total EFF budget allocati on, increasing possibilities to  the restructuring of the 
                                                
 
46 Regulation (EC) No 744/2008 
 
EN 44   EN national fishing fleets can onl y be done by reducing the bud get allocation under the other 
EFF axis, including priority Axis 2 dedicated to aquaculture and pro cessing. Consequently, 
not only may the overall contribution to aquacult ure be reduced it may also lead to support 
for the different types of measures (e.g. “productive investments vs. environmentally 
supportive measures) being reprioritised. 
Finally, from a market perspective, EU aquatic food production has been slowly decreasing over the 
last ten years. In the years to come, assuming a constant increase in dema nd for fish and further 
assuming that EU capture fisheries will not be able to satisfy an increasing proportion of that demand, there should be increasing room for EU aquaculture products . Large EU retailers would be 
ready to offer more EU aquaculture products if su fficient quantities were available and competitive. 
Whether EU producers will be able to cover at least part of this  gap will depend on whether public 
policies are effective in reducing bottlenecks and EU producers can retain th eir cutting edge vis-à-
vis competitors in other parts of the world (e.g . Asia and South Ameri ca). If so, EU production 
could enter into a virtuous circle. Otherwise, th e unsatisfied demand will most likely be covered by 
increased imports of aquacultu re (or even capture) products. 
The lack of further coordination and renewed EU political support and leadership inherent in Option 
1 do not guarantee that the bottlenecks will be elim inated. Progress is likely to be modest and slow. 
5.3.1.2.  Social impacts 
The lack of reliable data makes it difficult to predict how employment in the sector will evolve. For 
Option 1, even available EFF opera tional programmes from the Member States do not include any 
projections regarding the evolution of employment. 
However, as emerged from the evaluation of th e 2002 objective concerning job creation, stagnation 
in overall aquaculture production is  very unlikely to be accompan ied by an increase in the number 
of jobs – on the contrary. Option 1 may lead to a slow increase in pr oduction if not to a continuation 
of the current stagnation even, with significant differences across sub-s ectors. Further production 
increases in marine fish aquaculture would norma lly not translate into significant increases in 
employment figures, given the capital- intensive nature of that sub-sector, in particular in the most 
globalised sectors (salmon, sea bass/sea bream). To the extent that the increase in size of firms takes 
place through mergers and acquisitions it can even be said that the net result for employment will be 
negative. The other two sub-sectors are more labou r-intensive. The continued decline of fresh water 
aquaculture could have negati ve consequences on employment. As regards molluscs and 
crustaceans, which are by far the most important source of jobs, employment figures should not 
change dramatically. 
The overall impact on employment could then be ne utral or even negative. The same will also apply 
to jobs in the sectors upstream and downs tream of aquaculture (e.g. fish feed). 
5.3.1.3.  Environmental impacts 
The Community is committed to a high level of environmental protection and EU regulation is 
based on the precautionary principle to ensure that the development of  industries, including 
aquaculture, is sustainable from an environmental point of view.  
As a consequence, the environmen tal status of the EU aquaculture  industry is generally good and 
this will be maintained or even  improved under Option 1, particularly in the light of the points made 
in Section 2.5.1. 
 
EN 45   EN However, as highlighted in the consultation pro cess, knowledge of actual aquaculture impacts, the 
importance of good management and best practices and the possibilities offe red by technologies are 
not yet taken fully into account. Under Option 1, this situation w ould probably cont inue, benefiting 
from progress made would probably be slow and the benefit to both aquaculture and the 
environment would be suboptimal. 
In addition, the aquaculture industry still suffers from a rather nega tive image at certain levels and 
Member States may establish their own additional environmental protection rules, provided that EU 
levels of protection are not undermined. This sometimes makes it practically impossible for 
aquaculture to develop, or simply to continue to  exist (even for extensiv e sectors like shellfish 
farming or pond farming). Progress on these issu es would probably continue under Option 1, albeit 
at a slower pace. At first sight, such situation co uld be seen as having additional positive effects for 
the environment in the EU, as it prevents aquacu lture from expanding and therefore adding to the 
overall impact of human activities on the environmen t in MS. However, this might actually lead to 
other negative environmental effects,  especially if some of the aquaculture sectors were to gradually 
disappear from the European landscape, with the at tendant loss of the environmental services these 
sectors were providing (conserva tion of wetlands, contribution to surveillance of water quality, 
etc.). 
5.3.2.  Impacts of option 2 
5.3.2.1.  Economic impacts 
The same reasoning as for Option 1 can be made  from a market pers pective: whether EU 
aquaculture develops or not will largely depend on whether bottlenecks for aquaculture are properly 
addressed by the parties respons ible over the next few years. 
The framework created under Option 2 aims precisely to  give fresh political impetus, and, if shared 
and endorsed by Member States, to address the bottle necks identified by the sector that fall under 
the responsibility of the public authorities, at  EU and also at national and local levels.  
Option 2 is expected to facilitate investment d ecisions in aquaculture by  creating conditions for a 
more stable and predictable framework and by ensu ring a level playing fiel d for aquaculture. Option 
2 is expected to help increase competitivene ss, for example through action in R&D and know-how 
which are expected to increase productive effi ciency; and in the areas of image and markets 
(labels), which could contri bute to increasing demand fo r EU aquaculture products. 
A combination of all the impacts expected from  Option 2 increase the likelihood of the EU 
aquaculture sector being more successful in the future.  
Option 2 is expected to raise th e profile and strategic dimension of aquaculture in the Member 
States and with regional and local  administrations. EU leadership should have a generally positive 
impact on business development though improved rec ognition of the industry  and supportiv e action 
from the public authorities. Moreover, according to some aquaculture representatives during the 
consultation process, aquaculture  remains a rather unknown business in some regions compared to 
well-established industries. This Option may have an  important leverage effe ct and therefore act as 
a facilitator for entr epreneurs in search of i nvestment funds when negotia ting with credit institutes. 
Option 2 will provide positive support on the whole for the development of the sector. Specific 
measures addressing some of the bottlenecks are also  expected to have a direct effect, such as 
measures to improve return on investment from publicly funded R&D on EU business. Measures to 
 
EN 46   EN improve the association of the business to the definition of research priorities eligible for public 
support (particularly in conjunction with th e European Aquaculture Technology & Innovation 
Platform47 and its strategic research agenda) or measures to facilitate and improve the feedback 
from research projects to EU business will also  boost the economic performance and development 
of aquaculture. 
Even if Option 2 is more conducive to developing the aquaculture industry  in the EU, and overall 
EU production actually increases as predicted in Member States ’ Operational programmes (cf. 
5.3.11) or even by an optimistic factor of 1.5 by  2015 (see Section 5.4 below), the impact on third 
countries would be marginal, given that EU produc tion currently accounts for a mere 2% of global 
production and that production levels in third countrie s continue to increase much faster than in the 
EU. 
5.3.2.2.  Social impact 
From a social point of view, to th e extent that bottlenecks, in partic ular the issue of access to sites, 
will be largely or completely el iminated at national and regional level, production should increase. 
Option 2 would thus have an incremental effect co mpared to Option 1. Jobs  would be created in 
fresh water and molluscs and crustacean aquacultu re, which will remain more labour intensive. 
Marine fish aquaculture will also make a positiv e contribution to employment. The scope for this 
will largely depend on the degree of globalisation of species other than salmon, sea bass and sea 
bream and the development of new production technolog ies, in particular off-shore aquaculture and 
recirculation, the latter also being of relevance for fresh water aquaculture. 
The overall contribution to employment will thus be  clearly positive, particularly in areas and 
regions where aquaculture is alre ady significant and where there is still potential for further 
development of aquaculture production. 
The impact on jobs upstream and downstream of aquaculture will also be positive and greater than 
in Option 1. 
5.3.2.3.  Environmental impacts 
As already highlighted above, ensuring that aquaculture does not adversely impact on the 
environment is of major importance to the sustaina bility of farmed fish and shellfish industries. 
Aquaculture production is also highly dependent  on an aquatic environment of high quality. 
Overall, compared with Option 1,  Option 2 would have a more pos itive impact on the environment. 
One of the main impacts would be to highlight the e fforts already made to ensu re that aquaculture is 
compatible with the environment when well managed and facilitating the promotion of best practices. Option 2 would also offset a number of  possible drawbacks in Option 1 (see end of 
Section 5.3.1.3), by generating more synergy between  environmental priorities and aquaculture. 
Extensive aquaculture practices contribute to the maintenance and preservation of wetlands, which 
are areas of high biodiversity and high importan ce for nature conservation. Because of their 
dependence on high quality water, and because fish  are often very good biological indicators of 
water quality and allow thereby early detection of  any degradation in water quality, fish producers 
play an active role in the daily surveillance of water pollution. Similarly, aquaculture producers 
have every interest in ensuring the quality of the water on which they depend. Shellfish farmers in 
particular have demonstrated their active role in ensuring that water quality rules (e.g. in cases of 
                                                
 
47 http://www.eatpnet.eu . 
 
EN 47   EN persistent failure of water treatment plants) are duly enforced by the respective parties, both private 
and public. 
Possible measures under Option 2 would have  different levels of positive impact on the 
environment, some direct positive, others indirect impact. 
As mentioned above, national measures can create  additional obstacles and administrative burdens 
for the aquaculture industry. Without questioning th e need to meet the objectives of environmental 
protection, there may be scope fo r Member States to examine wh ether measures implemented at 
national or local levels are best  suited to providing sustainabl e aquaculture growth. A broader 
partnership approach between th e EU and the Member States by way of a reviewed strategy for 
aquaculture could improve the situation for aqua culture operators, on the one hand by making sure 
that legislation is conceived from the start in a way that ensures a high le vel of protection of the 
environment, while taking account of the specific  needs of aquaculture,  and on the other by 
avoiding a situation whereby the terms of Commun ity directives are exceeded significantly when 
implemented in national law (so-called gold-plati ng issue). Option 2 will contribute to a better 
understanding of EU environmental legislation. Measures such as the organisation of information 
workshops and the development of guide documents  should help to achieve this objective while 
ensuring proper implementation of European legisl ation (especially the water quality legislative 
package and the Natura 2000 network of protected ar eas). Exchange of information, best practices 
in the use of veterinary medicine s in aquatic animals and guideline s for limits on the release of 
certain chemical substances into the aquatic envi ronment are other examples of possible action that 
would help to ensure an imal health and welfare while limiting the possible impact of fish farming 
on the environment. Action of this kind will guarantee continued protection of Europe’s environment and will make for better mutual unde rstanding of the scope and aims of these 
legislative instruments. This approach could th erefore help to prevent negative cross-border 
externalities such as pollution. 
As also already highlighted, the aquaculture sector is often not taken into account during planning 
and decision-making processes, and may even be s tifled by other activities. Reviewing the strategy 
is expected to help address this problem and to stress the importance of sp atial planning (especially 
marine spatial planning). The proper siting of a quaculture facilities shoul d help this sector to 
integrate into the environment and to avoid conflicts  with other activities. Planning tools will help 
to pre-empt the risks of climate change, floods, dr ought, erosion, etc., and to underscore the role of 
aquaculture facilities (e.g. fres hwater ponds) in landscape water management. Spatial planning and 
integrated coastal zone management would doubtlessly have a positive effect on the environment and on the facilitation of aquaculture development. 
Innovation and technological development play an important role in mini mising the impact of 
aquaculture on the environment. The reviewed stra tegy will add value by addressing these aspects 
and the need for investment in RTD (e.g. for offshore aquaculture developments or recirculation 
systems) and by helping to create networks of aquacu lture science and to apply scientific results to 
aquaculture practices. The development and transfer  of eco-efficient technologies would also help 
other countries to make efficient use of their resources. 
The European Fisheries Fund provides possibilities,  among numerous others, for support for aqua-
environmental measures and can help aquaculture to substantially reduce any negative impact and 
enhance the positive effects on the environment. A reviewed strategy would provide leadership and 
thus encourage Member States to prioritise the aquaculture sector sufficiently, notably in the case 
they would redefine their Operational Programme s to increase the scope for restructuring the 
capture fishing fleets. 
 
EN 48   EN Rules on organic aquaculture, development of eco-la bels for aquaculture pr oducts and international 
cooperation on aquaculture certificati on are other areas of measures where the industry can expect 
to improve its environment record. 
5.4. Overall estimates of possible environmenta l and socio-economic impacts depending 
on aquaculture growth scenarios 
Potential measures proposed in Option 2 focus on the role of public authorities to establish a 
framework for European aquaculture to address so me of its bottlenecks while remaining sustainable 
from an environmental point of view. By providing more political leadership than in Option 1 this 
could lead to more production. Taking a simplis tic approach, increased production could mean 
more extensive use of natural res ources and increased out put of pollutants. Howe ver, this needs to 
be assessed in each specific case. Increased impacts from increased production in a given 
aquaculture facility can either be fully mitigated  (notably through technological progress and proper 
management), or remain within acceptable limits  for local environmental conservation, especially 
as regards water quality requirements. These impact s, or the level of mitig ation required, should be 
put in balance with the soci al and economic consequences. 
As mentioned in previous sections, in September 2008 the JRC published a “ Prospective analysis of 
the aquaculture sector in the EU” , which concurs on a number of i ssues with the assessment made 
during the preparation of this initiative. One of the chapters in this prospective analysis sets out 
different theoretical scenarios of development of  European aquaculture and provides quantitative 
estimates of indicators in terms their envir onmental output and jobs and wealth creation.  
These scenarios, hypotheses and pr ojections of this sp ecific chapter of the JRC prospective 
analysis48 are copied in full in Annex IV. These figur es cannot be considered in themselves as 
Commission targets, but rather as an aid to illustra te impacts from the different options. It needs to 
be said in this context that this JRC prospective study was launc hed already in 2006, and was not 
intended to serve as a basis for this impact assess ment. Thus, there is no direct link - and no such 
link shall be made - between th e scenarios developed by the JRC and the policy options assessed 
above. 
Growth modelling scenarios developed by the JRC 
The models used by the JRC explore the potentia l for increased aquaculture production in EU 
Member States (EU-25). They firstly identify  potential market demand for fish and seafood 
products and compare this with supply from the captu re fisheries sector. The shortfall in supply is 
then expected to be met through aquaculture and ne t imports from third count ries. The implications 
of only part of the shortfall be ing met through aquaculture, or virt ually all the shortfall being met 
through aquaculture, are explored. The JRC models ar e not intended to be pred ictive, but rather to 
indicate the development leve ls needed and the implications  of the different options.  
Four main aquaculture production scen arios were considered by the JRC: 
(i) Minimal development: current trend of dec line continues for remainder of this decade, 
before reversing as the gap be tween production and demand rises. 
                                                 
48 The JRC prospective analysis also includes further detailed assessments of the aquaculture industry and its 
sub-sectors, notably on the prospects and characterisation of new aquaculture technologies (offshore 
aquaculture, recirculation systems, integrated systems) and emerging aquaculture species (e.g. meagre, turbot, 
octopus, tuna, cod, halibut, sturgeon, etc.). 
 
EN 49   EN (ii) To meet output targets of 4% annual increase in aquaculture  production as envisaged in the 
2002 Strategy (according to JRC calculation, the EU 4% growth target would now require an 8.4% per annum average growth rate to reach the same production level by 2025 as 
would have been achieved by a 4% a nnual increase from 2000 onwards). 
(iii) EU aquaculture develops to fill the gap left  by capture fisheries declining at 2% per year. 
(iv) EU aquaculture develops to fill the en tire gap between capture fisheries supply and 
expected demand.
49 
Within each modelling scenario, 12 categories of aquaculture products were considered (e.g. 
salmon and trout; carp, tilapia and catfish, mussels, etc.), and how these might develop in order to 
achieve the target production levels . As the prospective study also focused on emerging aquaculture 
systems, particular attention was given to the role these systems play in these scenarios. 
Nitrogen, phosphorus and organic carbon were used as  relevant and amenable emissions to estimate 
the environmental impact. Use of natural resour ces (space, water, energy) was also assessed. 
JRC quantitative models with regard to th e expected outcome of Options 1 and 2 
When putting the production scenarios modelled by th e JRC in correspondence with Options 1 and 
2 in this impact assessment, we  can reasonably consider that: 
– the consequences of Option 1 (status quo) r oughly correspond to JRC scenario 1 (minimal 
development); 
– the consequences of Option 2 (a new strategy, fresh impetus for aquaculture accompanied 
by action by public authorities to address bottlen ecks, at both EU and national level) would 
be somewhere between the out put modelled for scenario 1 a nd the output modelled for 
JRC scenario 2 (4% growth since 2000), whic h is already an unachieved scenario. JRC 
scenario 3 illustrates this intermediate situ ation (aquaculture filling the gap left by capture 
fisheries declining at 2% a year); 
– the 4th scenario modelled by JRC (maximum aquaculture development) seems highly 
unlikely, given the drivers and challenges facing the EU aquaculture sector and 
considering its development over the last 5-10 years. 
The table below summarises the key indicators for the 3 first scenarios modelled by the JRC by 
2010 and 2015, with the reference data used by the JRC for the year 2005. 
                                                 
49 The 4th scenario modelled by the JRC (maximum aquaculture development) seems rather unlikely given the 
drivers and challenges of this sector at EU level, and its development over last 5-10 years. 
 
EN 50   EN  
JRC Modelling scenarios Minimal 
development 
(scenario 1)  Intermediate 
development: 
compensate fisheries 
(scenario 3)  Higher development: 
4% production 
growth since 2000 
(scenario 2)  
 IA Option 1 roughly 
Ù JRC scenario 1 IA Option 2 probably 
somewhere between 
JRC scenarios 1 & 3 Expected but 
unachieved 
development since 
2000 
Indicator 2005 value 
(< JRC) 2010 
estimate 2015 
estimate 2010 
estimate 2015 
estimate 2010 
estimate 2015 
estimate 
Aquaculture production (Mt) 1.26 1.17 1.20 1.57 1.94 1.84 2.44 
Aquaculture value (€ billion) 2.83 2.79 2.86 3.65 5.18 4.31 6.58 
Direct jobs  (x 10³) 75.8 72.8 74.9 88.0 101.7 94.9 122.5 
Land / water area required (10³ ha) 200 224 237 208 215 230 301 
Water use (billion m
3) 2 960 2 720 2 760 3 600 4 270 4 340 5 460 
Industrial energy used (M MJ) 150 142 146 195 257 255 359 
Nitrogen output (t) 34 070 35 060 36 790 45 860 65 640 56 500 97 160 
Phosphorus output (t) 5 100 5 360 5 790 7 500 12 240 8 580 16 150 
Carbon output (10³ t) 180 170 174 230 295 209 391 
 
In JRC model scenario 1, overall EU production would first continue  to decline (1.17 Mt in 2010 
and 1.20 Mt by 2015), and production would only slight ly increase in the longer term, by about 20-
30% in 2025. The other two scenar ios anticipate more of a contribution from aquaculture to 
 
EN 51   EN projected EU consumption demands. As a re sult, by 2015 forecast production could be around 1.5 
to maximum 1.9 times higher than current production. 
If aquaculture development is minimal the number of jobs may slightly decrea se or stagnate in the 
next 5 to 10 years.50 Using constant multipliers, employme nt would have multiplied by 1.6 in 2015 
(and would have more than doubled by 2025) if output  had matched the target growth rate of 4% 
per annum for aquaculture development sin ce 2000. However, price competition and market 
demand are likely to result in major increases  in production volume through new marine fish 
production, especially in offshor e systems with higher efficien cy. Employment per tonne of 
production however is greatest for small-scale artisanal and family-run farms, which might 
increasingly need to address niche markets to survive. 
As regards the effects on the environment and the need for resources, the JRC calculations suggest 
that raising aquaculture output in  line with the projecti ons in the 2002 Strategy  (4% growth a year 
from 2000) would multiply the land and water ar ea used by aquaculture by 1.5 in 2015. Even if 
continued until 2025, an annual increase in producti on of this kind would be something less than 
double the total land and water area required by 2025. However, even in this maximum (and 
unachieved) target, the overall area needed would be very small compared with agriculture (less 
than 0.5 million ha estimated, compared with over 6 million ha of land used for organic agriculture, 
which is itself only 4% of total agriculture). Out put of nutrients should s ee a 2.8-fold increase in 
nitrogen output by 2015 (and 3.8 by 2025). However, this  should be seen in th e wider context. In 
comparison with the terrestrial livestock sector , for example, the additional nitrogen maximum 
output in 2025 under the JRC scenario 2 would be  equivalent to increa sing European cattle 
population by around 0.7%. More important would be how  and where the nutrients are released and 
treated. Offshore aquaculture woul d have very high waste disp ersion characteristics, whilst 
recirculated systems provide greate r means of control and removal fo r further processing or use. An 
increase in human consumption of  fish could also imply some compensatory reduction in overall 
consumption of meat produced by terrestrial farmed  animals, with indirect consequences on the 
overall environmental impact from terrestrial farming. 
The estimated direct usage of industrial energy (bas ed on a selected mix of systems) would multiply 
by 2.4 by 2015 and triple by 2025 if aquaculture were  to develop along the 4% projection since 
2002 compared to the minimal development scenario. This maximum increase is equivalent to the 
average annual energy usage of 4 600 European  homes, or 10 500 people. In terms of power 
generation it equates to a wind farm of a bout 15 turbines of 2.5 MW capacity each. 
                                                 
50 The JRC report, however, takes a different baseline of about 75 000 jobs in the aquaculture sector in 2005. 
 
EN 52   EN  
6. COMPARING OPTIONS  
6.1. Comparing options 
The following tables provide a comparison of  the three options in term s of contributing to meeting objectives, possible advanta ges and drawbacks and 
environmental, economic and social impacts. 
 
Strategic objective identified 
  
Option 1  
Option 2  
Option 3 
 
Establishing conditions for 
aquaculture in line with the EU 
sustainable development 
agenda Continues horizontal pol icies development, 
without any new specific approach or any updated vision for aquaculture. 
Ensures a high level of protection of the 
environment through numerous areas of 
action (pollution, water quality, nature 
protection...) 
Ensures a high level of consumer health 
protection. 
Ensures a high level of animal health and 
welfare, in particular through the new 
animal health strategy. Ensures the same high level of protection of the 
environment, of consum er protection and of 
animal health and welfare. 
Also promotes an e nvironmentally friendly 
aquaculture development while recognising the 
aquaculture industry as an equal right competitor 
in access to space/water and develops integrated 
spatial planning. 
Gives the new animal health strategy a specific 
“aquatic dimension” to shape an efficient aquatic 
animal farming industry, addressing also the need 
for specific veterinary me dicines and high quality 
and sustainable feeding-stuffs for fish. 
Highlights the health benefits of aquatic food. 
Promotes a level playing field for this sector. Comparable to Option 2. 
 
 
EN 53   EN Promoting competitiveness of 
EU aquaculture branches  Does not provide suffi cient stimulus to 
address, in a coor dinated manner, the 
bottlenecks faced by the industry for 
sustainable development.  
Keeps with an objective of job creation that 
is known not to be achieved. 
 Improves coordination and interpretation of all 
EU policies with the aim of eliminating 
bottlenecks and developing sustainable EU. 
Aquaculture. 
Develops new opportunities to increase the 
competitiveness of the EU  aquaculture products 
(notably through technological development and 
innovation as a means of addressing competition 
for space, giving highest priority to research, 
prioritising support for innovative action and 
environmental benefits, contributing to the ability 
of the aquaculture business to cope with market 
demands, and promoting European know-how in 
the international arena). Establishes ad hoc instruments for the 
aquaculture sector (p roduction management, 
markets, financial support, environment, health, 
control, etc.), at EU level by assuming 
responsibilities currently within the remit of 
MS (e.g. space allocation and spatial planning, 
licensing and setting of associated 
requirements, structur al policies, etc.) 
 
Improving governance in 
designing policies and 
measures which influence the 
development of aquaculture 
 Dilution over time of the supportive stance 
that surrounded the 2002 Strategy, which 
was also only debated within the former 
EU-15. 
Maintains the same “administrative 
difficulties”, or does not raise sufficient 
awareness of non-specific initiatives (e.g. 
the Small Business Act) within the 
aquaculture industry.  
Does not sufficiently address the specific 
needs of aquaculture within horizontal 
policies. Brings stakeholders togeth er to seek solutions to 
current problems in a c oherent and consistent 
manner for the EU-27. 
Provides leadership and gives a stronger political 
signal regarding the strategic importance of EU 
aquaculture. 
Aims to provide a level playing field and reduce 
the administrative burden for the aquaculture 
industry. 
Improves the image and provides factual 
information on aquaculture.  
Ensures increased stakeholder participation. 
 Comparable to Option 2.  
Establishes further action to ensure 
harmonisation of production and a level playing 
field across MS.  
 
EN 54   EN  
Advantages and drawbacks of each 
policy option Advantages Drawbacks 
Option 1  
Status quo (baseline option) Continues to deliver several key measures (e.g. support for 
R&D and innovation; support fo r sustainable development 
investment).  
Does not require a specific initiative for a new framework 
for the development of EU aquaculture. Keeps within a background of an objective established in 2002 and that will not be 
achieved. 
The outcome of the consultation process is  not taken into account, particularly 
regarding the consensus in favour of reviewing the strategy. 
The bottlenecks of EU aquacultu re development are not addr essed; the sector is not 
boosted by politi cal impetus.  
Slower pace of measures conduci ve to aquaculture development. 
Increased risk of divergent approaches across Member States and regions. 
Option 2  
Developing a new Strategy for EU 
aquaculture   By recognising the strategic importance of aquaculture as a 
provider of healthy and safe food, as well as its economic, 
social and environmental asse ts, the Strategy sends out a 
political signal from the Commission to the public 
authorities at national and regi onal level, and to the public 
at large. 
Establishes a framework for sustainable development of EU 
aquaculture, by identifying  strategic objectives and 
reviewing the problems and their underlying drivers (as 
developed in Section 2). 
Addressing the main challenges and bottlenecks will make 
it possible for the different branches to  develop their full 
potential. 
Increases coordination and gove rnance at EU and national 
level. 
Brings specific added va lue to Community action 
(including the cross-border dimension of the remaining 
specific problems of EU aquaculture).  Some bottlenecks to aquaculture development are within the jurisdiction of Member 
States (e.g. licensing procedures; allocation of access to space and water); Option 2 
does not guarantee achieving all objectives without parallel and additional action 
being taken by national / regional authorities. 
This strategy therefore requires full endorse ment by Member States and a significant 
contribution from their part into concrete action.  
Meeting the set objectives also depends on the investment possibilities and 
willingness of entrepreneurs to invest in Europe. 
 
EN 55   EN Extends the debate to EU-27 (the 2002 strategy was 
discussed with 15 MS only) 
Option 3  
Developing a specific Community 
policy for aquaculture  
 Basically covers the objectives  of option 2. 
Builds on it by setting up a comprehensive sector-specific  
policy framework. 
 The development of an integrated Communi ty aquaculture policy initiated by the 
creation of a single legislativ e reference framework require s a fundamental review of 
the present EU legal architecture. Devel oping a single framework legal instrument 
encompassing possibly all dimensions of  this sector (production management, 
markets, financial support, environment, health, controls, etc.) also requires a 
comprehensive review of the existing provisi ons and references to aquaculture under 
the Common Fisheries Policy – and partic ularly its “basic” Regulation (EC) No 
2371/2002. This fundamental change in appr oach to aquaculture at the EU level 
would require additional pa rallel changes of provisions under the present Common 
Agriculture Policy (or possibly others, like the animal health policy)).  
Addressing at EU level some of the presen t bottlenecks faced by the EU aquaculture 
sector through legally binding objectives and principles appears to be in 
contradiction with the subsidiarity principle . 
In the light of the above, Option 3 is not considered as being a viable alternative for tackli ng the problems identified at thi s stage. The fundamental 
questions raised in relation to  the overall institutiona l setup, including the consequences on subsidiarity, would generate neg ative consequences, which 
would outweigh any incremental social, economic and environmental benefits resulting from this option. For these reasons, this option is discarded.  
 
EN 56   EN  
Possible impacts Option 1  
Status quo (baseline option) Option 2  
Developing a new Strategy for EU aquaculture based on a new political 
Communication from the Commission 
Environmental impacts The environmental status of th e EU aquaculture industry is 
generally good and this will  be maintained or even 
improved under Option 1. 
 The environmental status wi ll be maintained or even  improved under Option 2. 
The protection of Europe’s environment successfully continues and makes for a 
better mutual understanding of the scope and aims of these legislative instruments. 
This approach helps to prevent negative cr oss-border externalities such as pollution. 
Stresses the importance of spatial planning to  make for better integration of this 
sector to its environment and help avoi d conflicts with other activities while 
optimising its compatibility with the environment, and to pre-empt also the risks of 
climate change, floods, drought, erosion etc.  
Adds value by addressing the role of i nnovation and technologi cal development and 
minimising the impact of aqua culture on the environment. 
Economic impacts  A number of initiatives are already ongoing and will result 
in support for R&D, public funding for some measures in 
the aquaculture sector (e.g. FP7  or EFF) and other action to 
help reduce some of the bottlenecks.  
The information and data available in the current national 
Operational Programmes allow to make an approximate 
estimate of an overall increase of EU aquaculture 
production of about 318 000 tonnes over the programming 
period by 2013/2015. This figure appears subject to a 
number of caveats, however, and will probably not  be 
realised if bottlenecks ar e not properly addressed.  Addressing aquaculture bottlenecks is expect ed to have a posi tive economic impact 
overall. 
Decisions to invest in aquaculture should be facilitated by creating a more stable, 
predictable framework and by ensuring a level playing field for aquaculture. 
Several measures are expected to help to increase competitiveness, e.g. in the areas 
of R&D and know-how, which are expected to  increase productive efficiency, and in 
the fields of image and marketing, whic h could help to increase demand for EU 
aquaculture products. 
The importance and the strategic dimensi on of aquaculture should be raised at 
Member State, regional and local administration levels. 
Facilitation for entrepreneurs in search of  investment funds when negotiating with 
credit institutes (probably limited in vi ew of the recent credit crunch and severe 
economic crisis).  
Social impacts  The overall impact on em ployment could be neutral or even The overall econom ic benefit of Option 2 should also lead to more pos itive impacts 
 
EN 57   EN negative. The same applies to jobs in EU sectors upstream 
and downstream of aquaculture. 
Present trends in some sub-sectors (e.g. consolidation, or 
disappearance of some businesses) may lead to enterprises 
that survive being stronger, but also lead to some job losses.  in terms of employment in the aquaculture sector (and of related business activities, 
such as technology providers, fish feed industry, etc.). 
 
 
 
EN 58   EN 6.2. Preferred option  
The analysis of the state of play in Sec tion 2 shows the principal economic and social 
magnitudes of EU aquaculture in the period 1996 -2005. These figures clearly show the lack of 
overall growth of EU aquaculture in this pe riod, and the increase in imports, particularly 
farmed fish, over the same period. Option 2 thus  corrects an objective set in 2002 that will 
clearly not be achieved. By urging Member St ates to act and proposing action to remove 
obstacles more quickly and efficiently than Op tion 1, it is more likel y to help unlock the 
potential for sustainable development in the sector. Option 2 would also lead to more 
extensive use of natural resource s and to an increase in pollutant output, but this increase in 
pollution has to be balanced again the pollu tion (and other aspects) of other forms of 
production of high value protei ns and food for human consumption. Any negative impacts 
resulting from using natural resources appear to be less significant than the overall positive impacts resulting from Option 2. In the light of  this, Option 2 should be the preferred option. 
7. M
ONITORING AND EVALUATION  
Development of the EU aquaculture industr y requires the full commitment of both the 
Community and the Member Stat es. The Commission therefore e xpects the Council, with the 
support of the European Parliament and the othe r EU institutions, to endorse the Strategy and 
thereby recognise the role play ed by the aquaculture industry and the need to unlock its 
potential. 
This will require closer monito ring of the industry, and the indi cators for doing so have been 
rather limited so far, in terms of both the data available and the quality. However, the 
European legal framework was updated in 2008 to make for better monitoring of this industry. 
– A new Regulation on aquaculture statisti cs (Regulation (EC) No 762/2008) was 
adopted by the European Parliament a nd the Council in July  2008. It requires 
Member States to collect and submit data on annual production (volume and value), annual input to capture-bas ed aquaculture, annual production of hatcheries and 
nurseries and data on the structure of the aquaculture sector. Th is Regulation (which 
repeals the former Regulation (EC) No 788/96) not only signifi cantly extends the 
scope of data to be monitored, compared to  the previous regulat ion, it also provides 
additional guarantees regarding quality. 
– In February 2008, the Council adopted a Re gulation establishing an EU framework 
for the collection, management and use of da ta in the fisheries sector and support for 
scientific advice re garding the CFP (Regulation (E C) No 2008/199). This new data 
regulation has been extended to cover additional data concerning the marine aquaculture industry. The Commission implementing Regulation ((EC) No 
665/2008) was adopted in July 2008 and provides for the co llection of the following 
economic variables: income, personnel costs,  energy costs, raw material costs, 
investment, employment and number of enterprises. 
These new tools will be implemented in the comi ng year, and they should help to improve the 
monitoring of the econo mic, social and environmental comp onents of the aquaculture industry 
(cf. chapter 3).  
 
EN 59   EN Lessons from the past – based on the experien ce of the 2002 strategy – have shown that 
setting fixed timetables with quantitative objectives is not best suited to an overall initiative of 
this kind, which covers numerous  horizontal and wide-ranging pol icies. However, monitoring 
the aquaculture industry and its sub-sectors will show wh ether growth opportunities are 
emerging for this industry over time. In additio n, permanent dialogue with stakeholders will 
allow in the coming years to evaluate whether the different measures identified have been 
taken and have delivered, and bottlen ecks are gradually being eliminated. 
 
EN 60   EN  
ANNEX I   
 
BACKGROUND INFORMATIO N: FACTS AND FIGURES  
The data and tables referred to in this Annex have been extracted from different sources and 
may be subject to some variability. However, this does not change the global analysis of 
trends and the overall evaluation. 
1. EU AQUACULTURE – DESCRIPTION OF THE MAIN SUB -SECTORS  
European aquaculture is mainly composed of 3 large sub-sectors, with different 
characteristics: shellfish, fresh water fish a nd marine fish farming. Crustaceans and algae are 
also grown in the EU, but their production is marginal so far. 
1.1. Shellfish farming 
1.1.1.  Oyster farming 
The bulk of oyster production is the cupped or Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas , which was 
introduced into Europe in the past 50 years. Native European flat oysters are now produced 
only in small quantities, since th e introduction from the Americas of a protozoan parasite in 
the late 1970s which significantly affected mo st flat oyster growing regions of Europe, 
including France, Spain, the Ne therlands, Ireland and the UK. 
Juvenile oysters are either collected in the wild or are grown in hatcheries and production 
takes place via bottom culture on inshore beds with  firm substrates or via rack culture where 
oysters are grown in plastic mesh containers on  metal trestles or racks. In France a special 
treatment ( "affinage" ) may be carried out in ponds ("claires" ) for the supply of top quality 
oysters. 
Total oyster production for EU27 was in the or der of 132 000 tonnes in 2005 valued at about 
€300 million. Largely dominated by France, which is also the largest market for oysters, the Community production of cupped oysters pe aked at over 160 000 tonnes in mid 90's but 
subsequently significantly decreased. In some  part of the Community, for example Ireland, 
cupped oyster production is smaller but register ed an increase in production to 12,089 tonnes 
in 2005 (nearly six times the 1995  level). Irish production of fl at oysters was 1708 tonnes in 
2005 compared with 1412 tonnes in 1995
51. The native oyster obtains  a higher price on the 
market and many producers mourn the fact  that stocks have been decimated. 
Very high mortalities of juvenile oysters has been reported in France during the summer 2008, 
and this will certainly have important repe rcussion on overall production within the coming 
years. 
                                                 
51 Source BIM: Status of Irish Aquaculture 2005 
 
EN 61   EN 1.1.2.  Mussel farming 
In the Community today there are three type s of mussel farming. The largest volume is 
cultured on ropes suspended from rafts or long lin es as in Galicia in Spain and on the east 
coast of Italy and to a lesser extent in Fr ance, the West of Ireland and the UK (West of 
Scotland). Bottom culture, where vessels are used to relay seed mussels in suitable grow out sites, is used in the Netherlands, Ireland and in the UK (Wales). "Bouchot" culture is a method used in France using a series of wooden poles as supports. Young mussels are 
transplanted onto these poles for on-growing. 
Total Community mussel production (EU-27) incr eased from about 367 000 tonnes (valued at 
€210 million) in 1993 to a peak over 600 000 tonnes and the end of the 90's. Since production fluctuated, but generally decreased . The top producers are Spai n, Italy, the Netherlands and 
France. The level of production has declined in the last ten years in the Netherlands due to a 
shortage of seed supplies. Access to wild se ed for cultivation has been restricted over 
concerns regarding the impact of seed mussel collection on the availability of food for wild 
birds. There is also competition for acce ss to collection grounds due to hydrocarbon 
extraction in the northern part of the Nether lands. New mussel industr ies have developed in 
recent years in Greece, Ireland, the UK and Sweden. The oyster and mussel production sectors have been affected by increasingly freque nt biotoxin closures linked to algal blooms. 
For shellfish farming, there is also an ongoing problem of access to waters free from 
microbiological contamination of  human or animal origin. 
1.1.3.  Other shellfish 
The "other shellfish" sector is made up of clams, scallops, abalone and sea urchins. The 
Japanese or Manila clam Ruditapes philippinarum , is now the lead species in the Community. 
Total clam production in 1997 was 49670 tonnes , valued at €149 million, of which Italy 
accounted for 80%, Spain 11% an d Portugal 7% with smaller quantities grown in France, 
Ireland and the UK
52. Italian production grew to 50000 t onnes in 1999 but had dropped to 
27737 tonnes by 2003,53 (Facts and figures on the CFP). Th e clams are grown in the open in 
shallow areas with fine sediments in the Po Delta area principally. In other Member States 
cultivation generally takes place in the inter-tidal zone under me sh covering to protect from 
birds. Growth of the clam cultivation using th is method has been slower than anticipated. 
Production of other shellfish in this category is very small at  the present time but there are 
some hopes that production can grow in future as  there is a good market  for these species. 
1.2. Fresh-water-fish farming in lakes, ponds or basins 
European aquaculture production is dominate d by farming of trout, carp, and some other 
species in smaller amounts. 
1.2.1.  Trout: an intensive but high qua lity water demanding production. 
Trout production is spread throughout Europe  and fresh trout can be bought everywhere. 
Because of its growth requirements and production performance, rainbow trout 
                                                 
52 Source: Forward study of Community Aquaculture, MacA lister Elliot and Partners Ltd, Sept 99.  
53 Source: Facts and figures on the CFP- Basic data on the Common Fishereis Policy- Edition 2006  
 
EN 62   EN (Oncorhynchus mykiss ) largely dominates European trou t production (approximately 95% of 
the total production). 
Almost every Member State has trout farms. Most of them are near to ri vers, and use concrete 
basins or ponds. Some lake cages are also in use. Approximately 200 000 tonnes of portion-
size trout are produced within Europe each ye ar. The main producers are Italy and France, 
followed by Denmark, Germany and Spain. Turkey is also a big producer of portion trout 
outside the EU. Trout remains the first farmed fish in Europe. After many years of slow but 
steady increase, in the peri od 2000-2005 the production of por tion trout showed a slow 
declining trend (approximate ly minus 0.6% per year)54, but prices remained good. 
Larger size trout over 1 kg are mostly destined  for filleting or smoking, but there is also a 
market for the whole fish, fresh and gutted. Mo st large trout are por tion-size trout spawned 
and grown in fresh water, then  transferred to sea-cages to become large trout. However in 
some countries the entire cycle to Large Trout is  carried out in fresh water. The production of 
Large Trout in Europe grew regularly from  1998 (where it was 94 000 tonnes) to 2002 when 
it reached 144 000 tonnes. The EU  produces approximately 40% of  total European production 
of Large Trout. However, Norway alone produ ces more than the whole EU. Norwegian and 
Faroese production collapsed after 2003 (following the impositio n of a 20% duty on imports 
of this fish into the EU). In 2005, pr oduction was approximately 100 000 tonnes. 
1.2.2.  Extensive or semi-extensive aquacultu re: carp and associated species. 
The total EU production of carps, which is estimated at 72000 tonnes in 200655 is largely 
dominated by the Common carp ( Cyprinus carpio ) (over 90%). The main areas for EU 
production are in Central Europe (Czech Republ ic, Poland, Hungary, and Germany being the 
biggest producers) where the fi sh is mostly produced in ponds using traditional extensive or 
semi-intensive techniques. 
In addition, the extensive polyculture te chniques practised in carp ponds also allow 
simultaneous production of other freshwater speci es such as pike, pike-perch, perch, eels, 
tench and other small Cyprinids. 
Statistics on carp production may no t be fully reliable, but the tre nd over the last six years in 
the EU is towards a fall in tota l volumes, in particular in Au stria and Poland, but good results 
in terms of prices with a certain tendency to the increase. On the European continent, non EU 
"carp" production is almost 145 000 tonnes/year, the common carp  and the silver carp being 
by for the most frequently famed species. The main producers are the Russian Federation and 
Ukraine. 
The carp group is far and away the largest fish  production in aquaculture on a world scale. 
2005 world production was around 19, 5 million tonnes, mostly in Asia56. 
                                                 
54 Source: FEAP - Aquaculture Production. AQUAMEDIA 2007  
55 Source: FEAP - Aquaculture Production. AQUAMEDIA 2007  
56 Source: FAO Fishstat.  
 
EN 63   EN 1.2.3.  Intensive aquaculture in cl osed systems with water re circulation: Eels and other 
species 
Eel is farmed in intensive systems in the Netherlands, Denmark and Italy. Dutch and Danish 
farmers use closed water recirculation systems, wh ile in Italy farms are more traditional, with 
concrete basins and flow-through of water. The ancient form of extensive farming in Italian 
lagoons has almost completely disappeared. 
EU production was around 11 000 tonnes/years until 2001, and then it went down to 
approximately 8 500 tonnes/year from 2002 and has stabilized overall since. But this figure 
hides major shifts among the main producer s; Italian production (once the biggest EU 
producer) is on a constant downw ard trend since the late 90's,  and Danish production also 
went down after 2001. These losses have been pa rtially compensated by some increase in 
Dutch production. However, because of the uncer tain supply of young eels, some eel farmers 
switch production to other specie s or simply abandon the sector. 
Non-European fresh water species, such as Tilapia, catfish and sturgeon are also being 
produced. Although production amounts are yet mi nor compared to trout or carp, the high 
technology and innovation level of these farms appears highly attractive. 
1.3. Marine finfish farming 
1.3.1.  Atlantic salmon57 
The expansion in output from Atlantic salmon fa rming has continued over the past 30 years. 
The Community industry began to develop from the late 1970s onwards. The UK (West of Scotland) and Ireland (West co ast) are the main EU produ cers. Estimated 2006 production 
was 128 000 tonnes in the UK and 15 000 tonne s in Ireland (although their production peaked 
in 2003 and 2002 respectively). 
Norway remains the dominant world player in salmon farming, with an overall production of 
over 600 000 tonnes, whereas other producers of Atlantic salmon in Europe are Iceland and 
the Faroe Islands. Outside Europe , the species has seen spectacular growth in production in 
Chile (estimated about 400 000 tonnes in 2006) , but which faced a severe disease outbreak 
since, and to a lesser extend in  Canada, Australia and USA. 
The industry cycle is now rega rded as mature and salmon is  the sector of European 
aquaculture which is most subject to globalis ation and concentration of ownership. The top 
seven companies are responsible for 38% of Norwegian production. The top six companies, 
four of which feature in the Norwegian li st, are responsible fo r 66% of UK production. 
Several European companies are also significa nt producers in Chile and Canada. Production 
has tended to surge ahead of market demand periodically. 
There are still important environmental bottl enecks for salmon farming to deal with (if 
managing sea-lice seems less a problem than in earlier times, reducing the escape of farmed 
salmon is an important priority in salmon pr oducing countries on the European continent). 
                                                
 
57 All statistics from Kontali Monthly Salmon Report, January 07. 
 
EN 64   EN 1.3.2.  Sea bass and sea bream 
The development of sea bream and sea bass aq uaculture in Greece was probably the biggest 
success story of the entire EU aquaculture s ector; in the decade 1990-99 the average yearly 
increase in production was nearly 70%, bri nging Greek output from 3,550 tonnes in 1990 to 
57 250 tonnes in 199958. 
The production of both species continued to increase in the following years almost 
everywhere, to reach 181 000 tonnes in 2002. Gr eece was by far the most significant producer 
accounting for 57% of all production in 2002, with 44 000 tonnes of sea bass and 59 000 
tonnes of sea bream59. 
The high production volumes reached by 2001-2002 le d to a major confusion in EU markets 
for sea bass and sea bream, with a collapse in prices. The main cause of the price crisis was 
the imbalance between supply and demand caused by rapid and uncontrolled production 
growth, without proper planning, market support or promotion, pa rticularly in Greece where 
some Greek enterprises went bankrupt. Sin ce then, sea bream and sea bass production has 
remained stable overall during 2003 and 2004 in Gr eece, while it restarted moderate growth in 
most other countries. By 2005, pr oduction again took off strongl y almost everywhere. Spain 
is an interesting example; with its moderate bu t regular yearly increase, this Member State is 
the only European producer which has c onstantly increased production since 1990. 
Despite some ups and downs, average prices for these species have risen during recent years, 
with good price levels in 2006. Production is still on an increasing trend today, but a fall in 
first sale prices is been reported again by the sector, particularly for sea-bream. 
1.3.3.  Tuna farming 
The activity of blue tin tuna fattening started in the early 1990s in th e Mediterranean and the 
market opportunities opened up by this practice ha s led to its continued increase ever since 
(EU, Turkey, Tunisia, Libya, Croatia, Morocco…). Although there have been some recent positive research results on tuna reproduction
60, this new sector of aquaculture is still only 
based on the capture of wild fi sh, including juvenile s. Moreover, it has no t yet been possible 
to adapt these caught wild fish to industrial pe llet feeding, and fatteni ng is performed using 
raw wild fish as feed. In the EU the number and capacity of tuna cages increased from 25 
farms in 2003 to 37 farms in 2007 (Spain, Ma lta, Cyprus, Italy, Greece, and Portugal). 
The development of tuna fattening has been an additional driver to excessive fishing pressure 
on wild stocks. Faced with this  situation, the International Commission on the Conservation 
of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) adopted measures  aimed at better control of these fattening 
activities61 and in view of the level of capture, the Commission had to antici pate the closing of 
this fishery in 2008. The reduction in catches foreseen in the bl ue-fin tuna recovery plan 
might have a consequence on farming, as ther e will be less fish available for farming 
activities. 
                                                 
58 FAO Fishstat.  
59 University of Stirling - “Study of the market for aquaculture produced seabass and seabream”. Stirling 
2004.  
60 Cf FP5 Research project  REPRODOT for example 
61 Source ICCAT. See also ICCAT recommendation 06-07 on blue-fin tuna farming and ICCAT 
recommendation 06-05to establish a Multi-annual Recovery plan for blue-fin tuna  
 
EN 65   EN Significant research and technological progress  are still necessary and high investment is 
needed to make tuna farming becoming a "f ully-domesticated fish" aquaculture activity. 
1.3.4.  Other marine fish 
Intensive water recirculation systems have been  used for a number of years now to produce 
high value species like turbot (o r other flat fish). Farms are us ually located close to markets. 
Overall production in Europe remains proportio nally limited, but the planned or on-going of 
construction of new farms (notably in Portugal and Spain) should lead to increased production. 
2. EU
 AQUACULTURE – MAJOR SOCIO -ECONOMIC FEATURES  
This chapter and the two subsequent ones summarise the main magnitudes of the EU 
aquaculture sector62. 
2.1. Overall production  
In 2005, total aquaculture production in the EU was close to 1.3 million tonnes, worth about 
€ 3.5 billion. 
As can be seen in the Table1a, the producti on in 2005 was a mere 3.4 % larger than what it 
was in 1996. Furthermore, produ ction in 2005 was close to 12%  less than the maximum of 
1999. Decline in production has been broadly sp eaking steady since the n, with the exception 
of 2003 and 2004. 
As already referred to earlier, th ere are quite different trends between marine fish on the one 
hand and fresh water fish and molluscs & crustacean, on the other. 
Fresh water production has slowly decreased fr om some 360 000 tons, worth little less than 
€1 billion in 1996, to 313 000 tons  and € 0.8 billion. This implies an annual decrease of the 
volume by 1.4% and of the value by 1.1%.  
As regards molluscs & crustaceans, production in 2005 was 5% lower than that in 1996, but 
close to 20% lower than the maximum achieved in 1999. 
                                                 
62 Data come from the following studies: 
- Etude des Performances Économiques et de la Compétitivité de l'Aquaculture de l'Union Européenne. 
Etude 3 dans le cadre du contrat cadre Lot 3 - études relatives à la mise en œuvre du FEP. AND 
International. September 2008. This analysis w ill be further referred to as the "AND 2008". 
- Review of the EU Aquaculture Sector. Task 1 of the study on the Definition of Data Collection Needs 
for Aquaculture. FISH/2006/15 – lot 6. Interim Re port, December 2007. Framian. "Framian 2007", 
hereinafter. - FUTURE PROSPECTS FOR FISH AND FISHERY PRODUCTS 4. Fish consumption in the 
European Union in 2015 and 2030 Part 1. European overview by Pierre Failler, with the collaboration 
of Gilles Van de Walle, Nicolas Lecrivain, Am ber Himbes and Roger Lewins. Centre for the 
Economics and Management of Aquatic Resources Portsmouth, United Kingdom of Great Britain and 
Northern Ireland. FAO, 2007. p.51. "FAO 2007", hereinafter. - Prospective analysis of the Aquaculture sector in the EU  - JRC scientific and Technical reports, 
September 2008. See http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications
 - This analysis will be further referred to 
as the "JRC prospective an alysis" or "JRC 2008". 
 
EN 66   EN The production volume of marine fi sh farming has been growing fo r nearly the entire period, 
with the exception of 2005. Production in that ye ar was anyway 88% larg er than that of 1996. 
The production volume of marine farming (m arine fish together with molluscs and 
crustaceans) shows quite a distinct growth of  8% per year from 1993 till 1999 (mainly due to 
important growth in shellfish farming), af ter which the production has levelled off at 
approximately 1 million tons (but with a genera l negative trend in shellfish production, while 
marine fish farming continue d to increase). Overall marine  farming has grown from 720,000 
tons in 1990 to 980,000 tons in 2005,  representing an average grow th rate of 2% per year. The 
value of the production has grow n quite regularly by some 5% per year from €1.3 billion in 
1990 to €2.7 billion in 2005. 
As can be seen in Table 2, the five most important producers (Fra nce Spain, Italy, United 
Kingdom and Greece) account for a bout 75% of the total value and volume. The next 7 
countries account for a further 20%.  
2.2. Production per species 
Table 3 and 4 show the volume and value of production for a 13 species, as referred to in 
AND 2008 and Framian 2007. 
In terms of volume, mussels are the most important species (38.2%), followed by trout 
(16.49%), salmon (11.77%), oysters (10.71%) and sea bream/sea bass (9.81%). In terms of 
value the most important today is farming of sea bream and sea bass (19% of total), followed 
by trout and salmon (each 17%), mussels (14 %) and oysters (10.11%). These (groups of) 
species represent 78% of the tota l value of production and more than 86% of the total volume.  
The most important increases in  aquaculture production have been in higher unit value fish 
species, largely dominated by sea bass an d sea bream, and Atlantic salmon. Mollusc 
production has remained fairly constant for th e last ten years, dominated by mussels and 
oysters. 
As can be seen in the Table 3, the most impor tant producers of carp in 2006 were Poland, the 
Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary and France, wh ich produce close to 90% of the EU carp 
production. Nearly all EU Member  States produce sign ificant amounts of tr out. The major EU 
producers of trout in 2006 were Denmark, France,  Italy, Spain and Germany with a 72% share 
in total EU volume (worth around €600 million). 
Most EU salmon production is concentrated in Scotland (almost 90%) and the rest in Ireland, 
with marginal production volumes in France. 
The production of sea bream and sea bass is dominated by Greece (56%), followed by Spain 
and Italy with 15-16% each. France, Portugal and Cyprus are the other Member States having 
a significant production. 
The most important producers of mussels are Sp ain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and the 
United Kingdom with a share of 85% in the total EU volume (worth close to €350 million). 
Looking at the trends of indi vidual species it is apparent that the only species with a 
consistent growth in value and volume are salmon and sea bass/sea bream, although the produced volumes of these two latter species are mu ch lower, as well as the growth rate of the 
 
EN 67   EN volume. In 2005 the group "sea bass / sea bream" became economically the most important 
one farmed in the EU. 
2.3. Employment 
Employment figures in aquacultur e are scarce and not very reli able. They vary significantly 
depending on the sources and the definitions us ed. According to what can be compiled and 
extrapolated from diverse available data, incl uding most recently from the Member States 
Operational Programs for the EFF63, aquaculture firms employed around 65 000 full-time jobs 
in 2005-2006. According to the European Federa tion of shellfish farmers (EMPA/AEPM), the 
European shellfish farming industry generate s about 37 000 direct jobs. This shows that 
shellfish farming is generally more huma n resources demanding than finfish farming. 
According to JRC2008, labour requirements per tonne of production in mollusc and 
crustaceans are 6 to 7 times larger than for sa lmon, but broadly the same than for carps or 
tilapia. 
Table 5 shows employment and firms by Member State. According to data from Framian, 
close to 70% of employees are men and a bit le ss than 30% women. This is a very different 
repartition than that in capture fisheries ( 96% men) and from that in processing (56% 
women). Spain is the country w ith more women employed in the sector (44%), followed by 
France (42%), the 3 Baltic States and Pola nd (40%). The Czech Re public, the Netherlands 
and Malta represent the other extreme (5, 2 an d 1% of women, respectively). There are no 
data available regarding their le vel of education, although it can be  presumed that particularly 
as regards molluscs and crustaceans, most of em ployments are not highly qualified ones. The 
most globalised sectors (salmon and sea bass/sea bream) are also the more capital-intensive ones; Production technologies used for thes e species also offer fewer employments but 
require a higher level of qualification. 
Spain (27.4%), France (19.2%), Germany (10.3 %), Italy (9%), Greece (7.8%) and Portugal 
(6.3%) account together for 80% of total employment. In terms of firms, France (26%), Spain (16%), Portugal (10.2%), Germany (7.35%) and Greece (6.5%) represent two thirds of firms. 
In terms of geographic area, close to two th irds of aquaculture employments are in the 
Atlantic area, close to 20% in the Mediterranean  and the rest in the Baltic and North seas. 
In terms of region, Galicia (Spain), Poitou-Ch arente (France) and Algarve (Portugal), are 
those which concentrate most of the employme nt. All are located in  the Atlantic area. 
As regards firms, according to Framian 2007, there were some 14,400 firms in the EU. Most 
firms are SMEs. According to the Table 5, the average number of empl oyees per firm is 4.47, 
with many variations across Member States. As an example, in France  which is the second 
biggest EU aquaculture produci ng countries (in volume), the number of shellfish farming 
enterprises in 2005 was 3 317, representin g 9 933 full-time equivalent jobs
64; 36 marine fish 
farming enterprises generating 493 jobs, a nd 306 freshwater fish farms for 1 070 jobs65. 
                                                 
63 However, specific data on the total employment in the aquaculture sector have not been provided by all 
Member States (aggregates with the capture fi sheries and/or the fish processing activities). 
64 Source OFIMER, les chiffres clés de la filiè re pêche et aquaculture en France – édition 2008. 
65 Extensive aquaculture in ponds not included 
 
EN 68   EN 2.4. External trade 
EU imports of all fish and fish products from the rest of the world have increased from €11.7 
billion in 2000 to €15.8 billion in 2006; i.e. almo st 5% per year. On the other hand EU exports 
of all fish and fish products have grown from €1.8 to 2.4 billion, i.e. a little more than 4% per year.  
2.4.1.  Imports 
As the table 6 shows, imports of aquacultur e products have grown significantly, with the 
exception of carps. The total value of impor ts was € 2.8 billion in 2007 (approximately 
2.2 times higher than the corresponding figure of  1999). Imports represent about 75 % of the 
value of the internal aquaculture production. 
It can be observed that among the species tr aditionally farmed in Europe, the imports of 
mussels have increased the most. The most of this increase is due to imports of canned mussels (about 30 000 tonnes in 2007, representi ng 120 000 tonnes of live weight of mussels, 
90 % of which are from Chile). 
Sea bass and sea bream imports are also grow ing rapidly, coming mainly from Turkey and 
Croatia. 
As regards salmon, which is by far the most important imported species both in volume and 
value, imports from Norway represent close to 85 % of all imported salmon. Although whole 
salmon is still the most important product, im ports of salmon fillets and other processed 
salmon products are growing faster. 
Another important group of species imported to the EU are bivalves, originating largely from 
Chile (23% of the value) and USA (20%). Appr oximately 50% of these imports are scallops 
and about 38% are mussels in different product forms. 
It has to be noted that impor ts from fresh water species have increased in the period 1999-
2007 by more than 187 times (from 2 100 tonnes to about 394 000 tonnes). Imports in 2007 
were nearly four times as big as these of 2005, which clearly shows the great importance these 
imports have now. Imports come almost exclus ively from Southeast As ian countries. Figures 
are shown on Table 7. 
According to a study carried out by the EU Fi sh Processors’ Association in October 2007, 
Vietnamese imports into the EU (and Norway) are nearly exclusively made of pangasius 
(126 000 tonnes in 2006). 
2.4.2.  Exports 
Total exports of the main a quaculture species' products am ounted to 67 000 tonnes "live 
weight equivalent" in 2007 (see table 8), worth € 278 million. Generally speaking, exports 
have grown significantly during th e period 1999-2007, at a rate very  close to that of imports, 
in volume terms (volume multiplied by 2 - 2.5), for most species. 
It has to be noted however that total exports of EU aquaculture produc ts remain limited when 
compared to the total EU produc tion or to the imports of aqua tic food in the EU (the volume 
of exports was around 5 % of imported volume and 10 % in value in 2007). 
 
EN 69   EN Exports of sea bream are growing quickly. The volume of exports has multiplied by 30 since 
1999, in particular to Russia, th e US, and Switzerland (see Table 9). These three countries are 
the most important destinations for most EU aquaculture products, followed by Vietnam, 
Japan and Thailand, in particular for salmon. 
Exports of salmon and mussels are increasing since 2005, particularly  salmon, after having 
lost significant ground in th e period 2003-2005. Regarding salm on, even if exports of whole 
fish are still the most importa nt export product (close to 60% of volume), exports of smoked 
salmon, salmon fillets and other transforme d products are outgrowing those of whole 
salmons. 
Exports of mussels have multiplied by approximately 2 during the period 1999-2007. As 
regards fresh mussels, Russia and Croatia are the most important destinations. The US is the 
most important destination for canned mussels. 
Exports of trout and oysters are also importa nt. Russia is the main destination for both. 
3. STRUCTURE OF THE EU AQUACULTURE SECTOR  
3.1. Size of EU aquaculture production firms 
AND 2008 has been looking into th e accounts of a sample of close to 750 EU aquaculture 
firms for which financial information for 2006 was complete66. These firms represent around 
two thirds of the total turnover of the EU aquaculture sector.  
The average turnover of firms in the sample  is around €2.69 million. However, a mere 2% 
have a turnover exceeding €20 million; a furthe r 2.6% have a turnover between €10 and €20 
million, and a further 4% have a turnover betw een €5 and €10 million. In total, 8.5% of the 
firms have a turnover of €5 million or larger . However, firms exceeding €20 million, account 
for 42.1% of the turnover of all firms in the sample. These which have a turnover between 
€10 and €20 million account for a further 13.4% of th e total turnover of the sample and these 
between €5 and €10 million for a further 10.4%. Ov erall, 8.5% of firms account for close to 
66% of the total turnover of firms in the sample. 
Contrary to that, 62% of firms have a turnove r of less than €1 million. Together they account 
for 9.5% of the total turnove r of firms in the sample. 
The majority of the largest firms are Greek, and specialise in sea bream and/or sea bass. 
Several other companies are from the UK and produce salmon. In fact, most of the UK firms are owned or controlled by No rwegian capital. A few large companies are Spanish, mostly 
specialised in turbot. Pescanova, the largest EU aquaculture producer, shows the peculiarity 
that 90% of its aquaculture activities are outside  Spain (and the EU). An Italian producer of 
caviar and sturgeon is also listed among the large EU companies.  
The largest firms represent close to 80% of the total turnover of UK firms and 60% of the 
Greek firms in the sample. 
                                                
 
66 These firms are included on the AMADEUS database of EU firms. 
 
EN 70   EN It has to be noted finally that Norway has 3 times as many firms larger than €20 million as the 
entire EU. The largest EU pr oducer (leaving aside Pescanova) is 4 times smaller than the 
largest Norwegian producer. 
In conclusion, EU aquaculture firms are not onl y small in terms of employees, but also in 
terms of turnover. However, next to thousa nds of SMEs, there is a small but significant 
number of larger firms. Near ly all of the latter produce salm on or sea bass/sea bream. These 
three products are by far the most globalised ones. 
3.2. Consolidation and vertical integration 
Different trends and paths are taking place for different species, regarding consolidation and 
vertical integration. 
As regards salmon, intense horizontal consolidat ion has taken place. The number of Scottish 
firms was reduced from 131 in 1994 to mere 41 in 2005, of which 14 firms produce 86% of 
the total output. Most of EU producers are contro lled by Norwegian interests. It appears that 
firms form the Netherlands also have major in terests in the main competing production areas 
as Norway and Chile. This trend results basically  from pressures on selling prices. Horizontal 
consolidation is an answer to the need to gain scale of pr oduction so as to benefit from 
economies of scale. Horizontal concentration is  already quite significant and barriers to entry 
are high in view of the scal e of production required and th e scarcity of new sites. 
This trend has been sometimes complemented by the externalisation of upstream activities (in 
particular hatcheries and fish meal), as means to get further cost reduc tions, and by a certain 
trend to move into processing and marketing as ways to counter the buyi ng power of bid retail 
chains. However, the externalisation of upstream activities is by no means the rule. 
Trends regarding sea bass/sea bream are somewhat similar: horizontal concentration is taking 
place combined with vertical integration into processing and marketing and into hatcheries 
and also fishmeal. This time, EU firms, ma inly Greek, are taking positions in other EU 
producers in the Mediterranean and expanding in to adjacent non-EU countries, particularly 
Turkey and Croatia, partially at least as a wa y to overcome increasing constraints within the 
EU. The upstream integration can be explained as  a mean to compensate for the lower labour 
costs, in particularly in Turkey. This labou r cost disadvantage doe s not exist as regards 
salmon, where competing producers face also high labour costs. 
Horizontal concentration is si gnificant although not as marked  as in salmon. Nevertheless, 
barriers to entry are also significa nt in particular as far as the availability of new sites is 
concerned. This horizontal consolidation is ac companied by some diversification into other 
aquaculture producers: salmon producers into trout and sea bass/sea bream producers into 
salmon. In both cases, diversification is alwa ys by means of merger or acquisitions. 
Producers of new high value species , in particular turbot and sturgeon are normally quite 
vertically integrated both upstream and downstream. 
Consolidation is not significant for mussels a nd oysters, where softer links between producers 
(e.g. cooperatives) are preferred. Perhaps that was a reflection of the fact that mussels were 
less exposed to international competition. This  can be changing now, as significant imports –
in particular from Chile- are taking place. Ne vertheless, it is probable also that scale 
economies are not as significant as in respect of fish, whic h could limit the potential for 
 
EN 71   EN consolidation. Lack of room for scale economies, combined with the decline in demand, could 
also be an explanation for the lack of conso lidation of carp's producers (and to a lesser extent 
as regards trout). 
3.3. Production cost factors 
Aquaculture productivity has to date been impr oved through increased use of mechanisation 
and scale of production effects (e.g. through cons olidation) that are lowering the labour and 
overhead costs per unit of productio n. These have combined with biological efficiency gains 
associated with better quality seedstock, fe eds and feed utilisation, and with better 
management of (though still troublesome) risks a ssociated with aquatic diseases. However, 
rising input costs (feeds, energy, water, etc.) and environmental charges (waste disposal costs 
or increasing barriers to  environmental resource use), combin ed with potential technical limits 
to further biological perfor mance gains (excluding possi ble options available through 
genetically modified –GM- t echnology) may make it increasingly difficult to break further 
production cost and price barriers. 
Globalisation is increasing competition in natio nal markets, but also improving opportunities 
for exports. By the nature of food markets, mu ch of the larger scal e aquaculture output is 
increasingly at commodity level, where the most important competition is on price. Achieving a lower cost of production is therefore a key f actor in successful competition and any regional 
factors that add to pr oduction costs (either di rectly such as higher labour costs, or site 
licensing costs) or indirectly (e.g. increas ed administrative cost s due to regulatory 
requirements) could affect business investment decisions. The alternative competition strategy is niche marketing, where producer s are able to differentiate th eir product e.g. on the basis of 
quality, locality, service or brand. 
As can be seen in Table 10, ther e are wide variations in the cost of production of different 
species, depending on system type and other inhe rent characteristics. Estimated costs range 
from €2.33 to €10.50 per kg for the species presented th erein. It can be added that, at least for 
salmon, EU producers are at a competitive disadvantage.
67 
The major components of production costs are seed, feed, labour, and in the case of 
recirculated systems, power . The proportion spent on seed is hi ghest for those systems relying 
on wild sources, especially tuna, eel and curr ently octopus. Feed is a higher component of 
costs in cage systems (mostly due to other cost s being lower) whilst labour costs are a higher 
proportion in systems with lower output (cha r and organic salmon in these examples). 
Depreciation is not cash cost, but is usuall y included in compara tive operating costs to 
indicate the financial burden of different capital cost structures. 
Feed is an increasing matter of concern for most farmers for two main reasons, first because 
of the dependence of fish meal and fish oil on capture fisheries and second because of the 
oligopolistic nature of the sector. Four firms account for close to 75% of total world wide 
production of fish meal and fish  oil. The combination of thes e two elements implies that 
prices for fish meal and oil will  continue growing in the future. 
                                                 
67 According to a big farmed salmon producer (Cermaq), production costs are in 2006: Chile: 1.29€/kg; 
Norway: 1.87€/kg; Canada: 2.07€/kg; Scotland: 2.54€/kg 
 
EN 72   EN Transport costs  can be significant. In the case of  salmon for instance, depending on the 
distance they can vary between €0.195/kg (from Canada to US ) to €1.95/kg (Chile to Europe). 
Transport costs from Norway to the EU ar e around €0.4/kg. The transport of frozen salmon 
costs around €0.2/kg.  
Access to finance is another important issue. On the one hand aquaculture is characterised by 
a relatively long production cycle, which implies a significant time lag between a loan being 
taken out for site deve lopment, and sufficient product sale s to start making repayments. On 
the other hand, it seems that obtaining bank loan s for aquaculture had been difficult in many 
countries, as the sector had ea rned an uncertain reputation fr om earlier levels of business 
failure. The fact that loan servicing is hardly visible in the table, could mean that financing 
has been mainly through internal resources, or that companies use othe r means than loans to 
get finance. For instance, some big groups are q uoted in stock exchanges. It seems also that 
farmers are getting credit from feed and oil sellers and that there are farmers which produce 
for bigger groups which take th e financial risk themselves. 
The price of licenses is not ge nerally a very important produc tion cost factor, however, the 
access to space and to licenses represent a crucia l limiting factor to aquaculture development. 
The same goes for waste disposal . Capacity limitations on assimilating these wastes are 
therefore key constraints. For freshwater fish farming in Europe, this has limited the size and 
clustering of individual units and discouraged the type of expansion and consolidation seen in 
the salmon sector. Marine farms have been  less constrained, allowing higher levels of 
production from individual sites, and greater op portunities for consolida ting central services 
and facilities. It is however difficult to reflec t access to water as a separate cost component. 
R&D  effort is another factor wort h mentioning here, although not di rectly visible in the table. 
EU aquaculture producers are said to have a competitiv e advantage in this field. 
4. ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE OF THE EU AQUACULTURE SECTOR  
The economic performance of the EU aquaculture  sector appears to differ in many different 
aspects – not only species and on-growing technologies, but al so country and size of the 
company. 
As mentioned above, the most important factor s affecting economic performance are, at the 
moment: 
• Heavy (global) competition with imports of fa rmed species from other parts of the world. 
Imports are putting pressure on pric es of EU produced species;  
• Strong demand for fish in Europe and worldwide;  
• As stated above, supermarkets require constant supply of cons tant quality, with guarantee 
of environmentally friendly production chains;  
• Increasing costs of fish meal; and 
• Access to sites, licences and waste disposal. 
 
EN 73   EN 4.1. Economic performance of the sector in general 
AND 2008 has approached this issue by making a rough comparison of the largest 
aquaculture and poultry producers in the EU. The preliminary c onclusions are that the EU 
aquaculture largest producers are dynamic, young firms showing high yearly rates of turnover 
increase (close to +30% in 2006 over 2005) a nd profitability ratios (well above 10% of 
turnover), active in a sector where concentra tion is low. Contrary to that, most poultry 
producers show very small progre ssion of their turnover (less than 5%) and pr ofitability ratios 
very close to zero or even negative. The sector is heavily concentrated. 
There is a big difference between sizes of firm s in both sectors. The largest EU aquaculture 
producer (not counting Pescanova) is 17 times smaller than the largest EU poultry producer. 
4.2. Economic performance by species produced68 
In general the following impression of the main segments of the EU aquaculture sector can be 
given.  
4.2.1.  Fresh water culture – carp and trout 
Fresh water fish farming is for many producers on ly a supplementary source of income. Small 
producers manage to integrate their farming activ ities in for example agro-tourism or sports 
fishing to be less depend ent on sale of food fish. 
The economic situation in the carp farming is in general rather weak for the following 
reasons: 
• Stagnating prices of carp and rising prices of input, mainly feeds, labour and energy; 
• Market preference for sea fish rather than fresh water fish; 
• Low investment levels lead to stagnation of productivity, cau sed by the relatively small 
size of most carp producers. 
Total production value of common carp was in  2006 at a similar level to 1996, thanks to 
relatively constant volume and a price wh ich has significantly recovered since 2000. 
The economic performance of trout farmers depends significantly on the firm size. Small 
producers have difficulty to maintain sufficien t growth of productivity and must focus on 
local niche markets as they are not able to o ffer regularly sufficient quantities to sell to 
supermarket chains. Over the past years a co nsolidation process has been going on and the 
numbers of small producers have been falling. 
Lack of new suitable locations, environmental re striction and dependence on animal feed stuff 
are among the main problems faced by this industry. 
                                                 
68 Conclusions in this section are largely taken from Framiam 2007 and AND2008. 
 
EN 74   EN Total EU value of production of  rainbow trout has decreased by more than 15% between 1996 
and 2005 (almost 30% in real terms). This wa s mainly caused by the fall in volumes, while 
the price has remained relatively constant. 
4.2.2.  Marine farming of salmon and sea bass / sea bream 
The economic performance of salmon has recently  recovered, after difficult years between 
2001 and 2004. A major consolidation process has taken place. The number of Scottish firms 
was reduced from 131 in 1994 to mere 41 in 2005, of which 14 firms produce 86% of the total 
output. Salmon farming is a globalised activity. Some 85% of the Scottish farms are in the hands of Norwegian or Dutch companies, which also have major interests in the main competing production areas as Norway and Chile. 
Firms in this sector are quite large for EU st andards. They show also acceptable profitability, 
which exceeds that of most othe r sectors, apart from sturgeon. 
The main problems of the EU salmon farming appear to be: 
• Increased price of fishmeal, as feed represen ts a significant share of  the production costs. 
In this respect Scotland, not being a fish meal producer, is in relative disadvantage 
compared to the main competitors. 
• Negative publicity about health and e nvironmental impact of salmon farming. 
• As many other species, competition for space wi th other users and consequent difficulties 
to obtain new permits. 
The value of EU salmon production has stead ily increased over the period 1996-2005 thanks 
to both higher prices and greater volumes. 
The sea bass/sea bream sector shows similar tr ends to salmon – conso lidation into a small 
number of internationally ope rating (Greek) companies which account for a significant share 
of the total production. Because of increasi ng constraints on growth within the EU, new 
production facilities are built in non-EU Mediterranean countries. Af ter a crisis of  this sector 
in 2001 and 2002 due to over supply which resulte d in low prices, there has been a general 
recovery and profitability is illustrated by on-going new investme nts. The sector enjoys strong 
demand. The leading companies are vertically integrated, from hatcheries through on-growing 
to processing and wholesale trade. The most impo rtant constraint seems to  be the lack of new 
licenses. 
The value of EU production of sea bream and sea bass shows steady growth over the period 
1996-2005 thanks to higher volumes. The prices  were in 2005 significantly below the 1996 
level. 
Firms are much smaller than t hose active in salmon production. 
4.2.3.  Bivalve farming – blue mussels, oysters 
Regarding mussels, the available information does  not allow an even indicative assessment of 
the economic performance of the mussel sector, as  the required information is not available 
for most major producers. 
 
EN 75   EN Overall value of the EU mussel production has increased by 50% between 1996 and 2005, 
mainly due to steady rise of the prices, while  the volume has remained relatively constant. 
As for oysters, there are a large number of sm all producers whose profita bility appears to be 
significantly determined by their regional locatio n. The location determines the suitability of 
on-growing conditions but also specific profitable specializatio ns / activities such as the 
purification.  
The value of the EU production of Pacifi c cupped oysters has increased since 2001, 
exclusively due to the continuous increase in price. The volume was in 2005 about 20% 
below the 1996 level.  
 
EN 76   EN Table 1a: Volume of EU aquaculture production  
 Aquaculture production in the European Un ion (EU-27) - Quantities (tonnes live weight)  
EU-27 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 
Total aquaculture products 1.104.786 1.183.643 1.230.362 1.254.243 1.377.943 1.431.738 1.401.751 1.389.009 1.276.561 1.346.744 1.332.337 1.272.455 
Crustaceans and molluscs 634.502 691.757 714.860 709.367 817.648 825.264 779.742 741.607 661.066 703.033 705.280 679.679 
Molluscs  634.249 691.511 714.535 708.974 817.357 825.013 779.487 741.345 660.788 702.742 705.072 679.419 
Mussels  422.964 457.822 498.038 491.971 600.448 603.408 562.516 548.827 480.401 541.347 538.964 470.197 
Oysters  157.323 156.178 163.336 160.067 152.134 155.529 148.772 123.960 130.837 129.344 131.250 132.053 
Clams & arkshells 52.654 75.945 51.075 54.243 62.630 64.516 67.063 67.377 49.411 31.898 34.679 76.996 
Finfish* 465.197 486.786 510.440 539.814 557.235 603.439 618.977 647.359 615.457 643.674 627.016 592.731 
Freshwater fishes ** 356.036 361.813 361.549 361.802 352.396 356.408 357.848 365.223 334.059 345.181 331.229 312.846 
Rainbow trout 231.986 243.085 245.178 247.784 244.055 236.766 237.817 246.264 221.389 221.791 214.786 202.900 
Carps + other cyprinids 98.160 96.436 88.447 88.153 82.326 88.576 89.997 89.954 83.254 89.433 83.919 80.912 
River eels  7.943 6.819 8.503 8.605 9.686 10.439 10.658 10.151 7.953 8.997 9.024 8.202 
Tilapias + other cichlids 200 320 320 200 200 246 180 200 186 507 473 521 
Marine fishes** 109.161 124.973 148.891 178.012 204.839 247.031 261.129 282.136 281.398 298.493 295.787 279.885 
Atlantic salmon  77.728 83.748 98.920 116.926 127.346 146.139 146.952 162.267 169.478 162.552 172.939 144.801 
Gilthead seabream 12.779 17.487 23.751 29.868 37.858 50.137 58.747 63.605 59.798 71.524 64.004 71.475 
European seabass  12.753 16.999 19.253 23.739 29.209 37.198 40.849 41.443 39.256 46.632 42.030 49.202 
Atlantic bluefin tuna NA 15 77 NA 1.959 3.346 3.682 4.446 5.185 5.194 6.546 3.858 
* Finfish is the aggregate for Freshwater, Diadromous and Marine fish 
** Considering the main production methods for diadromous species farmed in the EU, data on Atlantic Salmon has been considered  under "Marine" fish, while data for all 
other diadromous species, in particular the most important such as rainbow trout and eels, have been included under "Freshwater " fish". - NA: not available 
(Source Eurostat datasets)  
 
EN 77   EN Table 1b: Volume of world aquaculture production  
 Global aquaculture production - Quantities (tonnes live weight)  
WORLD 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 
Total fishery products 27.775.597 31.195.904 33.796.137 35.841.852 39.085.697 43.005.040 45.660.666 48.583.977 51.966.012 55.210.620 59.869.723 62.959 .046 
Crustaceans and molluscs 7.723.000 9.332.038 9.606.363 9.777.353 10.505.074 11.665.675 12.591.664 13.533.204 14.453.837 15.859.100 16.799.480 17.409.949  
Molluscs  6.717.944 8.230.344 8.488.940 8.558.604 9.143.865 10.154.093 10.771.464 11.396.652 12.059.601 12.606.086 13.145.358 13.448.749 
Mussels  985.248 1.108.617 1.095.360 1.115.189 1.337.772 1.446.032 1.370.957 1.445.001 1.634.280 1.712.635 1.770.356 1.795.779 
Oysters  2.648.545 3.048.915 3.035.834 3.080.176 3.541.913 3.722.944 3.998.513 4.211.531 4.332.420 4.472.773 4.607.566 4.615.400 
Clams & arkshells 1.679.724 1.766.090 1.781.326 1.941.474 2.261.843 2.760.246 2.633.454 3.145.415 3.458.226 3.813.086 4.109.653 4.175.907 
Finfish* 13.051.113 14.994.371 16.923.211 18.746.417 19.871.935 21.582.078 22.748.462 24.255.719 25.778.107 26.491.494 28.743.909 30.301 .498 
Freshwater fishes ** 11.719.387 13.493.450 15.267.765 16.876.274 17.832.345 19.275.070 20.149.533 21.365.950 22.723.392 23.133.385 25.174.426 26.507 .213 
Rainbow trout 334.727 365.240 384.180 427.329 437.816 416.238 447.313 511.595 509.376 495.953 499.262 486.928 
Carps + other cyprinids 8.767.159 10.406.173 11.999.125 13.236.957 13.930.188 14.948.553 15.452.156 16.316.354 16.727.667 17.448.303 18.702.802 19.541. 921 
River eels  187.529 187.822 233.981 233.589 226.120 218.713 232.957 231.006 231.874 232.084 248.274 242.067 
Tilapias + other cichlids 593.065 703.086 810.399 931.389 950.698 1.103.784 1.269.964 1.386.274 1.490.573 1.683.637 1.899.000 2.025.560 
Marine fishes** 823.429 998.263 1.120.217 1.330.676 1.465.437 1.657.405 1.897.883 2.116.221 2.287.712 2.523.637 2.708.433 2.879.097 
Atlantic salmon  374.931 465.245 551.906 646.516 688.227 805.616 895.808 1.030.005 1.084.934 1.130.784 1.253.047 1.235.972 
Gilthead seabream 20.570 24.466 33.198 41.472 54.388 67.204 87.288 82.152 77.495 96.305 92.718 110.705 
European seabass  14.863 19.475 21.095 27.517 35.129 41.883 52.802 44.824 43.779 52.374 47.767 57.550 
Atlantic bluefin tuna NA 15 77 NA 1.959 3.346 3.682 4.446 5.185 5.448 10.608 7.583 
* Finfish is the aggregate for Freshwater, Marine and Diadromous fish 
** For better comparison purpose with EU data sets above, data on rainbow trout and "river eels" have been added to the "Freshw ater fish" aggregate and Atlantic Salmon 
has been considered under "Marine fish". Other Diadromous species not farmed in Europe are not included in total fresh water fi sh neither under Marine fish. 
(Source Eurostat datasets) 
 
EN 78   EN Table 2- EU Aquaculture producti on in EU Member State (EU-27)  
Member State Value of 
production in 
2005 (Euro 
million) Volume of 
production 
in 2005 
(1000 tons) Average 
production 
94-98 (1000 
tons) Change 
2005 over 
average 
94-98 % of 
aquaculture 
over total 
aquatic food 
production 
in 2005 
Austria)  10.9  2.4 2.954 -25.62% 87%
Belgium  3.5  1.2 0.865 +38.73% 5%
Bulgaria  9.6  3.1 5.024 -38.3% 37%
Cyprus  na  na 0.731 na 55%
Czech Republic  38.9  20.5 18.061 +13.5% 83%
Denmark  98.3  39.0 42.064 -7.19% 4%
Estonia  2.6  0.6 0.298 +101.34% 1%
Finland  44.1  14.3 16.827 -15.01% 10%
France  537.0  239.3 281.739 -15.06% 30%
Germany  171.2  52.3 60.427 -13.45% 14%
Greece  341.3  105.2 42.886 +145.3% 54%
Hungary  26.3  19.1 9.376 +103.71% 64%
Ireland  107.8  62.9 33.609 +87.15% 19%
Italy  562.0  234.1 224.572 +4.24% 38%
Latvia  1.0  0.5 0.444 +12.61% 0.5%
Lithuania  4.2  2.0 1.631 +22.62% 1%
Luxemburg  na  na na - na
Malta  5.4  0.7 1.42 -50.7% 36%
Netherlands  108.4  67.9 102.284 -33.62% 11%
Poland  77.2  36.4 27.156 +34.05% 19%
Portugal  28.4  6.5 6.3 +3.17% 3%
 
EN 79   EN Romania  16.2  7.3 14.948 -51.16% 55%
Slovakia  2.1  1.0 1.258 -20.51% 36%
Slovenia  4.1  1.5 0.831 +80.5% 56%
Spain  318.3  279.8 237.22 +17.95% 21%
Sweden  20.9  5.9 7.09 -16.78% 2%
United 
Kingdom  619.3  172.8 111.302 +55,25% 21%
Total  3,159.0  1,376.3 1.451 -5.15% 18%
(Source: Framian 2007) 
 
EN 80   EN Table 3 –EU-27 Aquaculture productions per species 
MS Trout Carp Eel Tila-
pia Cat-
fish Salmon Sea 
bream Sea 
bass Turbot Cod Mussels Oyster Clam Total 
BE 400 400   150                   950 
BG 1151 926     26           171     2274 
CZ 597 17814 1   69                 18481 
DK 36587   1673     18     8   280     38566 
DE 19343 11999 329   149     25 68   9470 85   41468 
ET 451 44 40                     535 
EL 2446 107 372     6 43829 30959     26048 3   103770 
ES 25959 2 427 1     15433 5713 5572   158059 4861 1143 217170 
FR 32412 4230     200 1190 1778 3913 791   84775 119400 1810 250499 
IE 1614   1132     13764     6   38265 6153 161 59963 
IT 30558 263   20     6914 6262     63577   69678 178404 
CY 70           1465 583           2118 
LV 2 514                       516 
LT 46 1932                       1978 
LU                           0 
HU 28 9739 5   141                 9913 
MT             540 196           736 
NL 50   4000 350         75   59500     63975 
AT 1729 321     2                 2052 
PL 15700 18600                       34300 
PT 844   1       1514 1526 214     331 1491 5921 
RO 815 2256     124                 3195 
SI 995 241         2 25     201     1464 
SK 742 169                       911 
FI 13693                         13693 
SV 4210   222               1069     5501 
UK 12458         129823     58 69 28506 964 5 171883 
EU 27 202900 69557 8202 521 711 144801 71475 49202 6792 69 469921 131797 74288 1230236 
(Source: Framian 2007)  
 
EN 81   EN Table 4 - Value of EU aquaculture production by species, 2005 
Species Value 
(Euro million) 
Rainbow trout  601.6 
Atlantic salmon  593.5 
Gilthead sea bream  369.8 
Pacific cupped oyster  358.8 
Blue mussel  350.1 
European sea bass  315.1 
Japanese carpet shell  272.1 
Common carp  166.8 
Mediterranean mussel  133.2 
European eel  87.7 
Atlantic bluefin tuna  54.4 
Turbot  52.5 
Other species  190.6 
Total  3,546.2  
(Source: Framian 2007) 
 
EN 82   EN Table 5- EU aquaculture sect or: employment and firms (2005) 
Country Employment Number of firms Average employees 
Austria 500 400 1.25 
Belgium 84 na na 
Bulgaria na na na 
Cyprus 127 na na 
Czech Republic 1,693 690 2.45 
Denmark 674 205 3.29 
Estonia 42 96 0.44 
Finland 332 187 1.78 
France 12,374 3,720 3.33 
Germany 6,609 1,058 6.25 
Greece 4,975 937 5.31 
Hungary 1,518 349 4.35 
Ireland 1,144 253 4.52 
Italy 5,771 725 7.96 
Latvia 426 na na 
Lithuania 333 18 18.5 
Luxemburg na na na 
Malta 105 na na 
Netherlands 194 155 1.25 
Poland 2,610 900 2.9 
Portugal 4,051 1,471 2.75 
Romania na na na 
Slovakia 233 na na 
Slovenia 254 na na 
Spain 17,619 2,306 7.64 
Sweden 200 325 0.61 
United Kingdom 2,430 589 4.13 
Total  64,298  14,384  4.47 
(Source: Framian 2007) 
 
EN 83   EN Table 6 - Evolution of EU- 25 imports (in "live weight equivalent" tonnes) 
Species 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 
Eel* 3 092 2 076 4 025 2 286 2 620 2 707 3 436 2 368 4281
Sea bass 3 990 3 403 4 250 7 424 7 976 9 894 12 061 12 569 15 425
Carp 424 405 424 380 285 222 133 1 101 446
Sea bream 1 075 444 533 862 1 159 1 416 2 512 2 244 3 450
Oyster 85 48 102 115 118 225 405 221 229
Mussel 9 235 15 863 19 216 33 493 48 329 63 643 71 771 99 465 134 580
Salmon 329 976 339 970 347 261 390 603 447 640 484 631 537 858 571 538 714 458
Trout 584 578 3214 6 542 9156 3 564 1 304 3131 5 103
Other fresh 
water fish 2 109 2 998 7 092 9 744 22 070 57 362 107 467 287 754 393 538
Total 350 571 365 784 386 115 451 449 539 352 623 663 736 947 980 390 1 271 512
Source: AND-International (based on data from Eurostat/COMEXT; conversion factors: OFIMER 
 
Table 7 - Evolution of EU imports of fres h water fish from some Asian countries 
(tonnes) 
Origin 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 
Vietnam 572 848 2 106 3 290 7 627 20 023 38 016 103 151 140 187
China 58 90 293 110 1 53 1 211 4 157 7 233
Indonesia 81 58 68 35 217 1 021 835 1 228 1 230
Thailand 90 144 231 270 546 714 799 876 984
Total 802 1 140 2 697 3 705 8 392 21 811 40 862 109 412 149 634
Source: AND-Internati onal (based on data from Eurostat/COMEXT) 
 
EN 84   EN Table 8 - Evolution of exports (in "live weight equivalent" tonnes) 
Species 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 
Eels 190 242 128 190 147 191 126 131 124
Sea bass 615 717 894 1083 954 1194 1406 1732 2228
Carp 666 707 773 593 718 412 164 458 184
Sea bream 65 213 257 333 250 295 438 852 1839
Oysters 731 1041 833 673 700 785 805 840 1180
Mussels 6063 8313 10450 11849 12936 13252 8996 10840 11988
Salmon 19602 14909 14944 18170 33336 30326 23849 36408 46011
Trout 1890 1215 2506 2593 871 1633 2618 3040 3634
Total 29823 27357 30783 35484 49912 48088 38401 54301 67188
Source: AND-International (bas ed on data Eurostat/COMEXT); conversion factors: OFIMER 
 
EN 85   EN Table 9 – Exports per country of destination in 2007 (tonnes) 
Destination Salmon Trout Sea 
bass Sea 
bream Eels Mussel Oysters
USA 16 060 0 653 171 0 1 036 2
Russia 7 054 1 485 586 508 48 825 365
Switzerland 2 487 461 301 163 5 585 214
Japan 1 084 341   0 32 0
Norway 7 6 2  1 6 9640 2 0 5  4 1
Vietnam 826 182    0 1
Ukraine 659 12 30 48 1 218 67
Australia 985 10    14  
Canada 556  45 21  12 3
Croatia 2 5 4  9 9420 3 2 9   
Thailand 587 0    7 7
Lebanon 531  0 0  24 4
Tunis 66 1 194 294  28 2
China 247 139 37  56 0 5
Hong-Kong 184 0 1  4 5 248
Israel 175  7 245  9 2
Serbia 213  41 35  29 0
Kuwait 338 0   0 0 0
United Arab 
Emirates 173 1 4  0 15 53
Bosnia 54   0 0 56 0
Total  36 669 3 461 2 122 1 751 118 4 190 1 180
Source: AND-International d'après Eurostat/COMEXT  
 
EN 86   EN Table 10 - Comparative operating cost prof iles of different aquaculture systems  
(percent of total operating cost) 
Breakdown 
of operating costs  Offsho
re 
salmon Organ
ic 
salmon Sea 
bream 
cages Tuna 
cages Turbo
t re-
circulated Turbo
t flow 
through Eel re-
circula
ted Octop
us on-
growing Arctic 
charr 
cages Africa
n  
catfish 
Feed 46 45.6 54 27 15 18 29 13 43 58.7 
Selling 
costs/Packing 17 7.1         
Seed stock (fry 
or smolts) 8 13.5 20 48 10 11 29 42 21 7.9 
Wages/salaries 7 10 9 6 7 8 9 11 19 7.2 
Misc./other 
operating costs – 
inc. consumables 
& contingency 6 0.4  14 10 10 1   9.6 
Depreciation 5 7.1 13  35 33 20 11 12 5 
Maintenance     4 1  3  2.2 
Vet/medicines 3    2 2    1.1 
Administration/
Overhead costs 3 9.3   4 4 1   2.2 
T r a n s p o r t   2 . 5          
Harvest expenses  4.6         
Stock & general 
Insurance 3  1 2 2 2 2 15 2 2.2 
Legal & 
professional fees     1 1    0.7 
Licensing/lease/ 
discharge costs   0    1 1   
Power and fuel 2  2  11 9 9 3 2 3.3 
L o a n  s e r v i c i n g     3        
Total  100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 
Cost €/kg 2.33 4.15 4.04 10.50 4.58 3.98 4.88 5.53 2.54 3.61 
(Source: JRC2008)
 
EN 87   EN ANNEX II   
 
OUTCOME OF THE CONSULTATION  
Report on the results of the open consultation on the 
“Opportunities for the developmen t of Community aquaculture" 
This overview of the main points raised in th e consultation process is  primarily based on the 
written submissions received with additional re ferences – where necessary – to indications 
provided in specific mee tings. This document is provided as background information only. It 
is not a formal report by the Commission nor should it be interpreted as such. 
As most of the contributions received were presented according to the main chapters and 
associated questions developed in the consul tation document prepared by DG FISH Services 
when launching the consultation69, this overview is presented and structured in the same way.  
1. AQUACULTURE : A CHANCE FOR EUROPE  
1. Do you consider it justified for the Comm unity to develop a specific strategy for 
aquaculture and why?  
2. Do you share the vision for a sustainabl e development of European aquaculture as 
set out in the 2002 Strategy? Would you co nsider that it need s to be adapted to 
evolving circumstances? 
There is a unanimous view and often strong support in all contributions in favour of a 
Community wide Strategy on Aquaculture. Most of the reasons that are outlined in the 
consultation document are referred to by contribu tors when highlighting their justification and 
views on what they consider should be the sc ope, the vision and the objectives of such a 
strategy, although views diverge on one or th e other specific domai n that should be 
addressed70.  
Differences in both the functions of, and the appr oaches to, fisheries and aquaculture are seen 
to entirely justify a specific strategy for a quaculture and its different components. Some 
producers organisations have even expressed the views for " the need for a  Common 
Aquaculture Policy " (Finnish fish farmers association) or  have invited the Commission to take 
a less ""hesitant" approac h, with reference to a " European Fisheries and Aquaculture Funds " 
(French Aquaculture Federation).  
                                                 
69 See at http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/govern ance/consultations/consultation_100507_en.htm   
70 As, an example, the Finnish Fish Farmers Asso ciation is strongly advocating for a "common and 
binding European approach to the development of industry", but considers that "fish welfare is not a 
challenge that should be addressed at Community level", while "Eurogroup for Animals" believes that it is of utmost importance that the Community develops a specific strategy for aquaculture, including the 
welfare of fish. As another example, the House of Dutch Provinces "agrees that the sustainable 
development of European aquaculture is imperative,  with the exception of the specific link with 
employment", while the European Transports Workers Federation considers that aquaculture is a 
strategic sector in terms of job creations. 
 
EN 88   EN Generally, the vision and objectives of th e 2002 strategy are fully supported and are 
considered being still valid, but several argumen ts are put forward to justify the need for a 
revision (young and fast moving industry, evolving circumstances, effect of passage of time, 
etc). However the most frequent reasons put forwar d refer to the fact that  the objectives of the 
strategy have not been reached in terms of  production growth. Some even argue that a 
strategy is needed not only for developing aquaculture, but also for sustaining " some 
aquaculture sectors that are at risk of losing ground and may otherwise be abandoned " 
(Committee of professional Ag ricultural Organisations in  the EU : COPA-COGECA). 
Contributors with an interest in environmental or  animal welfare issues insist on the need to 
include these dimensions as part of the sustaina bility of aquaculture. Th e social dimension of 
sustainability in aquaculture is also seen as  being insufficiently addressed (e.g. European 
Transport Workers' Federation) . However, the most numerous contributors (from business 
and others) consider that more emphasis should be given to stri ving for strong gr owth of this 
activity, and focusing on the role of aquaculture  in providing Europeans with healthy and 
nutritious food. 
According to a number of views, the Strate gy should be adapted to new and developing 
circumstances, with a sharper focus on encourag ing successful sectoral development of the 
business through positive proactiv e actions, level playing field and a better ba lance between 
business development and environment conser vation. Several contributions refer to the 
importance that should be given to aquaculture and to  giving it similar suppor t to other sectors 
(notably to allow an aquaculture strategy to co ntribute significantly to European Food Policy 
or to form a significant part of the process to develop a European marine/maritime strategy). However, most contributors do not give any indi cation of possible targets for the development 
of aquaculture, and quantitative objectives  can be found in two co ntributions only (one 
advocating for an EU objective of doubling pr oduction over five years, while another one 
even mentions that the objective for Europe should be self-sufficiency). 
2. ECONOMIC
 OUTLOOK  FOR  EU AQUACULTURE 
3. What effect is globalisation having on th e EU aquaculture sector and what are the 
main factors affecting its competitiveness? 
4. How do you see the future of the market for Community aquaculture (niche 
markets, mass production …)?  
5. How can the image problem of aquaculture  be addressed to increase consumer 
acceptance of farmed products? 
All those that have expresse d their views on the above is sues recognise that lower labour and 
ancillary  costs  and lower environmental protection requirements  in a number of non-EU 
countries allow them to produce large amounts of  aquaculture products that are increasingly 
present on the EU market. Low labour cost al so contribute to increasing outsourcing of 
seafood processing, while proces sed products represent the highe st growth area and consumer 
preferences. Difficulties in succession - handover of enterprises have also been referred to 
(Brittany Region). 
Several contributors argue either on the need for some forms of "Community preference", or 
on the fact that trade policy does not allow a leve l playing field. They contest the fact that fish 
 
EN 89   EN produced under different and less stringent cond itions can easily enter the European Market. 
As an example, some "traditional" European pr oducts (trout and salm on) are now produced in 
industrial quantities at highly competitive prices outside th e Community (e.g. Chile), while 
some "health measures" (e.g. rules on the use of animal by-products in fish feed) are not 
applicable in those countries. Another exampl e refers to the trade disputes and the time 
involved in taking anti-dumping measures while  damage is done in the meantime. Some 
contributors envisage the potentia l for a permanent and real tim e monitoring of markets, or 
the creation of an observatory  of European Aquaculture. 
Despite the above challenge in a global mark et, some contributions  also highlight the 
strengths of Europe  in the aquaculture sector (such as technological advance, know-how, 
quality products, research…) or weaknesses of non EU produc tion (unacceptable standards 
for EU consumers, consequences of food-miles). 
There is a wide consensus which considers that the European Market allows for the growth of 
both mass production and niche products , and that they are not mutually exclusive in a 
composite European market. However, there appears to be some different views on the 
relative importance to be gi ven to mass products vs. nich e products, depending on the 
background or the main field of interest of the stakeholder. 
There seems on the contrary to be more diverse, not to say opposed, views among 
contributors regarding the existence of an image problem  for aquaculture, as well as the 
"public" concerned and the nature and the intens ity of such a problem. While generally most 
contributions received from public bodies, the scientific Community or NGOs highlight the 
importance of transparency and better comm unication on aquaculture, some producers do not 
consider that there is a problem in consumer acceptance of farmed fish (Finnish and several 
Scottish associations, mollusc producers…), argu ed in particular on the basis of continuous 
consumer demand and growing market. However,  they express concerns about the image 
problem they face primarily with policy ma kers and public authorities - notably the 
Commission - because of some intensive lobbies or bad and misleading press. 
Despite the controversy on the nature and depth of  an image problem, there is rather a strong 
common denominator among the contributors for better public education and for promotion 
campaigns at different levels and with different aims (tack ling industry credibility and 
production method, promotion and marketing of pr oducts, highlighting the health benefit of 
fish…). The CONSENSUS project has been quoted  several times as a good example of a pro-
active European initiative in this context. Among the different proposals, one calls on the 
Commission " to set up a stakeholder forum to produce user-friendly information " (European 
Aquaculture Society- EAS), while another even considers that " a Europe-wide 
communication strategy for aquaculture should be developed and provide a promotional base 
for the acceptance of aquaculture as a valid stakeholder within a sustainable food supply 
sector " (Federation of European A quaculture producers - FEAP). 
Product demarcations and labelling considerations  (aquaculture logo, eco-labelling, 
organic aquaculture, sustainable aquaculture label …) are very often referred to in this 
context, but usually in general terms and principles. The need to set and harmonise standards 
at EU level is often mentioned (and in line with  work developed at the global level, notably 
FAO), but the views on the way forward do not necessarily coincide (e.g. on roles and limits 
of private and public bodies). Some contributors however give precise input such as their own 
very detailed principles and cr iteria for sustainable fish farm ing (e.g. Marine Conservation 
 
EN 90   EN Society) or their views for detailed legislati on changes (e.g. Federation of Greek Maricultures 
regarding Reg. 2065/2001 on consumer informati on). The future reform of the common 
organisation of the markets for fishery produc ts is also mentioned in this context. 
3. ENVIRONMENTALLY - FRIENDLY AQUACULTURE GROWTH  
3.1. Environmental impact of aquaculture 
6. What are the most important environmenta l challenges faced by aquaculture and 
what are the appropriate avenues to address them? 
7. Can you identify, within the framework of  Community environmental legislation, 
business-friendly options to re gulate aquaculture activities? 
Although it can be noted that contributions fro m environmental bodies in the consultation 
process have been rather limited, environmental aspects of aquaculture are confirmed to be 
very important issues addr essed by most contributors. 
A very wide range of environmental challenges  has been cited. The main or most frequent 
issues refer to:  
– Organic waste, discharge of ef fluents and siting of farm  
– Quality of water and efficient use of water resources  
– Fish escapes and genetic impact  
– Predation by wild animals 
– Use of wild stocks  
– Sustainable feed sources 
– Diseases and infections71… 
Classifying them by importance may be subjective;  however it is clear th at there are different 
views on the importance of these threats/impacts of aquaculture activity to the environment. 
As an illustration, organic discharge or escaped fish are often referred to, or seen as, major 
threats and problems. However, Stirling University states for example that " the effects of fish 
farms effluents have be extensively studied and do not appear to be as far reaching as initially 
feared ", or the Scottish Salmon Pr oducers Organisation refers to  the potential genetic impact 
of escaped fish" as a " perceived environmental impact that is being given more prominence- 
particularly in the media ". 
In the contributions received from public bodies , protecting the environment from 
aquaculture impacts seems to be generally of high importance. As an example, the Åland 
                                                 
71 Other challenges (such as competition for space, the need for a healthy environment for aquaculture.) 
have been sometimes evoked under this section on environmental challenges by contributors, but these 
are dealt with in further sections of in this note. 
 
EN 91   EN provincial government indicates that its environmental action programme adopted in autumn 
2005 aims at " reducing the load from aquaculture by 80%  by 2015 compared to average level 
for 2001-2003 ". The Dutch Department for Fisheries sees the way forward in reducing 
dependence on nature, or the comments received from Ministry of Ag riculture of Slovakia 
also illustrate possible divergent views and approaches among public authorities. 
There is widespread general view among producers  that environmental considerations / 
requirements are important challenges hamperi ng growth or, even, leading existing business 
to shut down (e.g. problems with licence re newals). Generally, co ntributions from the 
aquaculture sector express the view su mmarised by FEAP when stating that " there is little in 
the way of business-friendly envi ronmentally legislation, since the latter tends to assume 
negative rather than positive im pacts of aquaculture and im pose associate restrictive 
actions ". Some contributions also insist on the f act that environmental services provided by 
aquaculture to the environment should be r ecognised and compensated (e.g. fish predators, 
wetland and habitat conservation…). 
Numerous contributors refer to EU environmental  law and its implementation . Scottish 
Producers for example consider that a comprehe nsive retrospective investigation into the 
additional regulatory burden placed on EU a quaculture over the last  decade should be 
commissioned. However, the most  frequent and important concerns  refer to legal instruments 
in two main policy domains, namely wa ter quality and nature conservation.  
For example, the contribution from the Brittany region reports " that –according to the 
producers- the strengthening of regulations su ch as the Water Framework Directive WFD) 
risks making 50% of the French businesses disappear when applied ." Some producers express 
important concerns about the classification of wa ter bodies or the definition of "fresh pristine 
conditions" in this context. Other refer also to  national Environment Quality Standards Limits 
set at very strict levels (e.g. fo r use of bath treatment medicines)  because of fear of EU action 
(court challenge). The planned repeal of the she llfish-waters Directive is also of significant 
concerns to shellfish producers.  
In terms on nature conservation, many producer s see the implementation of Natura 2000 (by 
some Member States) as a major limiting factor  for development and access to space. They 
also refer to the disproportionate use of the "p recautionary principle" by authorities, even at 
renewal of the existing operating licences. In creased consultation and discussion among 
stakeholders and authorities (rather than imposed measures) are also called for. 
The need for better level playing field  for aquaculture developm ent appears to be an 
important common denominator to numerous contributions a nd comments in this regard. 
Referring to different levels of imbalance – between MS, between environmental and socio-
economic considerations, but also between diffe rent competing or co mparable activities - 
several contributions see benefits from incr eased forms of harmonisation between Member 
States. The development of interpretation or guidance documents on EU environmental 
legislation, of common estimators of  "carrying capacity", of scie ntific evaluations and impact 
assessment guidelines on the ba sis of common predictive models , are often quoted as ways 
forward. Some insist however for such common gui delines to address the need for species and 
regional specific sets of  environmental indicators and critic al range values. Other contributors 
however are more in favour of self regulation and promoting codes of practices developed by 
the sector rather than at EU level.  
 
EN 92   EN The difficulty of conciliating an  increasing level playing field at EU level while keeping the 
possibility to decide on "higher" environmenta l protection requirement at region or Member 
States level is illustrated in the contribu tion from Åland Provinc ial Government. They 
considers that detailed regulati on should be set according to the subsidiarity principle, while 
cautioning against possible shifting of aquaculture product ion to in regions or member States 
with "more lenient environmental requirements".  
In addition to voices for an increased level playing field regarding environmental 
requirements, for the promotion of best prac tices and sound management, or for a more 
reasonable application of the precautionary principle, the aquaculture producers would also 
see benefit in respecting principles of Bette r Regulation, such as a more streamlined and 
business-friendly authorisation pr ocess (e.g. concerns regarding the multiplicity and diversity 
of current approval procedures and numerous licences required to run a busine ss, the various 
counterpart administrations  to work with, etc). 
Numerous contributors consider s that an important part of impacts of aquaculture on the 
environment can be managed and minimised through effective siting of farms and understanding of processe s involved. Environmenta l challenges are theref ore also viewed in 
relation to spatial planning  or development of an integrat ed European Maritime Policy. (See 
chapter 6.2). 
Finally, the need for research  on environment aspects of aquaculture appears as a main 
common point in the contribu tions received. Some advocate for precise evidence based 
research (notably for knowledge gaps when a ssessing specific production sites), but numerous 
contributors also consider the need for resear ch on horizontal and wider issues, such as the 
effect of climate change on aquaculture. 
3.2. Dependency of Aquaculture on the Environment  
8. In a context of increasing scarcity of pure water, what are the main avenues to 
ensure that aquaculture producers continue  to get access to water of the best 
possible quality for aquac ulture development? 
All forms of water pollution (including algal blooms and in troduction of alien species, 
highlighted as particularly impor tant risks to shellfish aquaculture) and climate change are the 
issues most commonly taken up by the concerned stakeholders. 
In addressing the issue of the strong dependenc y of aquaculture on an aquatic environment of 
high quality, contributors develop their view s around two different t ypes of "concepts", 
namely ensuring that aquaculture is treated as  an equal rights user of water resources or 
developing less water-dependent / water-consuming systems (close recirculation systems, new 
water technologies, etc). The im portance given to one or the ot her option varies according to 
the contributors, even within the same group of stakeholders. Comments made in regard to the 
availability of water of good quality  for aquaculture are also often close, or complementary to, 
the one made on subsequent questions raised in  the consultation document in regard to limits 
or competition for space. 
Aquaculture is presented by a numb er of contributors as an efficient user of water (often by 
comparison to agriculture in respect of wa ter consumption to produce high quality food). 
Aquaculture (notably shellfish) also plays a ro le as an indicator of water quality. Numerous 
 
EN 93   EN contributors consider that the aquaculture sector  should be seen as an equal rights user of 
water resources, and insist on its need to be cl osely associated to the implementation of the 
Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the EU Maritime Policy in this regard. Several 
contributions call for actions to be concentr ated on the principal sources of pollution or 
recommend effective regulation and enforcemen t of other water user s whose activities can 
impinge on aquaculture water quality. 
In this context also, some support the develo pment and application of (marine) spatial 
planning or integrated coastal zone manage ment (ICZM) to facilitate the allocation of 
appropriate sites - with the correct wate r quality - for aquaculture applications. 
Specific needs are also expressed for shellfis h production, especially th e necessity to amend 
the WFD to incorporate the specific microbiol ogical standards contained in the shellfish 
waters' directive, or to develop some forms of crisis management approach to better anticipate 
the phycotoxines problems (a problem which is not  restricted to coasta l areas and could also 
affect offshore sites). 
4. AN AQUACULTURE INDUSTRY PROVIDING HEALTHY FOOD WHILE ENSURING 
ANIMAL HEALTH AND WELFARE  
9. What are the most important challenges related to animal health and welfare and 
how should they be addresse d, in view of the differen t constraints faced by the 
aquaculture sector? 
The aspects related to aq uaculture and animal health, public health and food safety have been 
commented on in most contributions received, demonstrating the importance of these domains 
as a key component of a sustainable, well managed and economically viable aquaculture 
industry. If some contributions can be seen as providing only general views, a number of 
other contributions dedicate rath er long and precise comments to very specific health and 
welfare issues (e.g. from the Federation of Gr eek maricultures). A few contributions to the 
consultation are even practically entirely dedica ted to specific aspects of these domains, such 
as for example those received from some NGOs , particularly those interested in animal 
welfare. 
These latter generally consider that fish welfar e is insufficiently addressed at EU level and 
plead for strong and enforced legislation. They provide very detailed views on an extensive 
list of practices or issues (such as stoc king density, poor heal th conditions, crowding, 
handling and grading, transport, starvation, tagging, sea lice, algal blooms and jellyfish 
threatening farmed fish, mortal ity, biotechnology, genetic engin eering, artificial  lighting and 
photoperiod manipulation, slaughteri ng…). Animal disease or high stocking densities are also 
seen as exacerbating environmental impact (such as interaction with wild predators and water 
pollution). Fish slaughtering and fish transport are also two priorities issues referred to in the 
contributions from the Dutch Department of Fisheries. 
Fish producers are generally suppo rtive for fish welfare, but to be placed in the context of 
promoting and maintaining the optimum conditi ons for species. Some consider that the 
challenge is to resist the temptation of appl ying pseudo-anthropomorphi c suggestions for best 
practices (FEAP), or that ther e are many opinions but few facts (Danish aquaculture), or that 
any Policy on these issues should avoid bein g exaggerated and counterproductive (French 
 
EN 94   EN producers). The need to look for robust welfare indicators based on science, but also allowing 
adaptation to fast developing techniques has be en put forward several times. Best practices 
and codes of conducts for stoc king density are given as ex amples (e.g. SSPO) or as the 
preferred option by several contributors. The Direc tive on live transport of vertebrates is also 
criticised regarding its present scope  and provisions applicable to fish. 
However, there is a consensus on the need fo r low stress in animals to contribute to good 
health status, in association with good water quality, proper risk assessment, and prevention 
rather than treatment.  
The new EU aquatic animal disease legisl ation (Dir. 2006/88/EC) is generally seen by 
producers as providing an improved framework to  address health issues  for finfish, although 
specific concerns are expressed by some groups (Greek Federation, Aust rian carp producers, 
COPA-COGECA). Shellfish producer s however consider that th is new directive on "animal 
health" does not sufficiently take into account the specific characters of shellfish farming that 
takes place in a very open environment, and th at it gives a to strong dimension to trade 
facilitation in comparison to protecting sh ellfish production from possible diseases. 
Genetic selection (resistant brood stock) and th e development of vaccines are often mentioned 
as solutions to fish health pr oblems. However, in regard to the number of potential diseases 
and species to be used in aquaculture, vaccine  specificity makes development very slow (and 
mainly for major species, as observed in salm on aquaculture for example). More generally, 
availability of and access to veterinary medici nes is seen as a major difficulty by numerous 
contributors, who often express concerns regarding the absence of authorised medicines, the 
cost and length of approval of new medicine s, the disparities among MS, the difficulties of 
addressing health issues in new species (mar kets without interest for the pharmaceutical 
industry)… In a comparable manner, the Eur opean Feed Manufacturers Federation (FEFAC) 
consider that the authorisati on procedures for feed additive s are tailored made for land 
animals and do not specifically address characteristics of aquatics animals, limiting thereby the possibilities to address specific nutr itional needs for some fish species.  
Healthy food from fish aquaculture is also ofte n referred to in relation to feeding and the high 
value of unsaturated fatty acids  (see question 11 below). For sh ellfish producers however, the 
main concerns regarding public  health relate to microbiological testing and biotoxin 
monitoring. They consider being severely co nstrained by the "hygie ne" package, and the 
continuous trend on an always stricter approa ch of legislation on public health and too 
frequent changes in this domain. The shellfis h producers appear critical of the EU health 
legislation on biotoxins, criticizing sharply in particular the relevance and validity of the 
"mouse" test and the discrepancies in its implementation among MS. They consider this 
subject of major concern as they see it as a thr eat to the viability of their companies in the 
short-term. The role of the European Food Safety  Authority, the positio n of national reference 
laboratories and some form of "abuse" of th e precautionary principle are also questioned. 
Finally, there is a common trend in  all contributions received to highlight or illustrate the 
importance of research in terms of public heal th and animal health and welfare. There is 
unanimous call for continuing research on keys animal health issues and basic scientific 
knowledge on fish health and welfare. 
 
EN 95   EN 5. AQUATIC FARMING : A NEW ERA IN ANIMAL DOMESTICATION  
10. What do you see as the most promising ave nues in fish or shellfish domestication 
to provide opportunities for aqu aculture growth in the EU? 
Some contributors recognise th at developing new alternative species could be a promising 
avenue, but do so only in general terms.  
However, the majority of contributions received provide some detailed views on 
"domestication" of fish and shellfish. A number  of contributions from  producers identify the 
"new" aquaculture sp ecies that they would see an interest in. For example, recognising 
climatic differences in the Community, FEAP s ees cod and sole to be well placed to succeed 
in "cold water" aquaculture, while cobia and faster growing sea-bass and sea-breams would 
look more promising for the Mediterranean area.  For fresh water fish, choices seem less 
obvious, although percid fish or sturgeons are regularly suggested as  options. In closed 
recirculation systems with a controlled environm ent, the range of optio n appears wider (eels, 
catfish, tilapia, barramundi…).  
Some contributors, notably NGOs, also insist on domestication as a mean to address specific 
concerns: improved quality of sterile fish is seen as a way to prevent problems of escapes 
(EBCD); development of integrated systems of aquaculture associating several species 
(finfish and shellfish) might reduce enviro nmental impact from aquaculture; shellfish 
production or development of herbivorous or  omnivorous species should be favoured and 
capture-based aquaculture (e.g. tuna, eels) is not seen as a viable alternative (MCS); new species should only be used for farming when there is sufficient knowledge about their needs (Eurogroup For Animals). 
However, if "new" aquaculture  species are seen by some as  providing possible opportunities 
for European aquaculture, there is also a strong tendency in a num ber of contributions 
received to insist on the need to improve possibilities for "existing" species. Highlighting the 
successful farming in Europe of salmon, trout, sea-bass, sea-bream, oysters and mussels, a 
number of producers (generally from the shellf ish sector, but also in  the finfish sector) 
consider that, with the exception of cod and a few "newcomers in niche markets", the main 
route forward lies with produc ing more of the same species
72, produced even more efficiently 
and also processed with more efficiency. Im proved domestication of lo cal indigenous species 
is also seen as important by Dutch national authorities. 
It must also be noted also that timescales in relation to domestication are not necessarily 
perceived in the same manner depending on the main groups of stakeholders. The EAS board 
of Directors for example considers that " EU aquaculture is based only on new species, except 
for the common carp which has undergone  a significant period of domestication ". This views 
is somewhat echoed by SK republic in its co ntribution when referrin g to traditional pond 
farming and to the fact that they do not yet expect an increase of aquaculture in (other) new species.  
However, despite possible differences in consider ing what is a new species or not, there is a 
common and unanimous view that domesticati on is necessary to ensure sustainable and 
                                                
 
72 The need for lifting some intra-EU trade restrictions (e.g. on mussels seeds) has been referred to in this 
context. 
 
EN 96   EN economically viable industry, and that domestication still requires extensive and coordinated 
research and dissemination to realise its full  potential. Numerous challenges, gaps and 
opportunities are mentioned with associated needs for research and development, such as: 
reproduction control and efficienc y, disease resistance, feed sour ce and nutritional needs, food 
conversion efficiency, brood stock management, selective breeding (including use of genomic 
tools)… 
According to most comments, do mestication goes largely beyond issues directly related to 
animal breeding and management, as it also  includes aspects such as effect of the 
environment, or market considerations (n egative appreciation of  genetic modification, 
commercial and financial sustainability issues, etc). Insisting on the fact that farmers will 
produce what the market demands and that the EU  aquaculture will probably develop more on 
a "product basis" (i.e. easy cooking fillet or added value products) rather that on a "new 
species" basis, market consideration are viewed so metimes as a main criteria to the orientation 
of research in terms of "animal domestication" . Others also plead for the need to look for 
innovative products and ne w market opportunities. 
11. To what extent do you consider that fi sh oil and fish meal would represent a 
limiting factor to aquaculture growth in the European Community? Which option 
would you favour to reduce limitations from such feed? 
For carnivorous fish - the preferred species of EU consumers - fish meal is seen by many as 
the ideal product for the major components of feeds, since:  
– It is the most natural products for naturally carnivorous species 
– It contains a high nutrients concentration whose composition is perfect for effective 
nutrition, and it does not contai n anti-nutritional factors (vs.  vegetable proteins) that 
decrease growth 
– It is highly palatable (vs. substitute diets) to fish leading to less feed wastage, and 
consequently also less environmental discharge. 
For fish oil, the objective is to have the best content of omega 3 fatty acids, for the benefit of 
the consumer. 
With very few exception (e.g. Seafood Shetland), common general statements can be found in 
most contributions to agree that fish meal and fish oil (or FMFO) represent a limiting factor to 
finfish aquaculture growth. However, the type of limits identified may vary depending on the 
views of contributors, and these limits ar e generally not seen or perceived as 
"insurmountable" as there is a common view that there is capacity for substitution and 
improvements, in view in particular of the amount of research done  and progress already 
made to providing alternatives for FMFO. 
The International Fishmeal and Oil Organisati on (IFFO) considers even that statements on 
fish meal and fish oil limitations look " unnecessarily alarmist " in the Community 2002 
Strategy on aquaculture or in th e Consultation document, and they  provide an extensive set of 
information and data to support their views. They r ecognise however that fishmeal and fish 
oil, " once commodities, will increasingly become st rategic dietary ingredients and that their 
ideal nutritional profile will make them the ingredients of choice in many aquaculture 
situations, particularly carnivorous fish ". The use of FMFO will also increasingly be targeted 
 
EN 97   EN at critical stages in the life-cycle such as starte r diets, brood-stock diets, or finisher diets. They 
consider therefore that producti on (at a global level) of both aquaculture feed and seafood 
products will increase, but the feed and farming cost will be controlled. 
On the contrary, increasing costs represent a common concern for fish-feed manufacturers and 
primarily European fish producers. Meal and oil are global product s with a transparent 
market, and their prices fluctuate and reflec t global production and demand. Both FEAP and 
COPA-COGECA consider that what is preventin g aquaculture from expanding is not the lack 
of meal, but its price, and that  it could seriously affect production costs of European fish 
farming, compared to imports from other count ries where labour and other costs are much 
lower. Fish oil availability could be a more se rious limiting factor in the future, considering 
that global fish oil production is already prac tically totally used for aquaculture purposes, but 
partial substitution by vegetable oils (e.g. rape seed  oil) is already cu rrent practice (e.g. for 
salmon). However, some argue that  the increase in rape seed oil, related to the increased 
demand for bio-fuels, is now the determining pr ocess of oil prices (In this regard, Scottish 
aquaculture producers for example oppose the idea of using rape seed oil as bio fuel, and 
indicate their preference fo r exclusive use in feeds). 
The fish feed industry agrees that it must reduc e the inclusion of FMFO in its formulations in 
order to be able to support a sustainable aquaculture devel opment. Any further growth in 
finfish aquaculture has to be based on fishmeal replacement and higher FMFO prices will accelerate substitution rates.  
A number of NGOs, public authorities but also economic operators associate their 
contribution on FMFO availability with concerns about the need to ensure sustainability of 
industrial fisheries or other environmental as pects of feeding FMFO to farmed fish (e.g. 
competition with prey stocks of natural predators). 
The general current position is se en as one of demonstrating th at the industry still requires 
FMFO for its sustainable development, but altern ative raw material will be used more once a 
better understanding of formulation and nu tritional know-how has been achieved. The 
importance and need for continued research in this area is therefore a common feature in all 
contributions, although the views on the role to be  played by different actors may vary. As an 
illustration, the Finnish Fish Farmers' Association is of the view that th e feed industry is well 
performing in research and, except for some basic research, there is no need to target this 
question in an EU strategy, while the Federa tion of Greek Maricultures considers that 
research in this area must become a strategi c priority, asking also for some particular 
quantified targets. 
Notwithstanding zoo-technical work such as  species selection, breed improvements, 
physiology knowledge, the most quoted key repla cements options of FMFO in feed are 
vegetable protein concentrates or vegetable oil (including GM derived feed materials), land 
animal by-products (e.g. blood meal) or krill.  Some more "anecdot al options" are also 
foreseen in a few contributions, such as explor ing possibilities of bacterial and algal culture 
(IMARES), producing marine lipids from natura l gas (SINTEF) or even using insects (House 
of the Dutch provinces). 
In addition to promoting research, several cont ributors also call for more immediate political 
or legal changes. Several contri butions refer to a better use of  by-catch and discards as a raw 
material for fish, although FEAP indicates that a practical, logistical, and economic 
 
EN 98   EN assessment would have to be made whether this  portion of discards could make a significant 
contribution to providing an alternative resource to traditional fish meal and fish oil supplies. 
The Federation of Greek Maricultures calls fo r a mandatory gradual reduction of FMFO used 
to feed land terrestrial animals towards an ulti mate prohibition of such use within a decade, 
arguing that aquaculture is by far the best and mo st efficient user of FMFO, – a fact that has 
been highlighted in several contributions from producers or  researchers. Some present 
limitations in EU legislation on fish feed av ailability are also highlighted. The Austrian 
producer Alpenlachs  considers that the intra-species feed  ban in respect to fresh water fish 
should be lifted urgently. The European Fat Proc essors and Renderers As sociation calls for an 
amendment to the TSE regulation as soon as possible to allow terrestrial-non-ruminants-
processed animal proteins to be used in f eeds for aquatics species, estimating that about 
150.000 to 200.000 tonnes of these proteins could be made available per year to the 
aquaculture industry, position generally al so supported by the fish-feed sector . 
However, the acceptance by the public and consumers of the possible options for FMFO 
substitution and alternative sources is recogn ised by numerous cont ributors as a very 
important element, influencing their individua l input to the consulta tion. The British Trout 
Association, for example, claims that a high level of FMFO is still needed because of the 
attitude of some retailers who insist on the need of feed fish  with FMFO. Comparable issues 
are expressed by the French aquaculture association which insists on the importance of associating distribution channels  and the media to inform cons umers on the present evolution 
(on issues such as for example the re-int roduction of blood m eal) or by FEFAC which 
highlights the need to address fish farmer and consumer perc eption, with regard to omega 3 
fatty acids contents of fish a nd risks and benefits associated with substitution of FMFO. The 
need for public information and communication is  also put forward by some scientists (e.g. 
EAS board).  
Finally, despite the fact that they are not concerned by fish-feed related challenges, the 
shellfish producers refer to the fact that they are faced with other form s of possible limits on 
feeds, in the sense that they n eed to have access to the natura l environment that provides the 
optimal nutrients possibilities for growth of oysters and mussels (cf. water quality or access to space). They see a need for major research in  the field of biological carrying capacity and 
potentially beneficial results from integrated  multi-trophic (i.e. multi sp ecies) aquaculture. 
6. O
VERCOMING SPACE LIMITATIONS : THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL 
DEVELOMENTS AND SPATIAL PLANNING  
6.1. Technological innovation 
12. What technological innovation would you consider most promising to allow 
aquaculture development in a limited space context? What are the main obstacles 
to their development and how could they be overcome? 
On-land "recirculation aquaculture systems" a nd offshore technologies are the main possible 
innovations referred to by all groups of contributor s, with the exception of the feed sector who 
did not express a view on these questions, and the welfare NGOs who only express some 
general concerns. These latter consider that technological innovation may lead to a further 
intensifying of fish farmi ng and higher stocking density, and techniques to increase 
production, such as biotech and genetic  engineering risk being introduced. 
 
EN 99   EN There is a consensual trend to consider that on-land aquaculture systems using 
recirculation  (and possibly heating) provide most pr omise where space is the limiting factor 
for fresh water but also coastal sites. Water re circulation and treatment technology is also seen 
as an excellent way to address impacts of aquaculture on the environment and for optimal control of environmental parame ters most suitable to fish. However, higher skill levels are 
required in the workforce (system monitoring and surveillance) and task automation is almost 
a prerequisite. 
There is also a general recogni tion that such technological upta ke and development has been 
limited so far primarily because of costs considerations. Economic expenses (investments and 
operations, in particular energy costs) combined  with market uncertainty have restricted 
development so far. Except for very sensitive phases in the farming process, such as for 
hatcheries and nurseries, technology take up ha s not been greater because productions costs 
are not the same in open and closed systems.  Some contributors strongly advocating for 
development of recirculation systems consider th at the "sustainability" criteria should attract 
for a premium price and allow therefore positi ve developments (e.g. Marine Conservation 
Society). 
However, there appears to be still some ne ed for technological development and some 
zootechnical issues have not yet been complete ly resolved for an op timal management of 
recirculation systems. Contributions received highlight the need for innovation in managing 
and monitoring recycling processes, efficien t water treatment (marine and fresh water), 
optimised energy use, disease prevention and treatment, addressing growth limits for certain species, paying close attention to  the quality of the final pr oduct (muscle tone and quality, 
absence of off-flavour)…   
Moreover, since many recirculation systems us e species that support a high farming density 
(notably to reduce costs per uni t produced), several contributor s refer to the importance that 
should be given on the societal acceptability of this  approach and on the need to inform 
consumers ("chicken-cage- like syndrome"). 
Offshore fish and shell fish farming is often quoted as another technological innovation for 
aquaculture  but there is also a general and common view among contributors that there are 
many issues that remain to be resolved in th e technical, managerial and financial spheres, 
which makes FEAP qualifying offshore fish farming as " appearing to provide a lot of instant 
solutions ". Similarly, the Aquaculture section of the Irish farmer s' association for example 
considers that " offshore farming in the strictest sense … while widely promoted, has yet to be 
proven in terms of safety and welfare of both stocks and farm ers, suitability of sites and 
equipments, and availability of appropriate plankton food for sh ellfish. Much more research 
and developments needs to be carried out in this area before it becomes a reality ". 
Environmental NGOs express so me more cautious position about possible promises of 
offshore aquaculture, notably rega rding experience of escapes in marine fish farming and the 
need for technology to be able to cope with worst conditions forecast (while safeguarding 
farmed species from excessive currents). 
Notwithstanding the technological ch allenge, a number of contribu tors highlight the financial 
dimension of engaging into offshore innovation.  According to FEAP, it seems probable that 
major investments could take place in this type  of aquaculture, but that these may be limited 
to the bigger companies active in marine aqu aculture. The Federation of Scottish Aquaculture 
Producers see a major challenge in  finding investors that are wil ling to risk large sums of 
 
EN 100   EN money on pilot scale ventures that  are of sufficient scope to be able to reassure future full 
scale investment. The Federation of Greek Maricultures is of the view that the size of the 
Mediterranean fish farming industry seems to lack the critical mass for industry-financed 
research on the topic. The two latter organisations  also refer to the need to address legal and 
regulatory challenges associated with off-shore aquaculture (e.g. licensing).  
There are therefore numerous common view s that technological innovation should be 
encouraged trough efficient EU cooperation in research and investments . Some 
contributors recall also that, if offshore aquacu lture is to be developed, equipments and boats 
will have to be modified for such sites and complementary inshore sites for harvesting or 
over-wintering of stocks will be required. Po ssibilities of linking with other industries 
(renewable energy for example) where aquaculture can take advantage of structures that have 
the potential to alleviate st ress on containments are mentioned. Promoting recirculation 
aquaculture systems by subsidising energy co sts is also an opti on put forward by some 
contributors (Finnish Fish Farmers' association).  
It is worth noting that severa l contributors (from various cate gories of stakeholders) also 
consider important to mention that, if Europe is a world leader in technology, there must however not always be a presumption that aqua culture production needs to be high-tech. The 
positive role of extensive aquaculture is high lighted, and traditional aquaculture should be 
able to continue and to benefit from suppor t. The existence of new technology should not 
wipe out existing ones. Further development of current production systems (increase in size 
and production level) is seen by several as a way to significantly contribute to overall 
production. 
6.2. Spatial planning 
13. What are the main obstacles to access to marine or fresh water space for 
aquaculture activities? Would you consider th at there is a need for public decision 
maker to set aside specific locations dedi cated to the development of aquaculture?  
14. How could marine/maritime spatial planni ng be developed to provide appropriate 
conditions for the sustainable growth of  aquaculture sectors in coastal and 
offshore waters? 
Obtaining access to farming depends on the pro cedures to get an ap proval of licences to 
operate. In numerous contributions, there is qui te an overlap of concerns and views between 
the two questions above and those related to the links between aquaculture development and 
environment related issues. Good governance relate d issues and the current "low" status of 
aquaculture as a stakeholder in marine and freshw ater policies appear also  at the heart of this 
debate. There are unanimous voices for a full st akeholder involvement in any such process. 
A number of producers consider th at current policies and legal frameworks are unsuited to the 
sector's needs, specifically at Member State,  regional or at local le vel, which impedes the 
issuing of licences and/or other control proced ures and leads to an effective blocking of 
aquaculture development. 
Very frequent concerns refer to: 
 
EN 101   EN – Bureaucratic delays in proce dures, costs of registration, and uncertainty of the outcome in 
absence of specific [supportive] legislation ( can imply years of effort and many different 
authorisations to obtain the n ecessary licences to operate).  
– Licence validity periods are t oo short which does not stimula te investment, but creates 
uncertainty and confusion for the producer and investor.  
– Differing interpretation of European legisla tion at national level, combined with a 
frequently reported tendency for local author ities and organisations to be more radical 
(under the ‘precautionary principle’) . In this context some fish or shellfish producers even 
consider that the overall challenge is some Member States is not to get new licences to 
develop aquaculture, but fi rst to succeed in having the old ones renewed. 
Review of the processes is urgently called for by the sector if development is to occur. Clear 
and simplified procedures, with  established time limits for d ecision, for obtaining aquaculture 
operating licences should be provided in each Member State. Licenc es should also be 
accorded for reasonable periods of time with clear conditions for renewal in order to bring about longer term investments. These conditions ar e seen by the sector as symptomatic that it 
remains poorly understood and refl ecting its low status  as a stakeholder in freshwater and 
maritime activities. The need for better communi cation is often reiterated, with the EU - or 
the European Commission- being seen an im portant player in raising the profile of 
aquaculture as an equal right user of water and land space. 
Some contributors put forward benefits of some forms of identifying and mapping of most 
suitable sites for aquaculture production. Su pport for spatial pla nning comes from most 
quarters and relates to their wish to see aquaculture and its economic dimension and environmental protection treated on an equal footing. However, as  far as the possible need for 
public decision makers to set aside specific locations dedicated  to the development of 
aquaculture, there are rather different views am ong contributors, even within a given category 
of the main stakeholders, thus reflecting probabl y different levels of di fficulty already faced 
by operators in terms of access to space and licensing. 
As an illustration, the Danish aquacultu re organisation considers that it " is imperative that 
specific locations are dedicated to aquaculture, otherwise the lo cal authorities will apply the 
"NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) principle ". The need for designation of specific aquaculture 
sites –including supporting the ex isting ones- is also seen as necessary by the French 
Aquaculture Association, which c onsiders that such planning s hould also have legal force, 
and they insist that this is onl y possible if there is a real politi cal will. The EAS board is of the 
view that reserved specific locations are proba bly crucial for the sustainability of shellfish 
sector as well as for artisan al finfish production in  riverside and coasta l zones. The Greek 
producers report that their centra l administration has decided to move towards the creation of 
designated aquaculture zones, or Areas of Orga nised aquaculture development, in response to 
the need for better control, collective manageme nts within a flexible business environment, 
but also with respect to natu ral resources. The Dutch departme nt of fisheries, recognising 
inconsistent legislation at di fferent government levels, consid ers that the establishment of 
specific locations for aquacultu re development could preven t the damaging of vulnerable 
ecosystems. 
Other stakeholders have more mitigated view s. COPA-COGECA does not consider it useful 
in every case to designate areas potentia lly suitable for aquaculture. Conditions and 
 
EN 102   EN requirements as well as insight into site-s pecific needs may change over time (due to 
environmental change, for example, or new spec ies entering the aquaculture scene). It could 
be helpful to have dedicated areas for aquaculture where it is easier to get approval to establish a farm and receive subsidies, but it would be counterproductive if that would also 
mean excluding aquaculture in other areas. Th e Irish producers also  recognised there are 
differing opinions on giving speci fic zones to specific sectors (uncertainty involved in 
specialisation and expertise on t hose who may draw up the zones, need to cope with possible 
increasing demand in the future, unforeseen en vironmental impact on the industry, possible 
impacts on the rights to explore new areas or apply for new areas  of production, or simply to 
continue to operate in exiting areas if not sel ected…). Some contributors from the scientific 
community would also see a need to examine each individual case (e.g. SINTEF). Austrian 
producers do not see the need for reserved aqu aculture sites in rural areas, neither do the 
Slovakian authorities (although r ecognising that access to aquaculture is limited because of a 
great number and space of protected areas). 
Public bodies or similar, alt hough supportive of some general prin ciples, such as participation 
processes, often appear to have more of a pr ecautionary stance regarding dedicated allocation 
of space to aquaculture. There are neverthele ss a few more pro-active views, such as for 
example the Fisheries and Aquaculture Strate gic Group that advises the Welsh assembly 
which supports the creation a public body in charge of setti ng aside specific location for 
aquaculture. 
More broadly, sharing space between different and competing users is often referred to by 
contributors in relation to the initiative for a Maritime Policy, which is seen as a positive stimulus to marine spatial planning developm ent. The position expressed in the corresponding 
report of the European Parliament that states ‘ within the context of an integrated coastal zone 
management (ICZM) approach, clearly defined areas where fish farms may be clustered 
should be promoted and that this should be linked to a simplified regulatory regime 
encouraging entrepreneu rship and sustainability ’ has been quoted and supported by both 
FEAP and the EAS board. 
Numerous contributions make references to IC ZM and the development,  use and application 
of spatial planning procedures are seen as cont ributing to the resolution of conflicts for space 
and support the overall recognition of fish farm ing as a key stakeholder in the maritime 
sector. Several contributors refer to the usefulness of a mapping exercise, for a clear identification -by Member States- of potential, available and sustainable sites for coastal and 
offshore aquaculture, and the possible developmen t of guidelines for optimising site locations 
for different sectors within the Aquaculture industry.  For some also, flexibility among 
planners is needed to allow fish farms to c onsolidate on fewer but larger sites to maintain 
production on a competitive scale (British Tr out Association). The Federation of Greek 
Maricultures is of the view that there is an ur gent need for an EU directive or Regulation for 
marine spatial planning and the designation by MS of areas for aquaculture development, 
while the Irish producers indicate that IE has al ready a system very close to terrestrial based 
planning, but the deficiencies in the system have not come from the legal text but rather from 
the interpretation of scale, lack of knowle dge on carrying capacity, non-implementation of 
biomass limits... The Norwegian Ministry of Fi sheries indicates that  spatial planning and 
management is the  main tool in coastal management, and its implementation relies on local 
authorities. They also indica te that there is a need fo r science based knowledge of 
environmental impact of farms on a local scale.  However, the central authorities (regional 
 
EN 103   EN office of the Directorate of Fish eries) may raise objections if sufficient areas for aquaculture 
are not set aside by the municipality. 
The scientific community appears generally su pportive of spatial plan ning initiatives, but 
highlight also the need for research to develop methodologies for comprehensive and 
multidimensional approaches. Some NGOs (MCS) also  express their support of the principle, 
subject to strategic environmental impact asse ssment. They consider that it will increase 
certainty for industry as govern ment licensing bodies will abid e by the Marine Plan unless 
significant impacts revealed by environmental impact assessments.  
7. PROVIDING SUPPORT FOR SUSTAINABILITY  
15. How can we ensure that EFF implementa tion will contribute to sustainable 
aquaculture growth in the EU? 
16. Are there already some lessons to be drawn from the preparation of your National 
Strategic Plan and Operational Programme regarding aquaculture?  
There is generally very little input on the questions related to  the European Fisheries Fund 
(EFF). Some concerns (producer s from UK, IE, FI) have b een expressed regarding the 
uncertainty of the outcome of National Stra tegic Plans and Operational Programmes under 
elaboration, the insufficient allocat ion of money compared to prev ious structural funds or the 
too- restrictive measures of the new EFF Regulation. Other produ cers insist on the need for a 
national dynamic process and a general political , with a better coordination between national 
authorities and industry (e.g. French and Gr eek associations). However, the Danish 
aquaculture association expresse s its satisfaction on the collabor ation with national authorities 
and the general consensus about industry deve lopment, which they consider will appear 
important in relation to local decision making. 
As far as contributions from na tional authorities are concerned, th e Ministry of Agriculture of 
the Slovak Republic indicates th at the preparation of their na tional programme allowed them 
to note that there was an increased interest  in building of new production capacity, but 
considering that they had not enough money for su ch action, they intend to focus their efforts 
into existing farming capacity. The Dutch author ities (Department of Fisheries) are of the 
view that the involvement of the stakeholders has been an effective way for the identification of measures and objectives th at are the most promising.  
 
EN 104   EN  
8. RESEARCH : A POWERFUL DEVELOPMENT TOOL  
17. How can research policy be set in a strategic context to enhance its benefits, 
specifically for European aquaculture an d/or European technology and know-
how? 
18. How can the transfer of research results be  optimised so as to maximise the benefit 
to European business?  
19. Which cross-cutting areas in  marine research would yo u consider most important 
for aquaculture? 
There is a clear common view am ong contributors to see research  as a fundamental element to 
sustainable development of Aquaculture in Eu rope, although views va ry on the facets of 
sustainability to be more devel oped. The views on (marine) res earch for aquaculture are often 
focused or referring to the conclusions provided in several workshops and seminars made in recent months, such as the "Aberdeen Declaratio n" of June 2007 for example", as well as in 
relation to the development of the Maritime Po licy. Several contributors consider it important 
to recall that the high  profile given at EU level to Maritimes issues should not leave 
freshwater aquaculture out of European RTD efforts. 
In practice, it is difficult to identify only a fe w themes that would be seen as most important 
for aquaculture as the need for further resear ch –being specific or crosscutting- has been 
raised for all issues covered under the prev ious questions, such as for example:  
– New technologies (materials and manageme nt systems offshore aquaculture, marine 
biotechnology 
– (alternate feed) 
– Environmental issues, efficient and optimal use of aquatic resource, Climate change effects 
– Health monitoring and maintenance, improve d hatchery performance for the production of 
marine juveniles (reduced malformati ons, better growth),  alternate feeds 
– Spatial planning and modelling for improved ICZM, potential for integrated aquaculture 
activities. 
Several contributors insist th erefore on the fact that the re search policy should reflect the 
overall strategy or that it should be directed  by objectives. Providing a specific research 
policy for European aquaculture would have vi sible benefits but would need to be better 
adapted to the needs (immediate, medium and long-term) of the sector if it is to assist its sustainable development. In parallel to this approach, support work on basic research (e.g. 
lifecycle, basic biology) and wide r issues (for example, on environmental interactions, effects 
of climate change…) need to be continued. Some also see the use of foresight studies, 
combined with established European and national aquaculture strategies, as a mean to help to 
give a clearer focus on sectoral priorities. None theless, the industry wi ll need to accommodate 
how it can provide financial s upport for such research work. 
 
EN 105   EN While supportive of the need for research, some stakeholders express concerns regarding the 
present state of research. For example, the Fede ration of Greek Maricult ures is of the view 
that there is an apparent lack of strategi c guidance and support in the research field. The 
Danish Aquaculture Organisati on expresses some rising concer n that even though the EU is 
investing heavily in R&D, production is stag nating. The House of Dutch Provinces even 
states that in an open economy, it seems in evitable that supporting know-how and innovation 
will spill over to non-EU Member States an d "will capitalise only there", and considers 
therefore crucial the need for a good pictur e on the focus points and chances in Europe 
beforehand. A number of stakeholders also express concerns rega rding the bureaucratic 
procedures for EU RTD projects, which repres ent a major limiting factor for joining in. 
Quite a number of contributors also indicate that European aquaculture research remains 
dispersed with duplication of effort, particul arly between the National Programmes. Some 
would see benefits in the creation of a central da tabase for future aquaculture research or in a 
regular appraisal by relevant stakeholders – including indus try representatives of RTD 
progress, based on definite benc hmarks to measure progress.  
A closer involvement of economi c operators in the definition of research priorities at 
Community level also appears as a frequent re quest from the sector. The importance of the 
development of a Technology Platform for European Aquaculture  –EATP- has been 
mentioned several times in this regard, as it s hould allow providing a strong industry-led view 
on its future development and research requirements. 
Finally, an improvement in RTD transfer is a central concern of the producers (and a number 
of researchers). However, the willingness to publish and transfer results differs depending 
partially on the objectives of the research and the owner of the intellectua l property or of the 
competitive advantage gained. A structured effort to optimise the dissemination and availability of information, and training should help bridging th e gap that exists between the 
research and professional sectors. Positive experiences are often used as examples
73 to 
support numerous proposals in  this regard, such as:  
– The assistance of strong profe ssional associations of inter-pr ofessional organisations with 
personnel who are responsible for RTD actions for efficient communica tion and transfer to 
the industry 
– The development of accessible RTD project su mmaries, explaining why the RTD work is 
done, how it can benefit the sector and debating progress and/ or direct ion (in conferences, 
regional workshops) 
– The need for improved networking between resear ch institutes and European business, and 
improved training in new technologies. 
                                                 
73 such as ‘PROFET Policy’ or the WAVE projects (see www.profetpolicy.info  or www.waveproject.com ) 
 
EN 106   EN ANNEX III  
 
POSSIBLE ACTIONS TO CONTRIBU TE REACHING THE OBJECTIVES  
AND THEIR INCREMENTAL E FFECT UNDER OPTION 2  
The table below provides additional information on possible actions referred to under section 5.2. 
Problems/issues identified Possibl e actions by public authorities  
 Objective being contributed to and incremental 
effect 
• When inadequately assessed, and not 
properly managed, aquaculture practices 
may affect the quality of the natural 
environment (water pollution, abuse of 
chemicals…) or create risks for nature 
(introduction of exotic invasive species, 
transfers of diseases to wild animals…). Background: cf. section 2.5.1 
• Potential actions (non-legislative)  
- The Commission to monitor developments  regarding the problem of escapees , notably 
in view of measures taken by the sector a nd by competent authorities at Member States 
level (as well as in Norway) and if necessary , assess the added value for possible action at 
the EU level 
- The Commission and the Member States to pursue supporting research  on interactions 
between environment and aquaculture. 
• Potential actions not retained  
- Revision of the EU environmental legislat ion with the view to reduce the level of 
protection (not proportionate, neithe r in line with the Treaty). 
- Decision on the need to develop new specific legislation to address a specific 
environmental problem of aquaculture (exten sive environmental legislation already in 
place, no evidence for additional one). • Ensuring a high level of protection of the 
environment. 
• Incremental effects  
Primarily of political nature, by recognising that well 
managed aquaculture is an environmentally compatible 
activity, but also restating the general political 
commitment to continue, when developing policies and 
actions, to placing emphasis in ensuring 
environmentally sustainable development of 
aquaculture. Highlight also the readiness of the 
Commission to take additiona l measures if this would 
prove necessary. 
 
EN 107   EN • Aquaculture is highly dependent on 
quality water so as to  guarantee safe and 
high quality products, while also 
facilitating health and welfare of farmed 
animals. The aquaculture industry heavily 
depends therefore on water resources that 
are under management and control by 
public bodies. 
• The changes in the Community legal 
framework for water protection (Water 
Framework Directive) and the repeal of 
the Directive on quality of shellfish 
waters creates some legal uncertainty as 
to how the quality of the shellfish waters 
will be guarantied in the future and as to how the shellfish producers will continue 
to benefit from access to the water quality 
they need. • Potential actions (non-legislative)
 
- The Commission and the Member States  to ensure that the level of protection of 
shellfish  waters  under the first river basin management  plans established under the Water 
Framework Directive (WFD) is ma intained (2009 and onwards). 
- The Commission  to enhance information targeting na tional competent authorities and the 
industry to ensure a proper implementation of the WFD  and of the Marine Strategy 
Framework Directive as regards aquaculture activit ies, including by developing 
guidelines on the application of the WFD to shellfish areas, in order to ensure a certain 
degree of harmonisation in the implementatio n of environmental requirements (possibly 
2009-2012).  
- The Commission  to assess the need to review some elements of the EU water 
protection legal framework  in view of the repeal of the Directive on shellfish waters 
quality (possibly 2009-2010) 
- The Member States  to recognise the importance of fish and shellfish farmers  in 
contributing to ensuring water quality on wh ich they depend and the importance of these 
actors in the preservation of the environment and to ensure a fair treatment to the 
aquaculture industry and consider it an equal player with other economic activities 
• Potential actions not retained  
- Immediate decision on a revision of some elem ents of the EU water protection to possibly 
increase water quality requireme nts for the protection of shellfish growing areas (prior 
deeper assessment required) • Ensuring a high level of protection of the 
environment and a high le vel of public health. 
• Improving competitiveness and governance by 
providing the aquaculture industry with an 
environment of high quality compatible with its 
needs 
• Incremental effects  
These actions should facilit ate the development of 
aquaculture with the associ ated economic and societal 
benefits. The importance of the effects will directly 
depend on the level of protection afforded by public 
authorities to the water quality, the access given to the 
fish and shellfish farmer s to high quality water 
resources, and the legitimate recognition of these 
stakeholders among all other actors. 
 
EN 108   EN • The aquatic environment directly impacts 
on the potential safety for consumers of water-filtering molluscs, in particular 
regarding the risk of concentrating 
bacteria or viruses that would be present 
in waters, or natural biotoxins produced 
by unforeseeable toxic algal blooms. 
Shellfish producers consider that changes 
introduced in the mouse bioassay test to 
check for presence of toxins in molluscs 
have lead to an increasing number "false 
positive" with important subsequent 
economic losses, without increasing the 
apparent level of protection afforded to 
the consumers. Background: cf. section 2.5.2: 
• Potential actions (non-legislative)
 
- The Commission  to re-examine  the situation once EFSA has achieved a full review of 
marine biotoxin related issues  (2009-2010, as the opinion from EFSA is awaited by mid 
2009) 
- The Commission and the Member States  to support the development of alternative 
methods and standards for these detection methods. 
- The Commission and the Member States  to evaluate  how to make more widespread use 
of risk assessment and risk prevention tools  such as the SUMO project ("Mollusc 
Surveillance") initiated by the European shellf ish industry in order to complement existing 
surveillance requirem ents for pathogens in live molluscs (2009-2010). 
• Potential actions not retained  
- To review immediately the provisions of th e mouse biological assay test and modify the 
observation period to 5 hours, without any ne w scientific basis and assessment of the 
consequences. 
 • Ensuring consumer health protection and 
recognising health benefit of aquatic food contributes to both the competitiveness objective 
and the sustainable development agenda.  
• Incremental effects
 
All these actions are expected to have positive effects 
for the consumers as well as for the development of the 
sector. They will result in an increased level of 
consumer protection ba sed on new scientific 
development. In addition, they will provide better 
monitoring and risk prevention tools which will help to 
a better management limiti ng possible economic losses 
for market prohibition. 
• Aquatic food has high nutritional values 
that contribute to the health of citizen 
(Omega 3 fatty acids for example). EFSA 
is usually providi ng specific one-sided 
scientific opinion on a given issue, such as the one on given health risks 
associated to aquatic food or on fish 
welfare consideration. Scientific opinion 
often fails in providing a more 
comprehensive assessment of both the 
benefits and the risks with reference to 
the overall public health related aspects. • Potential actions (non-legislative)
 
The Commission  to continue to base its evaluation and its assessments  on scientific 
advice, but to request such scientific advice to  provide for a more integrated assessment of 
fish related issues by including health benefi ts related to the consum ption of aquatic food, 
taking into account also the possible significa nt differences in the content of high value 
nutrients (e.g. omega 3 fatty acids, protein co ntent) depending on the origin and species 
concerned. 
 • Recognising health benefit of aquatic food 
contributes to both the competitiveness objective 
and the sustainable development agenda.  
• Incremental effects  
Such more integrated assessment of both risks but also 
benefits of eating aquatic food,  is expected to provide a 
more balanced and factual view on aquaculture 
products, with positive imp acts on both the sector and 
the consumers. Consideration of health potential benefits 
depending on the type and nature of aquatic food will 
provide the society with a more precise and useful 
knowledge on the value of consuming a given fish 
species. 
 
EN 109   EN • Specific problems arise as regard some 
elements of the new animal health law (Directive 2006/88), notably the list of 
diseases covered, risks and measures 
related to vector species, possible sources 
of financial support, or specific national 
measures. There is also a continuous need 
to revise and update the aquaculture 
animal health Community legislation to 
adapt it in a proportionate manner to new 
situations and scientific progress. 
• Diseases in aquatic animals attract lower 
level of attention compared to more 
disease of significant importance in 
terrestrial animals (recent crisis on avian flu, foot and mouth disease, blue tongue). Background: cf. section 2.5.3: 
• Potential specific actions (p rimarily non-legisla tive but could lead to legislative 
proposals)  
- The Commission  to keep under review  (by 2011) the list of important diseases  for 
aquatic animals (Spring Viremia of Carp was recently de-listed after reassessment the 
impact of the diseases with regard to the proportionality and efficiency of measures that 
were required under the Directive). 
- The Commission  to assess  (2009-2010) the current provisions regarding additional 
guaranties for some diseases taken at Member State level, in order to ensure that these 
measures do not represent unjus tified barriers to economic operators and movements of 
aquaculture animals and products thereof. 
- The Commission  to pursue assessment of preventative measures  in relation to vector 
and susceptible species, on the basis of scien tific advice and promot e scientific research. 
- The Commission  to assess  (by 2011), as part of its acti on plan on animal health, the 
present financial instruments available to support m easures dedicated to the health of 
animals , including aquatic animals (in particular  regarding the promotion of on-farm bio-
security measures and training). • Securing animal health contributes to shaping a 
performing animal industry and improving thereby competitiveness. It also contributes to the objectives 
of the Strategy for su stainable development. 
• Incremental effects
 
These actions should ensure that the health needs of 
aquatic animals and their specificities are fully taken 
into account as part of the follow-up of the new animal 
health policy strategy. 
 
EN 110   EN • The EU legal framework in relation to 
welfare developed for farmed animals also generally covers farmed fish. 
However, it is not the most appropriate 
because either it is based on terrestrial 
animals (regulation on transport) and/or 
the specific standards are lacking at all 
(directives on protection of animals kept 
for farming purposes, or on slaughter or 
killing). One of the main problem drivers 
is that the scientific knowledge in fish is 
still very poor. • Potential specific actions
 (non-legislative and legislative) 
- The Commission  to seek for advice on fish welfare on a species  dependent basis , and 
further promote animal welfare research to de velop relevant welfare indicators in fish 
species 
- The Commission  to promote also the need for a species-dependent approach  in the 
international fora  presently addressing fish welfare (i n particular the World Organisation 
for Animal Health / OIE). 
- The Commission  to assess fish welfare issues  in aquaculture (by 2011) in order to 
evaluate the value of non-legislative or possible legislative measures, but in the mean-time 
the Commission  to propose for a timely revision of some  present but inadequate provisions 
in the "animal transport Regulation"74 (2009). • Securing animal welfare contributes to the 
objectives of the Strategy for Sustainable Development. 
• Incremental effects
 
These actions should ensure th at specificities of aquatic 
animal welfare are taken in to account, be yond measures 
of the Community action plan 2006-2010 for animal 
welfare, and that proportiona te measures are developed 
in close collaboration between all stakeholders. 
                                                 
74 Regulation (EC)N° 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations. 
 
EN 111   EN • There is a lack of authorised veterinary 
medical products for fish - because of economic considerati ons (absence of 
profitability of developing drugs for a 
given disease in a given fish species by 
the pharmaceutical industry), legal and 
administrative provisions (notably at 
Member Sates level). 
In addition, there is insufficient 
knowledge by the stakeholders on the 
existing pharmaceutical framework, as 
well as insufficient awareness from 
public authorities on the needs and 
specificities related to the treatment of 
aquatic animals. • Potential actions (legisla tive and non-legislative) 
 
- The Council and the European Parliament to adopt the new MRL regulation  proposal 
while seeking to ensure provisions of particular interest to aquaculture. 
- The Commission and the Member States  to implement  the recommendations  made by 
the "Availability Task Force"  (2009-2010). 
- The Commission and the Member States  to act as a facilitator to improve information 
exchanges  between the competent authorities and the different actors of fish health, in 
particular by convening experts and stakeh olders meetings aimed at addressing the 
specificities related to the treatments in farmed aquatic animals and the practical problems 
to overcome to ensure an adequate and reasone d use of veterinary treatments in fish (2009-
2010). 
• Potential actions not retained  
- Immediate commitment to a revision of the basics of the pharmaceutical law, notably to 
facilitate or create a true internal market  for veterinary medicinal products for minor 
species /minor uses (new Di rective adopted only back in 2004). Such a review may be 
considered in a medium or longer te rm (full assessment required before). • Addressing the need for specific veterinary 
treatments in aquatics animals contributes to a high level of animal health and welfare, and therefore to 
both the competitiveness objective and the 
sustainable development agenda.  
• Incremental effects
 
Will ensure, in particular through better exchange of 
information that the needs and specificities of aquatic 
animal health are fully taken into account to unlock this 
major bottleneck for development, but also to promote 
wise use of drugs and provide factual information on 
this industry (e.g. often wrong perception/image on 
antibiotic use). 
 
EN 112   EN • Aquaculture is hampered by an always 
increasing competition for space and water in coastal areas, but also along 
fresh water courses. Gold plating of 
environmental protecti on rules can create 
additional obstacles for the aquaculture 
industry, which feels often not being 
taken on an equal footing with other 
activities. 
• The uncertainty on siting and the absence 
of appropriate guidance and reliable data 
for the possible location of economic 
activity create uncertainty for investors, 
increase risks of conflicts and represent 
lost opportunities to use synergies between aquaculture activities and 
protection of the aquatic environment.  Background: cf. section 2.5.4 
• Potential actions (non-legislative)
 
- The Commission to promote Integrated Coastal Zone Management  (e.g. better 
exploitation and dissemination of  knowledge on aquaculture siting ) and to launch actions as 
foreseen within the roadmap for maritime spatial plannnig75 developed in the framework of 
the new EU Maritime Policy (2009). 
- The Member States to develop marine spatial planning systems , in which they fully 
recognise the strategic importance of aquaculture. The Member States  to undertaking an 
inventory and mapping of most suitable sites for aquaculture needs, including offshore, in 
order to facilitating such pla nning. These planning tools shoul d also facilitate anticipating 
risks from, for instance, climate change effect s, floods or coastal er osion that may affect 
aquaculture sites. 
- The Member State s to ensure that " inland" spatial planning  fully integrates the needs 
and values of freshwater aquaculture. 
- (see also other actions contri buting to an impr oved governance)  
 • Improving competitiveness and governance by 
ensuring that aquaculture is an equal right competitor in access to water and space 
• Incremental effects
 
Highlighting the importance of aquaculture while 
developing EU leadership in promoting spatial planning 
should allow this activity to develop much better at EU 
level, while also optimising it environmental 
performance by appropriate  assessment of optimal 
location of farms. 
                                                 
75 COM(2008)791 final 
 
EN 113   EN • The aquaculture production industry still 
remains very fragmented and isolated from the other actors in the marketing 
chain. 
• The aquaculture industry is facing 
business challenges and is competing 
within a global market. Lower production 
costs and lower environment protection 
requirements in certain non-EU countries 
allow them to produce aquaculture 
products that are increasingly present on 
the EU market at low prices.  • Potential actions (non- le gislative and legislative)
 
- The Commission  to assess and address needs of the aquaculture sector within the context 
of the review of  the market policy of fisheries and aquaculture products  in 2009 (in 
particular regarding producer's organisations , inter-professions, cons umer information and 
marketing instruments such as labelling of aquatic food pr oducts). Several studies have 
been launched to prepare this exercise, including one on price forming mechanisms in the 
seafood marketing chain. 
- The Commission  to assess, besides the possib ilities for organic labelling, the value of 
labelling possibilities  that would promote the sustaina bility aspects of EU aquaculture 
products (in full respect of international oblig ations). The Member States to adopt the 
Commission's proposal for a revise d Community Eco- labelling scheme76 to allow the 
aquaculture sector to benefit from compliance with high environmental standards. 
- The Commission  to envisage a possible simplification and review and of the custom 
nomenclature , and if appropriate, will look to diffe rentiate aquaculture products from 
those from capture fisheries, as a tool to improve information on trade flows (2009-2011). 
- The Commission  to continue international cooperation  on labelling and aquaculture 
certification issues, notably with the FAO. 
- The Member States to make full us e of the possibilities available under the EFF to 
support  market initiatives, promotions campaigns, etc.  
• Potential actions not retained  
- Actions that would consist in reviewing and softening present state aid rules, or 
developing sector specific aids support to opera tional costs and that cannot lead to a self 
sustained indutry (would be inefficient in te rms of competitiveness, disproportionate and 
not creating a level playing fiel d with other economic sectors) 
- Establishing non-tariff trade restrictions or  other measures that would contradict the 
international trade rules. • The aquaculture industry has to cope with market 
principles, to answer the market demands and to remain competitive. However, public authorities can 
give guidance and contribute to this adaptation, and 
where necessary take control measures. Enabling the 
aquaculture business to c ope with market demands 
is fundamental to the competitiveness objective. 
• Incremental effects
 
The implementation of these actions will contribute to 
provide a favourable market environment for the EU 
aquaculture products. They may be developed in parallel 
to an increasing awareness of the consumers on the high 
standards of EU aquaculture products. Moreover, 
promotion of high quality (including also issues such as 
environmental impacts, welfare considerations, sustainability, etc.) produc ts and labels based on 
certification schemes should contribute to satisfy the 
increasing consumer demand for this kind of products 
and allow commanding higher prices. 
                                                 
76 COM(2008)401 final 
 
EN 114   EN • Aquaculture enterprises face a number of 
administrative chal lenges. Particular 
problems lie in difficulties to obtain 
licences to run an aquaculture farm, 
bureaucratic delays and complex 
bureaucratic procedures, costs of 
registration, uncertainty of the outcome, 
short licence validity, different 
administration involve d, etc. This all 
creates uncertainty and confusion, which 
does not stimulate investment in 
aquaculture. • Potential actions (non- legi slative, administrative)  
- The Commission and the Member States  to raise awareness  in the aquaculture sector on 
the "Small Business Act for Europe "77, and implement it notably with the view to 
improve and simplify licensing procedur es for aquaculture operations through e-
government and one-stop-shop solutions (2009-2012) 
- the Member States  to ensure that licenses are allocated for reasonable periods of time 
compatible with the specificity and the needs of aquatic farming, and with clear conditions 
for renewal, clear procedures and established time limits to decision. 
 • The Commission and Member States are committed 
to facilitate business development and reduce the administrative burden to contribute to the objective 
of better governance. 
• Incremental effects
 
- Many advantages for both the sector and the competent 
authorities would arise from a clearer and well organised 
system of licenses. It would facilitate business 
development and possibly s timulate new investments. 
Moreover, establishing clear procedures for the renewal 
of the licenses would reduce uncertainty and would 
encourage longer term investments. For the competent 
authorities it would contribute to reduce the 
administrative burden and to rationalise procedures. 
                                                 
77 COM(2008)394 – see http://ec.europa.eu/enterpri se/entrepreneurship/sba_en.htm  
 
EN 115   EN • The aquaculture industry is still facing a 
rather negative image at some level (particularly in certain public bodies or 
with some policy makers). This image 
may derive from past practices, or 
because of misleading press and 
lobbying. There is a need to develop and 
disseminate scientif ically sound facts 
about aquaculture.  • Potential actions (non- legislative)
 
- The Member States  to contribute to meeting the need for  information  (in particular 
under the possibilities available in European Fisheries Fund) 
- The Commission and the Member States to  make sure that relevant information , in 
particular the outcome of studies or re search supported by public bodies is made publicly 
available  (notably on the Internet). 
• Potential actions not retained  
- The Commission to launch information/promo tion campaigns at EU level (no present 
legal basis and no budget dedicated to this by  the EU budgetary authorities. Moreover, even 
before envisaging a possible initiative that may lead to establishing a legal basis with an 
associated budget, a deeper assessment should be made on the efficiency and 
proportionality of public authorities interferi ng with private business operations, notably 
the type of message and the nature of the information that could be given by public 
authorities without creating discriminate tr eatments between sectors, products, etc.). 
 • Giving the right image of an industry to citizens 
means communication and full transparency by providing factual information. Improving the image 
of aquaculture contributes to
 the objective of better 
governance. 
• Incremental effects  
Producing and disseminati ng sound information on 
aquaculture will have very positive effects as this will 
enlarge the knowledge base of citizens and policy 
makers and allow them to make a fully informed opinion 
before making their decision as consumers or as public 
powers. 
 
EN 116   EN • The main aquaculture fish species 
demanded by the European market are carnivorous species, the feeding of which 
still largely depends on the availability of 
fish meal and fish oil (FMFO). The 
limited availability of these resources 
creates an increased demand and higher 
prices for fish meal and fish oil.  
• Producing fish meal and fish oil from 
industrial fisheries gi ves also rise to a 
debate on the sustainability of such 
fisheries. 
• Other constraints on feeds relate to the 
whole set of EU feed legislation aimed at 
ensuring high quality and safety of feed 
and food derived from farmed animals. 
Restrictions in the use of animal-by 
products, feed additives or feed 
contaminants, provide additional 
guaranties to consumer s, but may create 
economic disincentive or absence of level 
playing field if these restrictions are not, 
and cannot be applied to aquaculture 
practices outside the EU (e.g. rules on 
feeding fish with fish products). • Potential actions 
(non-legislative) 
- The Commission and the Member States  to promote research  for feed substitution, for 
optimisation of feeding regimes, and for keeping high nutritional value of fish presently 
produced in the EU 
- The Commission  to ensure  that EU feed law  is developed in a way that allows 
maximising the use of high value raw material  while preventing food-borne risks, and The 
Commission  to act towards increasing the availability of necessary feed additives for fish. 
- The Commission and the Member States  to contribute to adequate information of 
feeding behaviour and ne eds of fish (most of EU produced fish are carnivorous) to ensure 
that the EU legislation adequately cove rs the needs for aquaculture development 
• Potential actions discarded  
- to envisage legislation to reserve the use of FMFO to feed aquatic animals only, by 
prohibiting the use of such raw material to  feed pets, poultry or pigs for example 
(disproportionate, and inefficient if only applie d in the EU, notably when considering that 
such feeding raw material is available on a global market) • Ensuring that feeding-stuff for fish is both from 
sustainably managed sources and of high quality contributes to both the competitiveness objective 
and the sustainable development agenda.  
• Incremental effects of option 2
 
All these actions are expected to have very positive 
effects for the sector as we ll as for the consumers.  
 
 
EN 117   EN • Many of the problems or challenges for 
aquaculture have not yet fully benefited from optimal solutions as the science 
base of such a young industry, despite 
fast developing, is still very limited. 
Many solutions are expected to be found 
through science but also technological 
development. Further research efforts are 
needed in many key areas (environmental 
issues, health and welfare, innovative 
technologies, spatia l planning, climate 
change, etc.). 
• Insufficient coordination of national & 
Community efforts, insufficient 
involvement of economic operators and low level of transfer and dissemination of 
RTD results did not allow to maximise 
benefits for the aquaculture industry. 
• Focus on innovation and new technology 
may lead to forget the importance of 
extensive and traditional forms of 
aquaculture. Background: cf. section 2.5.5: 
• Potential actions (non-legislative) 
 
- The Commission and the Member States  to make a special effort on RDT priorities  for 
aquaculture  and ensure appropriate budget is allocate d to aquaculture projects to further 
develop all dimensions of the knowledge-bas e for sustainable and competitive aquaculture 
practices (2009-2013). 
- The Commission and the Member States  to ensure that public funded projects benefit to 
the EU industry by a greater involvement of EU business . 
- The Commission  to promote optimisation and development of key research 
infrastructure  reinforce networks in aquaculture sc ience and promote further integration 
into broader science networks to address global challenges such as climate change 
especially in the context of the new Maritime Policy and its strategic research agenda 
(COM-2008-543) (2009-2013). 
- The Commission  to better promote the exploitation and dissemination  of EU funded 
aquaculture research  projects (e.g. like PROFET-policy) and create specific mechanisms 
to this end (2009-2013). 
- The Commission  to consider, with the Member States and the European Technology 
Platform for Aquaculture, the future opportunity for launching a Joint Technology 
Initiative (JTI)78 in aquaculture  (possibly by 2011). 
- The Commission  to recall the value and importance of traditional and extensive forms  
of aquaculture (within the strategy). 
 • Giving highest priority to research and technological 
development is fundamental  to the competitiveness 
objective. 
• Incremental effects  
By highlighting the value of aquaculture and ensuring it 
is fully taken into the broad picture of EU RTD, all these 
actions should contribute to increase scientific 
knowledge and new technology for the development of 
aquaculture activities in a more coordinated and 
integrated way. Very positive impacts can be expected 
such as a better economic performance of the 
aquaculture industry which should allow it to be more 
competitive in the international market. 
Recalling the value and importance of extensive 
aquaculture in parallel will give impetus to MS in considering also possibilities of developing production 
in existing sites and facilities. 
                                                 
78 Joint Technology Initiatives are proposed as a means to implemen t the Strategic Research Agendas (SRAs) of a limited number of  European Technology Platforms 
(ETPs). The dedicated structures implementing the JTIs will be independent legal entities that will manage research projects in  an integrated way, with industry 
joining forces with other stakeholders 
 
EN 118   EN • The EU leadership in R&D and 
innovation is not always best exploited to the benefit of the EU industry on the 
international scene. It is only seldom that 
it serves as a basis to allow EU industry 
to invest abroad and benefit from the 
growth observed in certain regions of the 
world, while also exporting "EU values" 
about the social and environmental 
dimensions of sustainability. • Potential actions (non- legislative)
 
- When setting up working groups to develop market ac cess partnerships, the Commission 
to assess whether EU aquaculture (either the farming sector or the associated technology 
providing industry) may have an interest in joining these groups. 
- The Commission and the Member States  to promote the need for sustainability in 
aquaculture when participating in international fora as well as at regional and bilateral 
level, in particular with the view to impr ove the environmental record of some present 
practices and improve the level playing fi eld for this sector at a global level. 
- The Commission  to develop, in the context of its ne w animal health action plan, an export 
Strategy at Community level in order to strengthen the Community role in negotiating 
exports conditions related with  animal and public health issues under the SPS agreement 
(2009-2011). This may open new opportunities for high quality products, in particular from 
aquaculture hatcheri es and nurseries. 
 • Contributing to Europe being a reference on the 
international scene is fundamental in contribution to the competitiveness objective 
• Incremental effects
 
Such possible actions are expected to increase the role of 
EU aquaculture business on th e global scene. This may 
not be easily achievable for some sub-sectors which 
remain yet very fragmented, but such initiatives may be 
beneficial for some "high tech" segments (e.g. output 
from EU hatcheries and nurseries), or aquaculture 
technology providers (off-shore cages, net 
manufacturers, recirculation system designers …), or 
already big consolidated EU companies. High quality 
EU aquaculture products may found outside of the EU 
new niche markets and result in positive effects on the aquaculture trade balance. The promotion of sustainable 
aquaculture development in international fora, if 
successful, would certainly contribute to a fairer global 
competition with benefits for EU production. 
 
EN 119   EN • The recent "fuel crisis package" adopted 
by the Council in mid 2008 may lead to reprogramming by Member States with 
the view to increase the contribution to 
restructuring of the fishing fleet (despite 
fuel prices significantly lowered since). 
In such re-prioritising, MS may decide 
during 2009 to allocate a lower share of 
EFF available funds to aquaculture 
projects. • Potential actions (non- legislative)
 
- The Commission to  use the Communication on a Strate gy to begin exploring some 
possibilities for future orientation of Community support  (such as linking for example 
the allocation of EU financial support with a requirement for spatial planning to address the 
conflict on space).   
- The Commission to  collaborate with Member States to facilitate reprogramming  where 
so considered, and Member States to ensure that allocating some support to aquaculture is 
continued within their Operational program mes (e.g. to priority such as supporting 
innovation or environmental values in aquaculture) (2009). 
• Potential actions not retained  
- In parallel to the Communication for a strate gy, present an immediate proposal to amend 
the EFF with a sole "aquaculture" perspective.  (Priority needs for sustainable aquaculture 
development will be assessed as  part of the reflection and preparation for the proposals for 
the EU financial frameworks after 2013). 
 • Support available under the European Fisheries 
Fund allows contributing both to the Sustainable Development Agenda and to the objective of 
competitiveness and improved governance. 
• Incremental effects
 
Option 2 for a Strategy is also timely, as without a 
political EU leadership on aquaculture and its prospects, 
some Member States may not necessarily give sufficient 
attention to this industry in their OP, and may be 
tempted in allocating most of the money in actions 
benefiting the fishing industry only. In addition, better 
targeted priorities are expected to result in a more 
efficient use of the lim ited financial resources. 
 
EN 120   EN • Different ways of interpretation and 
implementation of EU environment legislation at national level lead to an 
uneven situation within the EU. 
Moreover, as Member States may 
establish their own additional 
environmental protection rules, the 
environment legislation may be used to 
justify a NIMBY ("Not In My Back 
Yard") policy at regi onal or local level. 
• Implementation of EU  public health and 
animal health policies may also lead to 
possible disparities. Concerns have been 
expressed in particular regarding the 
present application of the tests for biotoxins (mouse test). Some EU rules 
applied along the food-production chain 
cannot be imposed in a same manner to 
non-EU producers (e.g. by-products or 
feed law). • Potential actions (non- legislative)
 
- The Commission and the Member States to  contribute to better mutual unde rstanding on 
the scope and aims of EU environmental legislation , and to identify limitations that derive 
from EU legislation and additional limitations  depending on stricter rules to protect the 
environment, that may have been taken at Member States level. 
- The Commission  to contribute to an improved level playing field  to the benefit of the 
aquaculture industry by developing guidance documents and organising specific workshop 
with stakeholders and national authorities (2009-2011). Priority actions should focus on 
nature protection - illustrating how a sustainable well managed aquaculture development 
can be compatible with Natura 2000, pollution re lated aspects - e.g. us e of treatments in 
aquaculture-, or environmental impact assessment processes. 
- The Commission  to ensure that EU animal health and public health  law is properly 
implemented and in a comparable way (with additional guidance developed where needed, 
such as risk based surveillance for aquatic animal disease taking into account the variety of 
the aquaculture industry in the EU, and with FVO inspection "on the spot", e.g. for tests for 
biotoxins in shellfish). 
 • Public authorities have a fundamental responsibility 
in ensuring a level play ing field among operators, 
among Member States, but al so at the international 
level. Improving the level playing field is necessary 
to the objective of better governance 
• Incremental effects  
Very positive effects can be expected from the 
implementation of these possible actions. They will 
contribute to reduce or avoi d distortion of situations 
among Member States. A better understanding and 
implementation of the environmental legislation aimed 
to make compatible aquaculture and nature conservation 
will facilitate the development of aquaculture production 
in a sustainable manner. 
• The aquaculture industry and its 
numerous sub-sectors remain of limited 
economic importance which does not 
always allow it to be aware and 
contribute to all policy initiatives that 
may affect its development, and public 
authorities do not always sufficiently 
address the needs of this industry. 
• RTD does not sufficiently contribute to 
aquaculture development in the EU, because of insufficient dialogue between 
industry and scientists when designing 
research priorities needs. The industry 
also lacks sufficient return on the 
outcome of such research projects. • Potential actions (non- legisla tive, and possibly legislative)
 
- The Commission  to assess the need to revise and raise the profile of the aquaculture  
industry and the possibilities to reinforce  the role of aquaculture representatives in  AFCA  
(by 2011) (cf. section 2.5.6) 
- The Commission and the Member States  to improve the consultation process with the 
aquaculture sector for non legislative action, in particular in the framework of the EU 
research agenda (e.g. establishing a forum for dialogue with the European Aquaculture 
Technology and Innovation Platform, assessing th e value of international multi-stakeholder 
platforms in close association with the EU aquaculture producers) (cf. section 2.5.5) 
 • Involvement of stakeholders in policy development 
is essential to better governance. 
• Incremental effects  
These actions will raise the profile of the aquaculture 
industry allowing it to bette r participate in broader 
initiatives. This would contribute to better regulation 
and increased involvement and responsibility of the 
industry in the development and application of the 
Community rules. Improved dialogue and consultation 
would allow improved coordination and better use of 
research resources and structures. 
 
 
EN 121   EN • The development, implementation and 
evaluation of policies need to be based on reliable information. However, because 
of the size of the aquaculture industry and 
its numerous sub-sectors the collection of 
reliable indicators is difficult or not 
considered worthy by public authorities. • Potential actions (non- legislative)
 
- The Commission and the Member States  to ensure that the new instruments for 
statistics and indicators  deliver the necessary data (cf. section 7) and to monitor progress 
and evolution of this sector on this basis. The Commission to broaden its information base 
with other sources (e.g. data available fro m aquaculture producer organisations, from 
associated sector such as the feed industry). 
- The Commission and the Member States  to actively participate in international fora  
(notably the FAO) for the development and co llection of global and harmonised indicators 
for this growing industry. 
- The Commission to establish a price monitoring system for fish and aquaculture 
products  throughout the marketing chain. (Sev eral studies are going on. The first 
consolidated results and recommendations should be shared and discussed with 
stakeholders during 2009.) • Ensuring an adequate and regular monitoring of the 
aquaculture industry is key to better governance, to allow public action based on facts. 
• Incremental effects
 
The effects of these actions are expected to be positive 
for both the competent authorities and the sector if they 
achieve to develop and establish a EU/international 
framework for statistics whic h associates high quality of 
data at a reasonable cost. The price monitoring system 
will also lead to developing a tool for analysis and 
decision making aiming at improving knowledge on 
price setting and understanding how added value is 
generated from the first sale. It is also expected that 
improved information on ma rkets mechanisms should 
enable producers to adapt their production and supply to get better value for their products. 
 
 
EN 122   EN ANNEX IV  
 
DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO S FOR AQUACULTURE  
AND THEIR SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS  
Extracted from the "Prospective Analysis of the Aquaculture sector in the EU" 
Part 1 : Synthesis report 
JRC – September 2008 
Preliminary remark : 
All text, figures and table have been reproduced from the JRC analysis report. The numbering 
of chapters, tables and figures below shall not th erefore be read in conjunction with the main 
body of the present impact assess ment report. For readability reasons and not to alter the 
content of this extract, the presentation of the te xt below and all cross referencing refers to the 
original report from with th is section has been reproduced. 
--------- […. 
[6]
 SCENARIO ANALYSIS  
[6.1] Summary prospective analys is and scenario definition 
The factors outlined in [sec tion 2] set out the expected upper and lower limits for 
development of the aquaculture sector in Eur ope up to 2025. The objective for the analysis in 
this section is to examine the identified drivers with respect to the stre ngth of their influence 
on development, possible interactions between drivers, how the driver s might be modified 
through policy or other interventions, and the composite impact on the aquaculture 
development trajectories. Of those identifie d earlier, only the most  significant ones are 
included at this point, to avoi d over-complication. These are: 
• Consumer purchasing behaviour – taking into account price changes, actions of campaign 
groups and responses of the multiple retailers etc. 
• Site availability and cost – taking into consideration physical  availability, lease costs, 
environmental costs, and competition with other users  
• Support for innovation – taking into account gover nment and business investment in R&D, 
education and training, and the support of g overnment and financial institutions for 
commercial (technology-based) risk takers 
Species are grouped with respect to cu lture and market ch aracteristics into: 
• Salmon, trout, charr and other salmonids 
• Sea bass, bream and similar species 
 
EN 123   EN • Halibut, turbot, sole and other flatfish 
• Cod, haddock, hake and other quality marine  whitefish 
• Carp, tilapia, catfish and other low to medium value freshwater fish 
• Eels, perch, sturgeon, zander and othe r higher value freshwater fish 
• Tuna and other high value pelagic fish 
• Mussels 
• Oysters, scallops and higher value shellfish 
• Clams, cockles and other lower value shellfish 
• Potential new aquaculture species not covere d above (squid, cuttlefis h, octopus, lobster, 
crab, shrimp, abalone, echinoderms etc.) 
• Aquatic plants (seaweeds)  
Previous growth rates for these species groups pr ovide some guidance, but future factors such 
as technology break-throughs and changes in th e marketplace are likel y to have greater 
impact, so more emphasis is placed on foresigh t rather than hindsight in the scenarios and 
discussions which follow. It is also important to consider trends with respect to the final products that might be marketed rather just  output volumes from aquaculture, as value 
addition can be more significant in economic te rms, than primary production. Other changes 
in aquaculture practice may also occur in resp onse to market demands. For instance demand 
for larger-size trout, and to some extent s ea bass and bream, suitabl e for processing (e.g. 
fillets) has been increasing in recent years. In responding to th is, the French rainbow trout 
production fell from 46,462 tonnes in 2001 to 32,412 tonnes in 2005, a lthough value per kg 
increased by approximately 12%
79  
Aquaculture production projections for the four scenarios are set out in the next sections. The 
purpose is not to predict how aquaculture might develop over the next 20 years in Europe, but 
to use these different projections to reflect on their implications with respect to resource use, 
economic and environmental impacts, and what ch anges would be necessary  within the sector 
to achieve differing levels of out put. From this, cons ideration might then be given to which 
scenario appears more likely in relation to la rger external trends that may impact on 
development.  
The first scenario reflects minimal development, but continuation of trends that can already be 
seen in the industry. Th e other three scenarios are essentia lly target-based. The overall growth 
in aquaculture is set by the target growth assu mptions. Which sub-sector s develop and at what 
rate is then determined with reference to discus sed drivers and barriers, but the actual rate is 
calculated to deliver the target produc tion levels, based on 5-year intervals 
                                                 
79 Calculated from FAO Fishstat database, 2007, with US dollar values converted to Euro using annual 
average rates for 2001 and 2005 respectively. 
 
EN 124   EN In all scenarios it is assumed that a proporti on of the aquaculture pr oduction will be exported, 
but that an equivalent or grea ter quantity of other seafood pr oducts will be imported. [Table 
12] summarises the main drivers that were  considered in constructing the models.
 
EN 125   EN [Table 12]: Summary of driver effects by sub-sector 
Species group Consumer trends and issues Resource constr aints and sustainability Policy and investment issues 
Salmon, trout & other salmonids Lower pr ices and improved range of products are 
expanding markets. As the highest profile farmed 
fish in Europe, salmon has been subjected to 
considerable bad publicity on contaminants, welfare 
and environmental impacts. However, consumption 
has also been encouraged by positive health 
messages. Good potential fo r further expansion if 
comparative value continues to improve. The industry is moving towards using a smaller 
number of large sites for reasons of operational 
efficiency. Environm ental regulation is 
constraining this trend, at least in the UK. Other 
sustainability issues ar e being addressed through 
innovations and new guidelines for best practice. Low prices throughout the first half of the 
current decade slowed expansion and 
encouraged further consolidation. The 
majority of European production is in the 
hands of a decreasing number of 
international businesses, which should bring 
greater stability and provide access to 
investment finance as needed. 
Sea bass, bream & similar The whole fi sh format is popular in Southern 
Europe, but even here, trends have been towards 
easier to prepare and convenient fish products. 
Market expansion is therefore somewhat 
constrained, although further substitution is likely if 
capture fisheries decline. There are significant constraints on further 
inshore sheltered sites, but further expansion at 
more exposed sites is feasible. The sea bass and bream  industry is only 
moderately consolidated and suffered low 
prices in the early part of the decade. Further 
restructuring is emergent and more is 
expected. 
Halibut, turbot, sole etc Popular, but nevertheless premium fish species. 
Prospects for steady growth within limits defined by 
price. Reasonably versatile fillets/steaks for value 
addition. Market prices have been comparatively 
stable. Most turbot and sole are produced in tank-based 
systems, sometimes recirculated. Halibut also 
produced in cage systems. Relatively 
unconstrained. Likely to witness only modest expansion 
given comparatively high production costs 
and desire to maintain high unit value status 
of products. 
Cod, haddock, hake etc Traditiona lly high volume whitefish species. 
Considerable substitution in lower-value products 
from other marine species. Some evidence that 
aquaculture produce may be able to compete on 
quality and environmental credentials given 
increasing concerns about overfishing of wild 
stocks. Industry still very sm all and not resource 
constrained. Possible competition with salmon 
etc. for resources as expansion occurs. Further research needed to improve 
production processes and encourage 
investment 
Carp, tilapia, catfish The carp market  has been declining, although there 
are some indications that market image and new 
products can be developed to raise value. Tilapia 
and catfish are relatively under-represented in the 
European market, with good prospects for 
expansion as versatile meat suitable for Land based systems for tilapia and catfish 
feasible. Established processing technology-
based solutions for carp and changing market 
could see expanded interest in carp.  Emergent interest more evident in tilapia 
with a number of emergent investments 
seeking to exploit growing market in 
imported products with those locally based. 
Competitive advantage remains to be proven 
 
EN 126   EN Species group Consumer trends and issues Resource constr aints and sustainability Policy and investment issues 
incorporation in a range of products. 
 for mass market. 
Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander etc. Carn ivorous freshwater fish are well known and 
valued in East and Central Europe with some 
prospects for expansion as prosperity rises and 
perhaps as the species are introduced to other 
markets. The main interest in sturgeon is for caviar, 
although markets exist for sturgeon meat in Central 
Europe. Wild stock are likely to be increasingly protected. 
Intensive culture in ponds and recirculated tank 
systems are emerging with few immediate 
resource constraints. Eel production is currently 
highly constrained by wild elver supplies.  Generally niche products  that have not had 
substantial R&D or structural funding 
support. Primarily of interest to small and 
medium scale businesse s with relatively 
limited investment resources.  
Tuna  Most tuna produced in Europe is exported to Japan. 
There would be few obstacles for expansion of 
European markets if prices fall and sustainability 
issues can be addressed. Current reliance on wild seed stock is a major 
constraint, as is the use of baitfish for feed and 
associated environmental impacts. Substantial R&D invest ment is required to 
close the tuna production cycle and allow 
for the development of commercial 
hatchery/nursery operations. Early weaning of fish onto dry diets would also reduce 
environmental impacts.  
Mussels Reasonable prospects for market expansion with 
improved quality, processing and packing 
technologies. Traditional production sites are increasingly 
constrained, but new developments in offshore 
farming are opening up new opportunities.  Mussel farming is likely to be a central part 
of IMTAS  
Oysters & scallops Premium shellfish species with potential for market 
expansion, especially if  prices were reduced Traditional near-shor e sites are highly 
constrained. These shellfish might fo rm part of IMTAS. 
The industry is mostly small-scale private 
producers with limited means for 
investment. 
 
Clams, cockles etc. Lower value shellfish commonly incorporated into a 
range of dishes.    
New non-fish aquaculture sp. Prospects fo r octopus, cuttlefish and perhaps squid 
if economic production technology is developed 
Some prospects for premium echinoderms and 
molluscs (e.g. abalone), initially for export or ethnic New species, sharing only general aquaculture 
constraints  Substantial R&D required for most species, 
as well as support for pilot and early 
commercial projects. 
 
EN 127   EN Species group Consumer trends and issues Resource constr aints and sustainability Policy and investment issues 
markets. 
Aquatic plants There is scope for developing the market for 
seaweed as food in Europe, given the very low base. 
Industrial uses exist, but are not high value. 
Potential for biopharmaceuticals  Potential near-shore space constraints. Like ly to be central to IMTAS development. 
Difficult for production in Europe to be 
competitive with other regions at present. 
Potential for biopharmaceuticals requires 
substantial R&D funding for development. 
 
EN 128   EN [6.2] Emerging technologies, practices and systems 
[6.2.1] Emerging systems The particular focus of our analysis is to discern the prospects for emerging aquaculture 
systems, as defined and characterised in more de tail in the Part 2 report, in the context of 
overall prospects for aquaculture development (partly because it is where most development/growth, if occurred, would be based). The emerging systems that were 
identified, and the anticipated prospects are as follows: 
Production technology driven 
Recirculated aquaculture systems - The number and scale of co mmercial recirculated 
aquaculture systems continues to grow and units  capable of an annual output of up to 1000 t 
are foreseen within the next 5 years. The tec hnology is still only moderately standardised and 
key components effectively custom built for each development. Expansion of this sector will depend on continued improvements to design an d optimisation of both build and operating 
costs.  
Offshore aquaculture systems - The salmon industry in partic ular is increasing production 
scale at individual sites, and developing the handling and harv esting systems that would be 
required for true offshore aquaculture. Suppo rt for further R&D is being given by the 
governments of Ireland and Norway. It  is also notable that the US A have prioritised this type 
of development both investing in R&D and in troducing a bill to br ing in the regulatory 
changes required to allow for offshore aqu aculture developments in designated zones 
(http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/a quaculture/offshore.htm). 
Integrated systems - IMTA systems have poten tial for reducing environmental impacts whilst 
optimising overall production thro ugh making best use of ecologi cal processes to assimilate 
wastes. However, there are numerous challenges to making such systems work in practice due 
to commercial and operational factors. Research is ongoing in Canada and Scotland using seaweeds and bivalve mollusc in conjunction with salmon culture. Seaweeds mitigate waste by removing dissolved inorganic wa stes such as ammonia, whereas the molluscs are used to 
remove solids waste (Chopin et al 2006). Currently the seaweeds ha ve the least value in the 
system as they are not widely consumed in th e West, despite the reported nutritional value of 
some species. However they have a wide range of industrial uses, and are increasingly noted 
as sources for new biopharmaceutical products such as anti-cancer and anti-viral drugs. They may also have potential use for production of  biofuel, though the economics of doing so 
would have to be more specifically defined. 
Market driven 
Organic and other labels – the market (and supporting legisl ation) is increasingly demanding 
assurances of product safety, transparency concerning production a nd processing, and many 
consumers are also seeking produc ts that clearly embody ethical and environmental values or 
quality concepts. Where labels seek to different iate a product from other similar offerings in 
the marketplace, the production and/or distributi on process must indeed be different. For 
labelled products to have credibility, it is essential to have a robust and independent 
certification process that checks that the pr oduction and distribution systems do meet the 
claims made for the label. As the number of pa rticipants in any scheme increases so too does 
 
EN 129   EN the risk of brand degradation through the rogu e actions of individual producers. This adds 
cost and the proliferation of standards, orga nisations and labels, wh ilst providing a wider 
range of consumer choice, is sometimes regard ed as potentially confusing, diluting the value 
individual labels may have. In recognition of  this, the European Commission DG Fisheries 
conducted a survey on certificati on of aquaculture products during the first half of 2007. This 
concluded that action at EU le vel would be helpful, and th is is now receiving closer 
scruitiny80. Supermarket chains across Europe seem  set to continue their increasingly 
receptive view of standards which reinforce th eir ‘green’ credentials; undoubtedly there may 
be a cost-based constraint on any unbridled en thusiasm, especially if the consumer proves 
more resistant to its price implications. 
New aquaculture species – Interest in producing a wider range of species from aquaculture is 
driven partly by declining prices for establishe d species as production levels rise. It may also 
be stimulated through rising demand for greater  variety, or increasing prices for some 
traditional high value or high volume capture fisheries species. Concerns about over fishing also promote interest in a more diverse aquaculture production ba se among policy makers. 
This study identified around 50 speci es that are either produced at small scale or research 
levels, with potential for expa nsion. Some species are clearly  constrained by technical 
barriers, such as the reproduction and early reari ng of bluefin tuna. For other species, it is 
usually a combination of techni cal and market factors which lead to an assessment that 
production would not be economically viable (or sufficiently attractive for investment given 
other available alternatives). As technologies and markets develop, it might be expected that 
new aquaculture species will emerge from time to time as both technically feasible and commercially attractive. However as the range of  species expands it might be expected that 
there will be greater concentra tion upon a much smaller number of  core species satisfying the 
common determinants of the market. 
[6.2.2] Emerging technologies and practices 
In discerning emerging aquaculture systems, it was also noted that there is continued 
evolutionary development of t echnologies and management prac tices within the mainstream 
aquaculture systems. Those with greatest impact include: 
Breeding technology  – Closing the lifecycle has been th e single most important technical 
advance for many aquaculture species, especial ly marine fin fish. This has required a 
combination of technologies – maintenance of  correct environmental conditions, adequate 
maturation of broodstock with quality gametes,  initiation of spawning behaviour; successful 
fertilisation and hatching of eggs; nursing of larvae and fry through early developmental 
stages until weaning on artificia l diets etc. The Mediterranean sea bass and bream industry 
effectively started once commercial hatchery pr oduction of fry became feasible in the 1980s. 
Since then, production efficiencies have improve d and cost per fry reduced. In 1987, prices 
quoted for sea bass were approximately €0.34 - €0.40 for 1 g fry and €0.67 to €0.88 for sea bream
81 (Berg & Cittolin, 1987). Survival rates from egg to fry were ofte n less than 5%. One 
                                                 
80
 http://www.ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/govern ance/consultations/consultation_240407_conclusi
ons_en.htm 
81 Prices quoted in Greek Drachma were GRC 50-60 for sea bass and GRC 100-130 for sea bream. At a 
fixed exchange rate of GRC 340.75 per Euro, this equates to € 0.15 – 0.18 per fry for seabass and €0.29 
to 0.38 for sea bream. The given values have been calculated by comparing the US$ - GRC rate for 
 
EN 130   EN of the most important advances was the introd uction of enrichment media for live feed, but 
there have been many incremental developments  such that survival rates are now commonly 
over 30% from egg to first feeding fry. Thes e improvements have lowered the cost of 
production (in both real and rela tive terms) as shown in [F igure 62], based on data from 
Greece. Fry prices reduced from €0.45 from 199 1 to €0.21 in 2003, allowing the total cost of 
bass and bream production to be reduced and ma rkets expanded. Although the industry now 
has over 20 years experience, further gains in  productivity and quality are possible, with 
consistency still a problem. Such gains might not  necessarily lead to further price reductions 
however, as input costs such as feed ingredients, labour and power are rising. 
[Figure 62]: Evolution of seabass and seabream fingerling production and prices 1990-
2003 
0,45  
0,42  
0,33  
0,21  
0,22  0,23  
0,23  0,25  0,29  
0,26  0,28  0,29  0,40  
0 50.000100.000150.000200.000250.000300.000350.000
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Thousand 
Fingerlings 
0,00  0,05  0,10  0,15  0,20  0,25  0,30  0,35  0,40  0,45  0,50  
No. of Fingerlings Price (€)
 
Source: ICAP 2003 (reported in University of Stirling, 2004) 
The status of breeding and reproduction for other marine species is quite varied. Hatcheries 
for colder water species such as cod and halibut  have not yet reached the levels of survival 
achieved in the bass and bream industry, but ha ve become financially viable for high value 
end product. The spawning and rearing of bluefin tuna  in captivity is still at  the research level.  
With control over reproduction achieved, the next  step is greater cont rol over the genetics of 
farmed populations. As discussed in [Section 5], this is being achieved through selective 
breeding programmes using a combination of tr aditional stock rearing approaches and the use 
of genetic markers and statistical techni ques. Ongoing research to identify quantitative trait 
loci (QTL) and ultimately fu ll genome mapping is likel y to allow further advances82. This 
assumes that the “domestication” or improv ement of wild species remains ethically 
                                                                                                                                                         
1987 with the average extrapolat ed Euro to dollar value calculat ed from the DEM-US$ and FRF-US$ 
rates and adjusting accordingly. 
82 The breeding company “Lan dcatch Natural Selection” has recen tly announced the in troduction of QTL 
technology into their salmon breeding programmes, allowing selection of broo dstock with identified 
genes with disease resistance or faster growth rather than only on the basis of pedigree performance. 
http://www.fishupdate.com/news/fullstory.php/ai d/8347/_Quantum_leap__in_salmon_breeding_.html 
 
EN 131   EN acceptable (as it has done in most other branch es of livestock, agriculture and horticulture). 
This may not be a safe assumption, as concer ns over the technology of  genetic modification 
appear to have made many consumers more susp icious of any technologies that are seen to 
artificially interfere with the genetics of farm ed species. This may be particularly the case 
with fish, which are hard to contain securely  in open culture system s, and which may then 
interbreed with wild populations. The comparative recency of farmed fish as a mainstream 
source of food supply is likely to exacerbate th is initial disposition, which may recede over 
time as familiarity and acceptance increases. 
Selective breeding programmes have  proved to be a fundamental to ol in lowering the cost of 
production for terrestrial livestock, and are havi ng an increased impact on aquaculture. By 
only breeding from broodstock that have shown th e best performance with respect to desired 
characteristics (usually growth rate, feed conversion efficiency and disease resistance, 
although flesh fat content and colour or othe r qualities are increasi ngly included), average 
performance can be improved incremen tally each generation by up to 20%. 
[Table 13]: Example genetic gain from selective breeding programmes 
Species % gain per generation 
Channel catfish 12-20 
Pacific salmon 10 
Atlantic salmon 11-14 
Rainbow trout 13 
Tilapia 14-23 
Source: Akvaforsk (quoted in Mortensen et. al. 2005) 
The main challenge for traditional breeding pr ogrammes is that improving one characteristic 
(e.g. growth rate) can have a negative impact  on other characteristics. A multi-trait breeding 
programme is more complex, but possible using more sophisticated  statistical analysis. Traits 
also vary with respect to heri tability. This is often linked with the number of genes (usually 
unknown) that influence the trait.  For traits with relatively lo w heritability, discerning the 
genetic effect from environmental influences  is more difficult. QTL and genome mapping 
approaches should ultimately provi de much greater levels of information and hence control.  
There have been substantial pr oductivity gains in th e Atlantic salmon industry over the past 
twenty five years, partly due to  strain and family selection pr ocesses. According to Scottish 
industry records83, in 1980 the average weight of a two se a-winter salmon at harvest was 3 kg. 
This had risen to 4.3 kg by 1995 and to 4.4 kg by 2005. Similarly the percentage of salmon 
harvested as grilse (early maturing fish ) was around 30% in 1980, down to 18% in 2005. 
Again, the use of low-grilsing strains is only part of the reason as photoperiod management 
has also played a role. The total yield per sm olt rose from 1.67 kg for 1990 year class smolts 
to 3.43 kg for 2003 year class smolts. Again, th is also reflects both  genetic and other 
management gains. Studies on the genetic ga in of breeding programmes in Norway have 
shown gains of 4.6% per generation in feed efficiency ratios (Thodesen et al 1999), and 8-
                                                 
83 Various annual Scottish fish farming survey s – most recent at http://www.marlab.ac.uk/ 
 
EN 132   EN 10% per generation for growth rate, age at matu rity and flesh pigmentation (Cited in Gjøen & 
Bentsen, 1997). Studies on selective breeding programmes for Pacific salmon in Canada 
found that 55% of the improvement in growth ra te was due to genetic selection and 45% from 
improved animal husbandry (Peterson & Swift, 1999). The same authors quantified the economic benefits of improvements to an Atlantic salmon stock as US$1.43 per fish 
marketed, or $1.23 per smolt entry if sold early at  the equivalent weight of non-selected stock, 
or $3.66 per fish marketed and $3.07 per smolt entr y if grown for the same period to a greater 
weight. 
When considered on an annual basis, species with  shorter breeding cycles can be advanced at 
a faster rate than those with  long breeding cycles. The time between generations for Atlantic 
salmon is approximately 4 years. The time between generations for tilapia can be as little as 9 months; the Norwegian company GenoMar claim a 15% annual gene tic gain for growth rate 
(GIFT-strain)
84. The rate of improvement possible for species such as sturgeon, which have 
relatively long breeding cycles is therefore more limited. 
The breeding and hatchery phase is the most technically complex of the full aquaculture 
production process and is the key component in  the development of any new aquaculture 
species. Improvements in efficiency and perf ormance achieved through breeding can have 
substantial economic benefits throughout the production process and hence on market price 
and volume. 
Feed technology  – Feed is one of the primary pr oduction inputs and therefore of great 
importance with respect to determining produc tion efficiency and cost. Feed also has a 
significant effect on the amount and type of waste output from the system. Advances in 
hatchery feeds have been mentioned above, a nd include nutrient enrichment of live feeds 
(expecially rotifers and artemia), devel opment of microalgae and copepod production 
techniques, progress towards re ducing labour requirements thr ough the use of commercially 
available algal paste, manufactured artemia sy stems and automated feed delivery systems. 
Artemia replacement diets also reduce reliance  on fluctuating and limited stocks of this 
creature.  
Compounded diets used in growout have been  gradually improved throughout the last 20 
years. Significant advances include improvements to fishmeal quality through lower-temperature processing, finer milling and the use of  extrusion technology, better tuning of diet 
formulation to meet particular species an d life stage requirements, or achieve lower 
environmental impacts. Further improvements ar e often constrained by cost considerations, 
but current issues include th e potential for reducing the fishmeal and fish oil components 
derived from capture fisheries and their subst itution with vegetable proteins and oils to 
enhance sustainability. However, this raises  concerns about welfare, especially for 
carnivorous fish species, and doubt s have also been expressed a bout the acceptability of using 
supplementary industrially produced amino acids. For the immediate future, modest 
improvements to utilisation efficiency will allo w aquaculture to continue to expand whilst 
relying on feeds derived from  marine proteins and oils . Longer-term, more innovative 
solutions will undoubtedly be required.  
                                                
 
84 http://www.genomar.no /text.cfm?SID=12&ID=57 
 
EN 133   EN Health management – Disease problems continue to impose serious risk and costs to many 
aquaculture producers. Only a limited range of therapeutants is licensed for use in Europe. 
Most development in re cent years has focused on anti-par asitics and anti-fungal agents. Due 
to environmental and residue concerns, pr evention of disease through good husbandry, 
proactive diagnostics and the use of vaccines and immunostimulants is  often the preferred 
approach.  
The most successful fish vaccines have been those against gram negative bacteria, although 
there are a limited number of products for gram positive bacteria and some viral diseases. Vaccines against parasites are under researc h, but so far no commercial products are 
available. Vaccines are administered as a bath treatment, e.g. in the hatchery, orally (with 
feed), or by injection. The latter is the leas t favoured but currently most effective. The 
duration of immunity is limited, and booster vacc inations are sometimes required. It appears 
that the specific immune response in fish is not  well developed until they are at least a gram in 
weight. Shrimp never appear to develop a sp ecific immune system. For these groups, and for 
providing additional protection for larger fish, immunostimulant s are available that boost the 
non-specific defence mechanisms. A variety of  compounds are used, perhaps most commonly 
beta-glucans derived from yeast, although others are under development. Vaccine development is at the leading edge of biot echnology and several new approaches are under 
serious development or trial. These include  the use of recombinant DNA technology for 
vaccine and adjuvant production and more revolu tionary, vaccines based on direct injection of 
DNA into the muscle, the cells of which take up the DNA and produce antigenic proteins over 
a longer period, directly stimulating the immune system.  
The use of biotechnology in dise ase diagnostics is al so important, with increasing use being 
made of molecular (e.g. PCR, RT-PCR) and immunological (immunohistochemistry, 
immunofluorescence, immunochromatogr aphy etc.) techniques for he alth screening at critical 
points (e.g. broodstock selection, or seedstock prior to purchase). 
Product handling, packagi ng and distribution  – Overall trends in Europe have been for 
processed fish products that require little or no preparation and are ea sy to store and cook, 
preferably skinless and boneless (fish). Fres hness is one of the most important product 
qualities, so minimising the time and temperatur e control between harvest and final sale has 
proved important, as have advances in pack aging designed to enhance shelf life (e.g. MAP). 
Improved monitoring of product condition during logistics distribution has been another 
important element, along with product management and restocking.  
For an internationally traded product such as  salmon, it is worth noting that farm costs only 
constitute around 30% of total production a nd distribution costs (Dempster, 2007), so 
efficiency gains in processing or distributi on can potentially have a greater impact than 
efficiency gains in the farming phase. As c onsumers become more accepting of added value 
products this margin on non-raw material costs can  be expected to incr ease further still. For 
the foreseeable future, a key issue will be the co st of energy and changes in policy and market 
environments as greater action is taken to minimise climate change. 
Integration into zonal planning  – With increasing pressure on  coastal zones throughout many 
parts of Europe aquaculture is  increasingly included in coasta l zone planning, in some cases 
with proposed or actual development of aqua culture zones, where existing operations are 
afforded greater protection, or new devel opments encouraged. Examples of similar 
 
EN 134   EN approaches may be found inland, such as the prot ection of aquaculture ac tivities in traditional 
ponds in the Czech Republic, or the development of aquaculture parks in France. 
As discussed in [Section 5], the primary driver  for commercial development is ultimately the 
opportunity to make a favourable return on i nvestments, such that the key issue for any 
emerging system, technology or practice will be  whether it improves sale s prices or volumes, 
or reduces production costs. [Table 14] summaris es cost of production da ta from the Part 2 
report with some comparison of market prices. 
 
EN 135   EN [Table 14]: Comparative operating cost profiles of different aquaculture syst ems (percent of total operating cost) 
Breakdown of operating costs  Offshore 
salmon Organic 
salmon Sea bream 
cages Tuna 
cages Turbot re-
circulated Turbot flow 
through Eel re-
circulated Octopus 
on-
growing Arctic 
charr 
cages African 
catfish 
Feed 46 45.6 54 27 15 18 29 13 43 58.7 
Selling costs/Packing 17 7.1         
Seed stock (fry or smolts) 8 13.5 20 48 10 11 29 42 21 7.9 
Wages/salaries 7 10 9 6 7 8 9 11 19 7.2 
Misc./other operating costs – inc. 
consumables & contingency 6 0.4  14 10 10 1   9.6 
Depreciation 5 7.1 13  35 33 20 11 12 5 
Maintenance     4 1  3  2.2 
Vet/medicines 3    2 2    1.1 
Administration/Overhead costs 3 9.3   4 4 1   2.2 
Transport  2.5         
Harvest expenses  4.6         
Stock & general Insurance 3  1 2 2 2 2 15 2 2.2 
Legal & professional fees     1 1    0.7 
Licensing/lease/discharge costs   0    1 1   
Power and fuel 2  2  11 9 9 3 2 3.3 
 
EN 136   EN Loan servicing    3       
Total  100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 
Cost €/kg 2.33 4.15 4.04 10.50 4.58 3.98 4.88 5.53 2.54 3.61 
NB excludes finance costs           
Comparison – average unit value at first 
sale, 2005 - €/kg  2.20 – 2.93  3.53 – 8.82 6.78* 8. 99 8.99 8.17 -8.78 3.97* 5.10 1.10 
Source: Part 2 report. Note these figures are included to illustra te the diversity of cost structures and are not directly comp arable due to different analytical approaches used. 
They also reflect current systems rather than future potential. Average price data from FEAP - http://www.feap.info/Production/eupr oduction/pricespecieseu_en.asp  except 
values indicated (*) which were calculated from FAO Fishstat comm odity trade database. 
 
EN 137   EN As illustrated by [Table 14], there are wide vari ations in the cost of production of different 
species, depending on system type and other inhe rent characteristics. Estimated costs range 
from €2.33 to $10.50 per kg for the systems pres ented in [Table 14]. Assuming moderate 
substitution effects, particularly within s eafood groups, systems and products with the lower 
production costs will tend to achieve higher market shares. The major components of 
production costs are seed, feed, la bour, and in the case of reci rculated systems, power. The 
proportion spent on seed is highest for those syst ems relying on wild sources, especially tuna, 
eel and currently octopus. Feed is a higher comp onent of costs in cage systems (mostly due to 
other costs being lower) whilst labour costs are a higher proportion in systems with lower 
output (charr and organic salmon in these exampl es). Depreciation is not a cash cost, but is 
usually included in comparative operating costs to  indicate the financia l burden of different 
capital cost structures. 
The proportion of costs allocated to different items is a useful  indicator of sensitivity. For 
instance, small increases in feed prices w ill affect cage salmon farms proportionately more 
than recirculated turbot farms with respect to impact on overa ll production cost. On the other 
hand, recirculated systems are more sensitive to power and capital (d epreciation) costs. 
[6.3] Aquaculture production projections to 2025 
[6.3.1.] Scenario 1: Baseline – minimal development of aquaculture 
Our baseline scenario, introduced in [Section 3] , assumes that capture fisheries will continue 
to decline over the 15 year time horizon at a rate  of 2% per year, aquacu lture will not develop 
substantially, and that the ba lance of trade will meet the remaining demand. Overall demand 
estimates are based on apparent per capita supp ly assuming declining, static or rising per 
capita consumption levels, based on available Eurostat data. 
Consideration of the constraints and drivers discussed in previous  sections allows estimates to 
be made for each of the aquaculture sub-sector s previously identified. These are summarised 
in [Table 15], and discussed in greater de tail following presentation of the production 
projections. Overall, the project ions lead to a decline in the EU-25 aquaculture production 
from 1.26 million tonnes in 2005 to 1.17 million t in 2010, rising again to 1.2 million t in 2015 and 1.48 million t by 2025. The initial decline is  based on the most recent statistics, 
which at least in part reflect the poor producer prices experienced in the early half of this 
decade. The subsequent recovery and expansion is assumed as fish supplies become more constrained and newer technologies become fi nancially viable. Growth generally remains 
within historical limits and no brand new t echnology developments ar e assumed (e.g. closing 
of the tuna life cycle). 
 
EN 138   EN [Table 15]: Baseline scenario for aquacult ure development - summary assumptions:  
Salmon, trout & other salmonids Negative growth until 2010 due to increasing regulatory 
constraints and moderate markets. Expanding slightly after 2015 
with rising demand. 
Sea bass, bream & similar Modest growth continues until 2015, in part driven by market 
expansion through widening size and product range, and 
thereafter affected by environmental constraints 
Halibut, turbot, sole etc Reasonable growth but from low levels driven by improving 
recycle systems etc. 
Cod, haddock, hake etc Assumes cod farming in particular is developed as a significant 
aquaculture species, probably utilising redundant salmon sites. 
Carp, tilapia, catfish Assumes modest grow th in low-cost recirculated systems – 
mainly catfish and some tilapia  
Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander etc. Assumes decline until 2015, then some growth as technologies 
are refined 
Tuna  Assumes no development of hatcheries so production limited by 
declining wild stocks 
Mussels Initially declining and then assumes some further growth as 
greater industrialisation and offshore culture is introduced, 
especially from 2015 
Oysters & scallops Currently declining, but small modest growth from 2015, perhaps 
as part of integrated or offshore projects 
Clams, cockles etc. Small modest growth perhaps as part of integrated projects 
New non-fish aquaculture sp. Currently declining, but some modest development from 2015 
Aquatic plants Currently declining, but sm all increase associated with integrated 
projects from 2015. 
 
 
EN 139   EN  
[Table 16]: Baseline scenario – EU-25 a quaculture production projections to 2025 
 Group growth rate Production (tonnes) 
Group name 5 year 
rate 10 year rate Projected 
rates* 2005 2010 2015 2025 
Salmon, trout & 
other salmonids -1.97% 0.63% 1--2% 350,019 315,017 315,017 347,306 
Sea bass, bream & 
similar 3.47% 22.47% 3-0% 124,046 142,653 149,786 149,786 
Halibut, turbot, 
sole etc 9.57% 13.64% 10% 7,111 10,667 16,000 35,999 
Cod, haddock, 
hake etc   250-10% 69 932 5,589 75,452 
Carp, tilapia, 
catfish -1.08% 0.06% 2-0% 74,086 74,086 81,495 98,608 
Eels, sturgeon, 
perch, zander etc. -1.63% 2.29% 2--1.5% 21,858 20,219 20,219 23,353 
Tuna  0.96% 2401.25%  0--20% 3,858 3,858 0 0 
Mussels -3.29% 0.27% 3--3% 470,026 399,522 399,522 505,395 
Oysters & scallops -2.25% -1 .55% 2--2% 132,210 118,989 118,989 143,977 
Clams, cockles etc. 2.96% 0.14% 2-0% 76,996 88,545 92,973 102,502 
New non-fish 
aquaculture sp. -15.43% -8.27% 10--10% 273 137 137 256 
Aquatic plants -19.70% -9.91% 10--15 % 45 11 8 11 
Total   0.88% 1,260, 597 1,174,635 1,199,733 1,482,645 
EU Target   4% 1, 665,600 1,998,720 2,398,464 3,453,788 
* * The 5-year growth rate is from 2000-2005 whilst the 10-year growth rate is 1995-2005. 
Future growth rates are projecte d in 5-year intervals with the highest and lowest rates used 
indicated in the table. 
 
EN 140   EN  
[Figure 63]: Scenario 1 aquaculture projec tions – minimal aquaculture development 
(EU-25) 
0500,0001,000,0001,500,0002,000,0002,500,0003,000,0003,500,0004,000,000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025Aquatic plants
New non-fish aquaculture sp.
Clams, cockles etc.
Oy sters & scallops
Mus s els
Tuna 
Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander etc.
Carp, tilapia, catfish
Cod, haddock, hake etc
Halibut, turbot, sole etc
Sea bass, bream & similar
Salmon, trout & other salmonids
EC Target
 
[Figure 64]: Scenario 1 aquaculture projec tions – development of major aquaculture 
species 
0100,000200,000300,000400,000500,000600,000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025Salmon, trout & other salmonids
Sea bass, bream & similar
Cod, haddock, hake etc
Carp, tilapia, catfish
M ussels
 
These projections take account of commercial developments al ready in progress, such as 
further investment in cod farming and some reci rculated systems. However, it is assumed that 
increasing constraints through environmental regulation will lead to decreased production 
 
EN 141   EN from other sub-sectors, especially freshwater ponds and cages, and will severely limit further 
coastal developments. 
[6.3.2] Scenario 2: Aquaculture expands to meet  output derived from EU target of 4% per 
annum growth to 2025 
Our second scenario, introduced in [Section 3] , also assumes that capture fisheries will 
continue to decline over the 15 y ear time horizon at a rate of 2% per year, aquaculture will 
develop to meet the output required by assumi ng the EU target of 4% annual growth in 
production tonnage was met from 2000, and that balance of trade will meet the remaining 
demand. Overall demand estimates are determin ed in the same way for all scenarios. 
Consideration of the constraints and drivers discussed in previous  sections allows estimates to 
be made for each of the aquaculture sub-sector s previously identified. These are summarised 
in [Table 17], and discussed in greater de tail following presentation of the production 
projections. Overall, the projections raise EU-25 aquaculture production from 1.26 million 
tonnes in 2005 to 1.84 mt in 2010, 2.44 mt in 2015 and 3.37 mt by 2025. 
[Table 17]: Scenario 2 - summary assumptions:  
Salmon, trout & other salmonids In creasing move offshore, triggere d by continuing high demand. High 
growth rate as offshore aquaculture takes off, but levelling off as other 
species come online later and increase variety 
Sea bass, bream & similar Similarly stimulated to  increasingly move offshore and expand, but not 
as dramatically as sa lmon – levelling off again as supply equilibrates 
Halibut, turbot, sole etc Reasonable growth fa cilitated by improving recycle systems etc. 
Cod, haddock, hake etc Assumes cod farming in pa rticular is developed as a major aquaculture 
species, probably utilising redundant salmon sites initially, but possibly 
moving offshore with the salmon industry in due course. 
Carp, tilapia, catfish Assumes all growth facilitated by low-cost recirculated systems – mainly 
tilapia and perhaps catfish 
Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander etc. Assumes all growth to be facilitated by recirculated aquaculture systems 
Tuna  Assumes hatchery/nursery technolo gy is developed in next 10 years and 
continued high market demand  
Mussels Assumes some further growth as  greater industrialisation and offshore 
culture iis introduced 
Oysters & scallops Small modest growth pe rhaps as part of integrated projects 
Clams, cockles etc. Small modest growth perhaps as part of integrated projects 
New non-fish aquaculture sp. Small number of successf ul projects to help enhance diversity but not a 
major contributor to volume (devel opments of cephalopod culture may 
alter this assessment) 
Aquatic plants Small increase associated with  integrated projects, but otherwise difficult 
to compete with lower-cost regions 
 
EN 142   EN [Table 18]: Scenario 2 – EU-25 aquacu lture production projections to 2025 
 Group growth rate Production (tonnes) 
Group name 5 year 
rate 10 year rate Projected 
rates* 2005 2010 2015 2025 
Salmon, trout & 
other salmonids -1.97% 0.63% 20-2% 350,019 700,038 770,042 868,222 
Sea bass, bream & 
similar 3.47% 22.47% 10-0.5 % 124,046 186,069 279,104 314,689 
Halibut, turbot, 
sole etc 9.57% 13.64% 20-5% 7,111 8,889 17,778 46,666 
Cod, haddock, 
hake etc   1000-5% 69 3,519 91,494 471,106 
Carp, tilapia, 
catfish -1.08% 0.06% 30-2% 74,086 92,608 231,519 465,931 
Eels, sturgeon, 
perch, zander etc. -1.63% 2.29% 10-2.5% 21,858 24,590 36,885 82,992 
Tuna  0.96% 2401.25% 75- 2% 3,858 4,823 22,907 120,261 
Mussels -3.29% 0.27% 6- 0% 470,026 611,034 672,137 705,744 
Oysters & scallops -2.25% -1 .55% 2- -1% 132,210 125,600 138,159 151,975 
Clams, cockles etc. 2.96% 0.14% 2-0% 76,996 84,696 84,696 84,696 
New non-fish 
aquaculture sp. -15.43% -8.27% 500-5% 273 410 10,647 55,897 
Aquatic plants -19.70% -9.91% 100-1% 45 68 405 2,126 
Total   8.37% 1,260, 597 1,842,341 2,443,747 3,370,306 
EU Target   4% 1, 665,600 1,998,720 2,398,464 3,453,788 
* The 5-year growth rate is from 2000-2005 whilst the 10-year grow th rate is 1995-2005. 
Future growth rates are projecte d in 5-year intervals with the highest and lowest rates used 
indicated in the table. 
 
EN 143   EN [Figure 65]: Scenario 2 aquaculture projections –based on output derived from EU target of 
4% per annum growth to 2025 
0500,0001,000,0001,500,0002,000,0002,500,0003,000,0003,500,0004,000,000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025Aquatic plants
New non-fish aquaculture sp.
Clams, cockles etc.
Oy sters & scallops
M ussels
Tuna 
Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander etc.
Carp, tilapia, catfish
Cod, haddock, hake etc
Halibut, turbot, sole etc
Sea bass, bream & similar
Salmon, trout & other salmonids
EC Target
 
The growth rate of aquaculture  between 2002 (publication of the EU aquaculture strategy) and 
2005 has not met the 4% target, therefore future growth rates would need  to be significantly 
higher now to meet the output targets predic ted by a 4% growth rate commencing in 2000. 
The scenario assumes an overall growth ra te of 8.37% between 2005 and 2025, with the 
highest growth rate (9.23%) between 2005 and 2010 to compensate for earlier lag. This could 
most likely be achieved through  species and systems that ar e relatively well established, 
although some change with respect to market, policy or technology is likely be required as 
trigger. In many respects, salmon is best plac ed for rapid expansion. Further use of large 
cages in more offshore locations would be t echnically feasible and smolt production capacity 
could also be increased through further use of  recirculated water systems. However, the 
annual growth rate would need to be increased from almost -2% over the 5 years 2000-2005, to 20% per annum up to 2010, effectively doubling production of salmonids from 350,000 
tonnes to 700,000 tonnes. Since it is unlikely th at the internal market for salmonids will 
double over that period without a signi ficant fall in prices (or rapid rise in price of other fish 
species), much of the expansion in production  would have to be export oriented (e.g. the 
Russian market has been strengthening recently). However, as most of the EU salmon 
industry is owned by Norwegian based companies with larger interests and lower costs in 
Norway and Chile, it seems unlikely that they would chose the EU as the production base for 
market expansion elsewhere unless there were significant incentives to do so. 
To achieve the target growth rate, the Med iterranean sea bream and sea bass industry would 
have to similarly expand. This would take production from a recorded 124,000 tonnes in 2005 
to 186,000 tonnes in 2010. The major challenge here would be th e development of Northern 
European markets through the provision of mo re added value products (most likely chilled 
MAP fillets based on a wider rang e of fish sizes), although dec lining capture fisheries supply 
might also drive market growth. 
 
EN 144   EN Early expansion of production should also be  possible through shellfish aquaculture, most 
notably mussel farming, where technologies are de veloping for larger-s cale culture in more 
exposed conditions. Potential expansion here  is projected from 470,000 t in 2005 to 611,000 t 
in 2010, with the greatest expansion of sales mo st likely through prepar ed products of more 
consistent quality for home consumption. 
[Figure 66]: Scenario 2 – EU target pr oduction- Projections for highest volume 
aquaculture sub-sectors 
0100,000200,000300,000400,000500,000600,000700,000800,000900,0001,000,000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025Salmon, trout & other salmonids
Sea bass, bream & similar
Cod, haddock, hake etc
Carp, tilapia, catfish
M ussels
 
[Figure 67]: Scenario 2 – EU target pro duction - Projections for medium volume 
aquaculture sectors 
020,00040,00060,00080,000100,000120,000140,000160,000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025Halibut, turbot, sole etc
Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander etc.
Tuna 
Oy sters & scallops
Clams, cockles etc.
New non-fish aquaculture sp.
 
 
EN 145   EN [Figure 68]: Scenario 2 – EU target pr oduction – Projections for low volume 
aquaculture sub-sectors 
010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025Halibut, turbot, sole etc
New non-fish aquaculture sp.
Aquatic plants
 
For most other species groups, it is assumed th at it will take longer to develop production 
capacity, and that growth rates will be highest  between 2010 and 2015. This could be due to 
the need to develop hatchery systems (especiall y marine fin fish species), or through the time 
required for markets to respond substantially to pr ojected falling capture fisheries supplies. It 
is also assumed that investment costs for reci rculated aquaculture systems will fall in real 
terms between 2010 and 2020 as the market for system manufacturers expands and more efficient production methods can be introduced. Modest growth in aquatic plant and higher-
value bivalves are projected as integrated multitrophic aquaculture sy stems are increasingly 
developed. 
Some growth in the freshwater sector may be  facilitated through incr eased linkages between 
conservation, recreation and fish production pr oviding continued access to freshwaters for 
aquaculture. This could be supported by greater emphasis on lo cal or regional food production 
or low environmental impact food production and eco-labelled and quality certification. 
Under the alternate scenario where a 4% target  growth is achieved a nd maintained from 2005, 
output would reach 1.513 mt in 2010, 1.814 mt in 2015 and 2.614 mt by 2025. This 2025 
figure is 77.5% of the output ca lculated under assumptions of an  early “catch- up” high growth 
rate. 
[6.3.3] Scenario 3: Aquaculture develops to f ill the supply gap caused  by declining capture 
fisheries 
In this scenario it is assumed that aquaculture  grows at a rate needed to make up the losses 
from a declining capture fisheries (at EU25). It is  assumed that most of the growth in Europe 
is in the higher valu e species, with rising e xports of these and incr easing imports of lower 
value species. 
 
EN 146   EN [Table 19]: Scenario 3 - summary assumpti ons for aquaculture development (EU-25): 
Salmon, trout & other salmonids In creasing move offshore, triggere d by continuing high demand. High 
growth rate as offshore aquaculture takes off, but levelling off as other 
species come online later and increase variety 
Sea bass, bream & similar Similarly stimulated to  increasingly move offshore and expand, but not 
as dramatically as sa lmon – levelling off again as supply equilibrates 
Halibut, turbot, sole etc Reasonable growth driven by improving recycle systems etc. 
Cod, haddock, hake etc Assumes cod farming in pa rticular takes off and probably utilises smaller 
salmon sites initially, but perhaps m ove offshore with salmon industry in 
due course 
Carp, tilapia, catfish Modest development of lo w-cost recirculated systems – mainly tilapia 
and perhaps catfish 
Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander etc. Assumes reasonable growth in these species to meet strengthening 
demand in East and Central Europe. All growth in recirculated 
aquaculture systems 
Tuna  Assumes hatchery/nursery technolo gy is developed in next 10 years and 
continued high market demand 
Mussels Assumes some furt her growth as greater industrialisation (and perhaps 
offshore production) is introduced 
Oysters & scallops Small modest growth pe rhaps as part of integrated projects 
Clams, cockles etc. Small modest growth perhaps as part of integrated projects 
New non-fish aquaculture sp. Small number of successf ul projects to help enhance diversity but not a 
major contributor to volume 
Aquatic plants Small increase associ ated with integrated projects 
 
EN 147   EN [Table 20]: Scenario 3 – EU-25 aquacu lture production projections to 2025 
 Group growth rate Production (tonnes) 
Group name 5 year 
rate 10 year rate Projected 
rates* 2005 2010 2015 2025 
Salmon, trout & 
other salmonids -1.97% 0.63% 20-0.5% 350,019 437,524 525,029 756,041 
Sea bass, bream & 
similar 3.47% 22.47% 10-0.5% 124,046 155,058 193,822 302,847 
Halibut, turbot, 
sole etc 9.57% 13.64% 20-5% 7,111 16,000 35,999 78,749 
Cod, haddock, 
hake etc   1000-5% 69 3,519 38,709 203,222 
Carp, tilapia, 
catfish -1.08% 0.06% 30-2% 74,086 81,495 89,644 108,469 
Eels, sturgeon, 
perch, zander etc. -1.63% 2.29% 10-2.5% 21,858 76,503 153,006 210,383 
Tuna  0.96% 2401.25% 75- 2% 3,858 4,244 20,158 105,830 
Mussels -3.29% 0.27% 6- 0% 470,026 587,533 646,286 712,530 
Oysters & scallops -2.25% -1 .55% 2--1 % 132,210 125,600 138,159 151,975 
Clams, cockles etc. 2.96% 0.14% 0-2% 76,996 76,996 76,996 76,996 
New non-fish 
aquaculture sp. -15.43% -8.27% 500-5% 273 1,638 18,018 94,595 
Aquatic plants -19.70% -9.91% 100-1% 45 68 405 2,126 
Total   6.12% 1,260, 597 1,566,175 1,936,231 2,803,763 
EU Target   4% 1, 665,600 1,998,720 2,398,464 3,453,788 
* The 5-year growth rate is from 2000-2005 whilst the 10-year grow th rate is 1995-2005. 
Future growth rates are projecte d in 5-year intervals with the highest and lowest rates used 
indicated in the table. 
 
EN 148   EN  
[Figure 69]: Scenario 3 – aquaculture fills fisheries gap - aquacu lture development by 
species group (t) 
0500,0001,000,0001,500,0002,000,0002,500,0003,000,0003,500,0004,000,000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025Aquatic plants
New non-fish aquaculture sp.
Clams, cockles etc.
Oysters & scallops
M ussels
Tuna 
Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander etc.
Carp, tilapia, catfish
Cod, haddock, hake etc
Halibut, turbot, sole etc
Sea bass, bream & similar
Salmon, trout & other salmonids
EC Target
 
[Figure 70]: Scenario 3 – aquaculture fills fisheries gap - aquaculture development of 
highest volume species (t) 
0100,000200,000300,000400,000500,000600,000700,000800,000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025Salmon, trout & other salmonids
Sea bass, bream & similar
Cod, haddock, hake etc
Carp, tilapia, catfish
Mus s els
 
[6.3.4] Scenario 4: Aquaculture expands to f ill the supply gap between capture fisheries and 
static demand 
 
EN 149   EN In this scenario it is assumed that aquaculture grows at a rate needed to meet all of the gap 
between declining capture fish eries and static pr ojected demand. It assumes that growth 
occurs in both low-value and higher value sp ecies, although the greatest volume growths are 
likely to be in lower-value species. 
[Table 21]: Scenario 4 - Aquaculture grow s to fill the static-demand supply gap -
summary assumptions for aquaculture development: 
Salmon, trout & other salmonids In creasing move offshore, triggere d by continuing high demand. High 
growth rate as offshore aquaculture takes off, but levelling off as other 
species come online later and increase variety 
Sea bass, bream & similar Similarly stimulated to  increasingly move offshore and expand, but not 
as dramatically as sa lmon – levelling off again as supply equilibrates 
Halibut, turbot, sole etc Reasonable growth driven by improving recycle systems etc. 
Cod, haddock, hake etc Assumes cod farming in pa rticular takes off and probably utilises smaller 
salmon sites initially, but perhaps m ove offshore with salmon industry in 
due course 
Carp, tilapia, catfish Strong growth due to in troduction of low-cost recirculated systems – 
mainly tilapia and perhaps catfish 
Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander etc. Assumes reasonable growth in these species to meet strengthening 
demand in East and Central Europe. All growth in recirculated 
aquaculture systems 
Tuna  Assumes hatchery/nursery technolo gy is developed in next 10 years and 
continued high market demand 
Mussels Assumes some further growth as  greater industrialisation is introduced 
Oysters & scallops Small modest growth pe rhaps as part of integrated projects 
Clams, cockles etc. Small modest growth perhaps as part of integrated projects 
New non-fish aquaculture sp. Cephalopod farming is  successfully commercialised within 5-10 years 
Aquatic plants Moderate increase associated with integrated projects 
 
 
EN 150   EN [Table 22]: Scenario 4 – Aqua culture grows to fill the static-demand supply gap -
aquaculture production projections to 2025 
 Group growth rate Production (tonnes) 
Group name 5 year 
rate 10 year rate Projected 
rates* 2005 2010 2015 2025 
Salmon, trout & 
other salmonids -1.97% 0.63% 10-2% 350,019 455,025 682,537 1,535,708 
Sea bass, bream & 
similar 3.47% 22.47% 15-2 % 124,046 173,664 303,913 717,994 
Halibut, turbot, 
sole etc 9.57% 13.64% 100-10% 7,111 42,666 85,332 191,997 
Cod, haddock, 
hake etc   1000-2% 69 3,519 91,494 1,166,549 
Carp, tilapia, 
catfish -1.08% 0.06% 25-2% 74,086 111,129 250,040 656,356 
Eels, sturgeon, 
perch, zander etc. -1.63% 2.29% 100-2% 21,858 131,148 295,083 405,739 
Tuna  0.96% 2401.25% 75- 2% 3,858 4,244 20,158 105,830 
Mussels -3.29% 0.27% 10-  0% 470,026 705,039 881,299 1,165,518 
Oysters & scallops -2.25% -1 .55% 5 -0% 132,210 165,263 206,578 249,960 
Clams, cockles etc. 2.96% 0.14% 2-0% 76,996 84,696 93,165 112,730 
New non-fish 
aquaculture sp. -15.43% -8.27% 500-10% 273 1,638 42,588 574,938 
Aquatic plants -19.70% -9.91% 100-10% 45 68 405 1,367 
Total   22.31% 1,260, 597 1.878.098 2.952.592 6.884.684 
EU Target   4% 1, 665,600 1,998,720 2,398,464 3,453,788 
* The 5-year growth rate is from 2000-2005 whilst the 10-year grow th rate is 1995-2005. 
Future growth rates are projecte d in 5-year intervals with the highest and lowest rates used 
indicated in the table. 
 
EN 151   EN  
[Figure 71]: Scenario 4 – Aquaculture grow s to fill the static-demand supply gap -
aquaculture production projections to 2025 (t) 
01,000,0002,000,0003,000,0004,000,0005,000,0006,000,0007,000,0008,000,000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025Aquatic plants
New non-fish aquaculture sp.
Clams, cockles etc.
Oy sters & scallops
M ussels
Tuna 
Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander etc.
Carp, tilapia, catfish
Cod, haddock, hake etc
Halibut, turbot, sole etc
Sea bass, bream & similar
Salmon, trout & other salmonids
EC Target
 
[Figure 72]: Scenario 4 – Aquaculture grow s to fill the static-demand supply gap -
highest volume aquaculture products (t) 
0200,000400,000600,000800,0001,000,0001,200,0001,400,0001,600,0001,800,000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025Salmon, trout & other salmonids
Sea bass, bream & similar
Cod, haddock, hake etc
Carp, tilapia, catfish
M ussels
 
 
EN 152   EN [6.4] Assumptions on regional development 
The regional location of aquaculture is primarily determined by where the necessary natural 
resources exist (sufficient water of the correct  temperature, sheltered coastal areas or land 
adjacent to rivers etc). A secondary consideration is  costs, such that locations that are closer to 
market, or that have cheaper labour rates, ar e more likely to be utilised. For conventional 
(incremental) development, it is not anticipated  that there will be any major changes in 
location. 
Offshore aquaculture, if it develops as assumed in  the above scenarios, will most likely start 
in countries that already have  cage aquaculture industries but where inshore sites are most 
highly constrained. This include s Ireland, Spain, Italy and Ma lta, where farming in higher 
energy sites is already common. Subsequent development however could involve most 
countries with substantial coastlines. 
The decoupling of recirculated aquaculture syst em from the environment creates opportunities 
for these systems to be located in areas not pr eviously considered for aquaculture. If these 
develop for fish production as assumed in late r scenarios, proximity, or accessibility, to 
market may be their key advantag e. Locations close to major citi es, or distribution hubs could 
be favoured, with periph eral regions at a comp etitive disadvantage. 
[Table 23]: Regional consid erations by species group 
Salmon, trout & other salmonids No rth Atlantic for salmon and most  European countries for trout 
Sea bass, bream & similar Mediterranean coast 
Halibut, turbot, sole etc Halibut and turbot in A tlantic coasts, Sole and Turbot in Mediterranean 
Cod, haddock, hake etc North A tlantic countries, such as UK 
Carp, tilapia, catfish East and Central Eur opean countries with some development of 
recirculated systems in other countries 
Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander etc.  East and Central European count ries with some development of 
recirculated systems in other countries 
Tuna  Mediterranean basin countries  
Mussels Blue mussels in North Atla ntic and North Sea countries and 
Mediterranean Mussels further south 
Oysters & scallops Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts 
Clams, cockles etc. Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts 
New non-fish aquaculture sp. Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts 
Aquatic plants Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts 
The competitive landscape within the European Union is expected to change over time. 
Countries that have joined recently have a poten tial advantage in lower labour costs, which in 
some cases is taking both production and proces sing from higher cost countries (e.g. the trout 
industry and associated processing has increase d in Poland whilst contracting in Germany and 
France). On the other hand, fish consumption in  Central and Eastern European countries is 
 
EN 153   EN well below that of Western Eu rope, and is expect ed to increase w ith expanded market 
opportunities for all producers.  
[6.5] Impact of defined scenarios 
Sustainability is an increasingly important crit eria for guiding policy, as  well as an emerging 
driver for consumer food retail ing. It is usually considered in  relation to social, economic and 
environmental goals. Indicators are typically us ed to measure performance and these can be 
aggregated at a high level (i.e. to compare perf ormance across different sectors) or at a low-
level and highly specific to  a particular activity.  
[6.5.1] Economic and social  impacts of farming  
Financial turnover is used as the simplest indica tor of economic sustainability, giving a direct 
measure of the scale of economic activity. Similarl y, an estimate of the nu mber of jobs (total 
employment) is used as an indicator of social sustainability. In order to provide a flexible 
approach to modelling, these indicators are linked directly to production t onnages. In the case 
of turnover, the link is price per unit (e.g. Euro/kg) based on approximate current farmgate 
prices for whole fish. This is clearly a crude i ndicator, as prices are no t static, particularly 
when volumes change substantially within a re latively short period of time. However robust 
data on demand elasticity does not exist, partic ularly for longer-term projections where prices 
may also be affected by broader changes within  the food market. Similarly, turnover will vary 
according to the stage within the value chain and the various activities undertaken thereto. 
Labour requirements per tonne of production can  be calculated from employment data for a 
particular industry divided by the production tonnage. The availability and quality of employment data varies considerably between  industries and countries. In many cases, only 
total employment is recorded. We have therefor e used this, both as the most widely available 
indicator, but also because it is a better in dicator of social sustai nability than full time 
equivalent (FTE) jobs, which is a better indicator of productivity. Trends such as 
industrialisation and consolida tion tend to reduce the labour  requirement per tonne of 
production, although there may be an increase in  employment in downstream processing, as a 
greater proportion of th e output is processed. 
Due to the aggregation used in this analysis, some of the species groups combine several 
different types of production systems with differe nt employment characteristics. For instance 
salmonids includes large companies with out puts up to 300 tonnes per person, down to small 
farms which produce less than 10 tonnes per person. Once again, there may be related 
employment in recreational fisheries, or sm all-scale processing. For the purposes of this 
indicative calculation, a mean figure is used  for each group. Consideration should also be 
given to the quality of the jobs  created within each sub-sector. and the impact that these may 
have in encouraging or retaining econo mic activity elsewhere within the region. 
 
EN 154   EN  
[Table 24]: Multipliers used for calculation of economic and social sustainability 
indicators 
 Turnover Labour 
 Euro/kg t/person 
Salmon, trout & othe r salmonids 2.78 89.5 
Sea bass, bream & similar 4.65 20 
Halibut, turbot, sole etc 6.26 40 
Cod, haddock, hake etc 4.82 50 
Carp, tilapia, catfish 1.92 12 
Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander etc. 4.44 40 
Tuna  11.94 120 
Mussels 0.83 15 
Oysters & scallops 2.29 11 
Clams, cockles etc. 3.34 5 
New non-fish aquaculture sp. 11.68 10 
Aquatic plants 0.29 3 
Source: Unit values calculated from FAO Fishstat data, 2007. Labour per tonne is Stirling Aquaculture Estimates 
using various literature sources for guidance 
 
EN 155   EN [Figure 73]: Comparative economic impact – EU-25 all scenarios 
051015202530
2005 2010 2015 2025Euro (Billion) Minimum aquaculture development Aquaculture grows at 4% p.a.
Aquaculture fills fisheries supply gap Aquaculture fills static demand
 
[Figure 74]: Scenario 1 - Baseline – Minimal aquaculture development - Projected value 
of aquaculture production 
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0
2005 2010 2015 2025Euro (Billion) Salmon, trout & other salmonids Sea bass, bream & similar
Halibut, turbot, sole etc Cod, haddock, hake etc
Carp, tilapia, catfish Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander etc.
Tuna M ussels
Oy sters & scallops Clams, cockles etc.
New non-fish aquaculture sp. Aquatic plants
 
 
EN 156   EN [Figure 75]: Scenario 2 - Projected value of  aquaculture production to meet output 
derived from EU target of 4% per annum growth to 2025 
024681012
2005 2010 2015 2025Euro (Billion) Salmon, trout & other salmonids Sea bass, bream & similar
Halibut, turbot, sole etc Cod, haddock, hake etc
Carp, tilapia, catfish Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander etc.
Tuna M ussels
Oy sters & scallops Clams, cockles etc.
New non-fish aquaculture sp. Aquatic plants
 
[Figure 76]: Scenario 3: Aquaculture fills capture fisheries gap - Projected value of 
aquaculture production 
024681012
2005 2010 2015 2025Euro (Billion) Salmon, trout & other salmonids Sea bass, bream & similar
Halibut, turbot, sole etc Cod, haddock, hake etc
Carp, tilapia, catfish Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander etc.
Tuna M ussels
Oysters & scallops Clam s, cockles etc.
New  non-fish aquaculture sp. Aquatic plants
 
 
EN 157   EN  
[Figure 77]: Scenario 4: Aquaculture fills  static demand gap - Projected value of 
aquaculture production 
051015202530
2005 2010 2015 2025Euro (Billion) Salmon, trout & other salmonids Sea bass, bream & similar
Halibut, turbot, sole etc Cod, haddock, hake etc
Carp, tilapia, catfish Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander etc.
Tuna M ussels
Oysters & scallops Clam s, cockles etc.
New  non-fish aquaculture sp. Aquatic plants
  
The baseline scenario sees the value of EU-25 aquaculture (at farm gate) rising relatively 
little, from €2.73b in 2005 to €3.43b in 2025, with both 2010 and 2015 sligh tly lower than the 
2005 value. In the second scenar io (EU target growth) farm gate value rises from 2.73b in 
2005 to €4.1b in 2010, €5.89b in 2015 and to €9.17b in 2025.  
The other scenarios fall either side of the EU target projections. The highest scenario reaches 
€21b by 2025. These totals are influenced by the ratio of aquaculture products. The greater 
value in 2005 is contributed by salmon and sea ba ss/sea bream, whilst the greater volume is in 
mussels. The baseline projecti ons indicate the average value of aquaculture produce in 2005 
was €2.16/kg, rising to a proj ected €2.32/kg in 2025. If growth in fish production were 
dominated with higher value fish, then the average value would ri se to around €3.06/kg in 
2025, which would increase total value to €4.54b (b aseline scenario), an increase of 24.5%. 
Conversely if the growth in lo wer value species is stronger at the expense of higher value 
species and average price rema ined at €2.16/kg, the total value in 2025 (baseline scenario) 
would be €3.2b, a 7.15% difference. Variations in species mix will  therefore change the value 
of the aquaculture sector by perhaps up to ± 25%. 
 
EN 158   EN [Figure 78]: Comparative social impact – all scenarios 
050100150200250300350
2005 2010 2015 2025Jobs (Thousands)Minimum aquaculture development Aquaculture grows at 4% p.a.
Aquaculture fills fisheries supply gap Aquaculture fills static demand
 
[Figure 79]: Baseline scenario – Estimated number of jobs with minimal aquaculture 
development 
0102030405060708090100
2005 2010 2015 2025Employment (Thousand) Salmon, trout & other salmonids Sea bass, bream & similar Halibut, turbot, sole etc
Cod, haddock, hake etc Carp, tilapia, catfish Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander etc.
Tuna M ussels Oysters & scallops
Clam s, cockles etc. New  non-fish aquaculture sp. Aquatic plants
 
 
EN 159   EN [Figure 80]: Scenario 2 – Estimated number of  jobs if aquaculture expands to meet 
output derived from EU target of 4% per annum growth to 2025 
020406080100120140160180
2005 2010 2015 2025Employment (Thousand) Salmon, trout & other salmonids Sea bass, bream & similar Halibut, turbot, sole etc
Cod, haddock, hake etc Carp, tilapia, catfish Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander etc.
Tuna M ussels Oysters & scallops
Clam s, cockles etc. New  non-fish aquaculture sp. Aquatic plants
 
The baseline assumptions calculate the number of EU-25 aquaculture jobs in 2005 to be 
75,840. This increases to 89,891 in 2025. The second  scenario based on the target of 4% 
growth rate leads to 162,032 jobs by 2025, whereas  the highest scenario leads to 327,831. As 
with value, the total number of jobs is aff ected by the mix of species and systems for any 
given volume. As can be seen from [Table 23], it  would only take 5 tonnes of cockle or clam 
production to keep one person employed compared  with up to 120 tonnes  of tuna. It would 
therefore appear that a policy of promoti ng employment opportunities should encourage the 
development of less efficient and more labour-int ensive aquaculture systems. However, these 
simple figures do not take into account the jobs  generated upstream – in the manufacture and 
servicing of equipment for mo re capital intensive production systems, or the employment 
effects attributable to higher disposable incomes for staff of capital intensive farms (assuming they are paid more). Consideration should also  be given to the quality of the jobs, and to 
wider social benefits e.g. to community heal th from improving ava ilability of cheaper 
seafood. Nevertheless, whilst increased employme nt would appear to be best served by 
promoting a larger number of smaller enterpri ses that use more labou r intensive production 
methods, this would not be an option in practic e unless market protection measures were in 
place. European producers would be unable to  compete with more efficient production 
systems elsewhere, making en terprises unsustainable.  
The total number of jobs in the aquaculture pr oduction sector is ther efore highly dependent on 
the species and productivity of the systems empl oyed. If all the fish production systems were 
to operate at the higher average of 120 tonne s per person, the number of jobs in 2025 for 
Scenario 2 would fall from 162,032 to  around 113,000, a reduction of 30%  
 
EN 160   EN [6.5.2] Value chain effects 
The analysis so far has concentrated on the value created by the farming activities. 
Processing, distribution, retail  and food service can easily trip le the value of the primary 
product with consequent benefits for the Eu ropean economy. The value chain for individual 
products can be short and simple or long and complex, but in broad terms, it consists of 
materials inputs (capture, farming imports), transformational stages (processing, packaging 
and distribution) and final sales to consumers vi a shops (retail) or re staurants and catering 
(food service). The value of th e EU seafood processing industry  alone was estimated to be 
approximately Euro 15 billion by Glitnir (2007), with Spain as the leading producer. Exports from the EU are also considered as final sales for the purpose of this analysis as no additional value is generated within the EU [(Figure 81)]. 
[Figure 81]: Seafood value chain 
 Capture 
fisheries 
Aquaculture production
 Primary 
processing Secondary processing 
Exports Imports 
Wholesale  
Retail 
Food 
service Imports 
      
CO
N
SUME
R
S 
 
The block arrows in the above diagram are s hown unconnected as there are many routes that 
can be taken to connect the diffe rent elements within the system . Some fish farms for instance 
sell directly to the public (retail) from the pond-side, w ith no intermediate  value addition. 
Other products will pass through the entire chain, which can  also include exporting and then 
re-importing after overseas processing. Large multiple retailers norma lly bypass the wholesale 
stage and buy directly from secondary processo rs. Products may be exported after primary or 
secondary processing. 
It is beyond the scope of this report to examin e all the linkages and product flows in detail, 
not least because much of this detail is not readily availabl e through official sources at 
apposite levels of disaggregation. We therefore concentrate on the key input and output values 
to determine total added value. For the purposes  of scenario modelling, mean value addition 
factors are determined and then multiplied by  production from the earlier models. The 
processing and marketing chain us ually results in a reduction in total volume (by weight) of a 
 
EN 161   EN product (e.g. processing waste etc.). This is taken into account by using a single utilization 
factor for each product group and is essentially the difference be tween original live weight of 
the product, and the final weight sold or served  to consumers or exported. . In practice there 
may be a number of variants on these crude indices for reasons su ch as the type of fillet cut 
from the same species. For example a block or  butterfly whitefish fillet might yield around 
35% whereas single fillets w ould generate around 50%. Other preparations will have their 
own peculiarities which can only be averaged in  this exercise so that: Total market chain 
value is taken as: 
(Retail vol. x avg. price) + (f ood service vol. x avg. price) + (export vol. x avg. price)  
The contribution of the production sector is included in these fi gures. The value added to the 
raw product can therefore be calculated as tota l market chain value minus primary production 
value. The value of waste generated during proc essing is not included in the present models. 
The value added to imports is not included in th is initial analysis, but is discussed later. 
[Table 25]: Multipliers used for calculation of value addition 
 Breakdown of route to market Value multiplier 
 Utilized EU 
Retail EU Food 
service Exported Retail Food 
service Export 
Salmon, trout & other 
salmonids 60% 55% 20% 25% 4.3 8 4 
Sea bass, bream & similar 80% 40% 50% 10% 4 8 2 
Halibut, turbot, sole etc 77% 40% 55% 5% 4 8 2 
Cod, haddock, hake etc 44% 53% 38% 9% 4.4 13.6 1.6 
Carp, tilapia, catfish 35% 65% 30% 5% 4 8 2 
Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander 
etc. 40% 40% 55% 5% 4 8 2 
Tuna  100% 0% 0% 100% 4 8 1 
Mussels 70% 30% 65% 5% 4 8 2 
Oysters & scallops 50% 30% 65% 5% 3.5 8.4 2.2 
Clams, cockles etc. 40% 65% 30% 5% 3.5 8.4 2.2 
New non-fish aquaculture sp. 40% 40% 55% 5% 3.5 8.4 2.2 
Aquatic plants 20% 5% 5% 90% 5 10 10 
Source: STAQ estimates based on Gudmundsson et al (2006), 
Based on the multipliers presented in [Table 25], it can be seen that the value chain varies 
significantly between species groups. This is illustrated graphically in [Figure 80] which illustrates those species that have a high pr oportion of sales through food service (e.g. sea 
bass, sea bream, halibut and sole etc.), have the highest proportion of  value addition overall 
 
EN 162   EN The impact of considering the downstream value chain is to take the baseline scenario 
aquaculture production value for 2025 from €3.64 billion to €12.65 billion [(Figure 82)]. 
[Figure 82]: Contribution of production, retail,  food service and export within different 
product groups – baseline scenario 2005 
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Salmon, trout & other salmonids
Sea bass, bream & similar
Halibut, turbot, sole etc
Cod, haddock, hake etc
Carp, tilapia, catfish
Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander etc.Tuna 
Mussels
Oysters & scallops
Clams, cockles etc.
New non-fish aquaculture sp.
Aquatic plantsProduction Retail Food service Export
 
[Figure 83]: Total value addition – baseline scenario - minimal aquaculture development 
02468101214
2005 2010 2015 2025Value (Billion €)Primary value Added (retail chain) Added (food service chain) Added (export)
 
 
EN 163   EN The second scenario (aquaculture increases to m eet EU 4% per annum target), shows a similar 
pattern, with an additional €21.9 billion added to the projected €11.0 billion value at first sale 
[(Figure 84)]. 
[Figure 84]: Total value addition – Scenario  2 - Aquaculture expands to meet output 
derived from EU target of 4% per annum growth to 2025 
05101520253035
2005 2010 2015 2025Value (Billion €)Primary value Added (retail chain) Added (food service chain) Added (export)
 
[Figure 85]: Change in value contribution – Scenario 2 - Aquaculture expands at EU 
target of 4% per annum, 2005 (top) and 2025 (below) 
Clams, cockles etc.
5.3%New non-fish 
aquaculture sp.
0.1%
Aquatic plants
0.0%
Oysters & scallops
10.4%
Sea bass, bream & 
similar
27.9%Salmon, trout & 
other salmonids
30.2%
Mussels
18.4%
Eels, sturgeon, 
perch, zander etc.
2.5%
Cod, haddock, hake 
etc
0.0%Carp, tilapia, catfish
2.6%Tuna 
0.5%
Halibut, turbot, sole 
etc
2.2%
 
 
EN 164   EN Aquatic plants
0.0%
Clams, cockles etc.
1.7%New non-fish 
aquaculture sp.
4.9%
Halibut, turbot, sole 
etc
4.2%Tuna 
4.4%
Carp, tilapia, catfish
4.8%
Cod, haddock, hake 
etc
23.2%Eels, sturgeon, 
perch, zander etc.
2.7%Mussels
8.1%Salmon, trout & 
other salmonids
21.9%
Sea bass, bream & 
similar
20.7%Oysters & scallops
3.5%
 
The overall contribution of different species groups and value segments for Scenario 2 in 
2025 is shown in [Figure 86]. 
[Figure 86]: Value contribution by species group – Scenario 2 - Aquaculture expands to 
meet output derived from EU target of 4% per annum growth to 2025 
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Salmon, trout & other salmonids
Sea bass, bream & similar
Halibut, turbot, sole etc
Cod, haddock, hake etc
Carp, tilapia, catfish
Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander etc.Tuna 
Mussels
Oysters & scallops
Clams, cockles etc.
New non-fish aquaculture sp.
Aquatic plantsProduction Retail Food service Export
 
Most imported fish and seafood products ha ve already undergone primary and often 
secondary processing. However, there may well be further processing and then distribution 
 
EN 165   EN through retail, food service and ex ports as for product produced in the EU. This added value 
is important, as it will often be greater than  the cost of the primary imported material. 
Gudmundsson et. al.  (2006), studying four different fi sheries products and countries found 
between 54% and 75% of value addition to be in  secondary processing, wholesale and retail. 
KPMG (2004) studied cod, haddock and nephrops , finding value additions  in processing and 
distribution to be respectivel y, 69%, 75% and 74%. Removing the primary processing stage 
reduces these values slightly to 66%, 71% and 74% respectively. These figures compare to an 
overall average of 58.5% for value addition post first sale calculated for aquaculture products 
in our model. For the purpose of estimation th erefore, [Figure 87] shows the additional value 
that might be generated from imported fish  and seafood products under the 4 scenarios and 
assuming constant consumption, if the imported ra w material constitutes on average, 40% of 
the final price. This reaches €23 billion by 2025 for the minimal aquaculture development 
scenario.  
[Figure 88] shows the value addition of imports in relation to those contributed by capture 
fisheries and projected aquaculture production for each of the 4 scenarios to 2025. Overall 
value addition ranges from €30.9 billion (all scen arios, 2005) to €52.6 billion (scenario 4 in 
2025). The contribution of EU aquaculture pr oduction to seafood value addition is around 
20% in 2005, potentially rising to around 35% in 2025 if the EU growth objectives were met. 
The value addition of aquaculture  products for export contributes less than 2% to total value 
addition in 2005, rising only slightly to a maximum of 4.8% by 2025 (highest production 
scenario). 
[Figure 87]: Approximate value added to import ed fish and seafood within the EU – all 
4 scenarios using static consumption projections  
0510152025
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025Billion EuroMinimal aquaculture - Value added to imports
EC Aquaculture target - Value added to imports
Fisheries gap - Value added to imports
Fulfilling dem and - Value added to imports
 
Note: These projections assume an averag e value addition of 60% within the EU. 
 
EN 166   EN [Figure 88]: Approximate value added to all fish and seafood within the EU – all 4 
scenarios using static consumption projections 
0.0010,000.0020,000.0030,000.0040,000.0050,000.0060,000.00
S1 S2 S3 S4 S1 S2 S3 S4 S1 S2 S3 S4 S1 S2 S3 S4
Scenario Numbers  and YearsValue €MValue added to capture fisheries Value added to imports
Value added to aqua. prodn. - Retail Value added to aqua. prodn. - Food service
Value added to aqua. prodn. - Export
 
Note: The estimated value addition to capture fisheries assumes an average post-harvest value 
of €2.48 and value addition of 70%. The average va lue addition to imports is assumed to be 
60%, whilst value addition to aquaculture vari es by product group as set out in [Table 25] 
[6.5.3] Resource use impacts 
A wider range of indicators have been developed to help inform assessments of environmental 
sustainability. These can be grouped into indicato rs of resource use and indicators of waste 
output impact (only the primary production phase is discussed he re). On the input side, we 
examine land or water area utilised, water throughput, and industria l energy consumed. The 
area used is an indicator of the intensity of the farming operations. Extensive farming will 
require higher areas per tonne of output. Wa ter throughput is more complex. Intensive 
farming operations, including cage farming but ex cluding recirculating systems, will have a 
high water throughput per tonne of production. The ma in significance is that  the quality of the 
water will be changed during its passage through the aquacu lture system, although in pond 
systems, there will also be significant water consumption (or more accurately loss) due to evaporation and soil permeability. Where the same  species may be cultured in a variety of 
system types (e.g. carp), we have assumed that  future growth in production will be through 
the identified emerging systems (particularly offshore cages and recirculated aquaculture 
systems). Industrial energy input (oil, gas, el ectricity) per tonne of production is calculated 
through reference to available data on industrial energy input  per unit of protein energy 
output. 2005 2010 2015 2025
 
EN 167   EN [Table 26]: Multipliers used for calculation of input en vironmental sustainability 
indicators 
 Land or 
water Water m3/t Industrial energy input to 
protein Protein energy 
 t/ha  energy output (J/J) per tonne (J) 
Salmon, trout & other salm onids 1,750 2,260,000 50 4,727,920 
Sea bass, bream & sim ilar 1,125 2,500,000 40 4,727,920 
Halibut, turbot, sole etc 2,676 2,000,000 45 4,727,920 
Cod, haddock, hake etc 1200 2,500,000 45 4,727,920 
Carp, tilapia, catfish 2 5,000 30 4,727,920 
Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander etc. 190 100 35 
 4,727,920 
Tuna  300 3,000,000 50 4,727,920 
Mussels 76 3,000,000 10 4,727,920 
Oysters & scallops 25 2,000,000 5 4,727920 
Clams, cockles etc.  0.5 2,000,000 5 4,727,920 
New non-fish aquaculture sp. 150 200 20 4,727,920 
Aquatic plants 1 2,000,000 1 3,545,940 
Sources: Muir & Beveridge (1987), FAO Fish Stat, Phillips et al  (1991), O'Hagan (1999), EIFAC (2000), 
FishStat (2000), Green & Eagle (2000). 
In terms of physical land or water area requ ired for production, shellfish cultivation on beds 
or trays tends to be least efficient, and ther efore dominates the space requirement calculations. 
 
EN 168   EN [Figure 89]: All scenarios – Land/water area requirements 
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.7
2005 2010 2015 2025Land or water area (million ha)Minimum aquaculture development Aquaculture grow s at 4% p.a.
Aquaculture f ills fisheries s upply gap Aquaculture f ills static demand
 
The water area required for marine salmonids, bass and bream in cages is as little as 310 ha, 
compared with an estimated 165,500 ha for she llfish cultivation. Land areas required for 
freshwater aquaculture are substantially more than is required for marine cages, but with lower production adds up to around 40,000 ha. 
[Figure 90]: Baseline scenario – Land/water area requirements 
0.00.10.10.20.20.30.3
2005 2010 2015 2025Area (million ha) Salmon, trout & other salmonids Sea bass, bream & similar
Halibut, turbot, sole etc Cod, haddock, hake etc
Carp, tilapia, catfish Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander etc.
Tuna Mus s els
Oy sters & scallops Clams, cockles etc.
New non-fish aquaculture sp. Aquatic plants
 
 
EN 169   EN Mussels have the highest water requirement due to the extent to which they are cultured, and 
their need for constant water exchange. However,  as this is provided naturally by currents in 
the sea, the water requirements of salmonid culture, especially in freshwater, may be 
considered more significant. 
[Figure 91]: All scenarios – Water usage  
02,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00014,000
2005 2010 2015 2025Water use (billion m3)Minimum aquaculture development Aquaculture grow s at 4% p.a.
Aquaculture f ills fisheries s upply gap Aquaculture f ills static demand
 
[Figure 92]: Baseline scenario – Water usage  
05001,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,000
2005 2010 2015 2025Volume (billion m3) Salmon, trout & other salmonids Sea bass, bream & similar
Halibut, turbot, sole etc Cod, haddock, hake etc
Carp, tilapia, catfish Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander etc.
Tuna Mus s els
Oy sters & scallops Clams, cockles etc.
New non-fish aquaculture sp. Aquatic plants
 
 
EN 170   EN The expansion of aquaculture would most likely require increased use of coastal resources. 
Currently 8 t of fish from aqu aculture are produced per km of co astline in the EFTA countries 
(which include Norway) (European Environment Agency, 2005a). 
The use of recirculated aquaculture system s can substantially reduce the actual water 
requirements, but often at the cost of additiona l energy requirements. The greatest pressure for 
this is likely to be on intensive freshwater fish farms. 
Much of the total use of energy in aquaculture is in the capture of industrial fish and the 
production of compounded fish diets. Downstream processi ng and distribution also add 
substantially but is not included herein. Otherwis e, aquaculture systems vary considerably in 
their use of energy, even between units of broadly similar type due to efficiency factors and 
degree of mechanisation. 
[Figure 93]: All scenarios – Industrial energy use 
02004006008001,0001,200
2005 2010 2015 2025Industrial energy use (M illion MJ)Minimum aquaculture development Aquaculture grow s at 4% p.a.
Aquaculture f ills fisheries s upply gap Aquaculture f ills static demand
 
EN 171   EN [Figure 94]: Baseline scenario  – Industrial energy use 
020406080100120140160180200
2005 2010 2015 2025Industrial energy (Million MJ)Salmon, trout & other salmonids Sea bass, bream & similar
Halibut, turbot, sole etc Cod, haddock, hake etc
Carp, tilapia, catfish Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander etc.
Tuna M ussels
Oy sters & scallops Clams, cockles etc.
New non-fish aquaculture sp. Aquatic plants
 
[6.5.4] Environmental pressures 
On the output side, the emissions considered  are nitrogen, phosphorus, and organic carbon 
(excluding carbon dioxide from respiration or fuel combustion, or carbon monoxide from fuel 
etc). These were selected as be ing the most relevant in a broa d scale and most amenable to 
this analysis, although other environmental issues related to aquaculture exist. These elements 
are released in both solid and dissolved compou nds with the prime concern being those that 
are discharged directly to the aquatic environment. For fish a nd crustaceans, these figures will 
be influenced by a range of factors, including nu tritional content of the diet, digestibility and 
efficiency of feeding systems, and any waste removal mechanisms that are in place before 
discharge to the environment. For shellfish it  is assumed these will be net consumers of 
nitrogen and phosphorus, but will have a ne t carbon output due to the discharge of 
pseudofaeces. Aquatic plants, once harveste d, remove nitrogen and phosphorus, but also 
organic carbon, albeit sourced from the fixation of carbon dioxi de. The figures used in the 
model are shown below. Values presented in th e literature can vary widely even for similar 
species/system combinations. For fish, the output will be dependent on feed conversion ratios achieved, the composition of th e diets, and any treatment pr ocesses conducted within the 
system. 
 
EN 172   EN [Table 27]: Multipliers used for calculation of output en vironmental sustainability 
indicators 
 Nitrogen output Phosphorus output Carbon output 
 kg/t kg/t kg/t 
Salmon, trout & other salmonids 40 6.7 200 
Sea bass, bream & similar 105.4 13 170 
Halibut, turbot, sole etc 75 55 200 
Cod, haddock, hake etc 67 15.6 200 
Carp, tilapia, catfish 90 13 200 
Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander etc. 67 15.6 200 
Tuna  101 32 200 
Mussels -3 -1 100 
Oysters & scallops -3.33 -1 100 
Clams, cockles etc. -3 -1 100 
New non-fish aquaculture sp. 67 15.6 200 
Aquatic plants -47 -6.67 -300 
Note – No adjustment is made for recircul ated systems as most of these still produce 
discharges, although they may not be discharged  immediately back into the environment. 
Sources: Musango et. al. (2007), Papatr yphon et. al. (2004), Aubin et. al. 2006. Aquatic Sciences Inc (1999), 
Johnsen et. al. (1993), Alvarado (1997), Islam (2005), Davies & Slaski (2003), Bergheim & Brinker (2003), Wu 
(1995), Siddiqui & Al-Harbi (1999) and Stirling Aquaculture estimates. 
 
EN 173   EN [Figure 95]: All scenarios – Nitrogen output 
050100150200250300350400
2005 2010 2015 2025Nitrogen output (t '000)Minimum aquaculture development Aquaculture grow s at 4% p.a.
Aquaculture f ills fisheries s upply gap Aquaculture f ills static demand
 
[Figure 96]: Baseline scenario – Nitrogen output 
-100102030405060
2005 2010 2015 2025Nitrogen output (t '000) Salmon, trout & other salmonids Sea bass, bream & similar
Halibut, turbot, sole etc Cod, haddock, hake etc
Carp, tilapia, catfish Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander etc.
Tuna Mus s els
Oy sters & scallops Clams, cockles etc.
New non-fish aquaculture sp. Aquatic plants
 
 
EN 174   EN [Figure 97]: All scenarios – Phosphorus output 
01020304050607080
2005 2010 2015 2025Phosphorus output (t '000)Minimum aquaculture development Aquaculture grow s at 4% p.a.
Aquaculture f ills fisheries s upply gap Aquaculture f ills static demand
 
[Figure 98]: Baseline scenario – Phosphorus output 
-20246810
2005 2010 2015 2025Phosphorus output (t '000) Salmon, trout & other salmonids Sea bass, bream & similar
Halibut, turbot, sole etc Cod, haddock, hake etc
Carp, tilapia, catfish Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander etc.
Tuna Mus s els
Oy sters & scallops Clams, cockles etc.
New non-fish aquaculture sp. Aquatic plants
 
 
EN 175   EN [Figure 99]: All scenarios – Carbon output 
02004006008001,0001,2001,400
2005 2010 2015 2025Carbon output (t '000)Minimum aquaculture development Aquaculture grow s at 4% p.a.
Aquaculture f ills fisheries s upply gap Aquaculture f ills static demand
 
[Figure 100]: Baseline scenario – Carbon output. 
-50050100150200250
2005 2010 2015 2025Carbon output (t '000) Salmon, trout & other salmonids Sea bass, bream & similar
Halibut, turbot, sole etc Cod, haddock, hake etc
Carp, tilapia, catfish Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander etc.
Tuna M ussels
Oy sters & scallops Clams, cockles etc.
New non-fish aquaculture sp. Aquatic plants
 
The baseline scenarios suggest a 2.7 fold increase in produ ction between 2005 and 2025, but a 
4.1 fold increase in nitrogen, 6.3 fold increas e in phosphorus and 3.2 fo ld increase in carbon 
output. This is due to an  increased proportion of finfish in the aquaculture mix. Given existing 
concern over aquaculture waste output, it appear s likely that regulators would wish to 
encourage this additional development to take  place offshore, where the wastes are more 
easily dispersed and have lower impact, or pr oduced in recirculated aquaculture systems 
 
EN 176   EN where the waste streams can be captured and tr eated or utilised in a way that has lower 
environmental impact. These estimates do not account however for potential reduction in 
nutrient emissions due to improved diets or  efficiency gains th rough better systems 
management or genetic improvements. These for instance might be reflected in improved feed conversion efficiencies. Alterations  could also occur in waste nutri ent profiles if fish meal is 
replaced to considerable exte nt with plant ingredients. 
[6.6] Summary of scenario model result s and implications for emerging systems 
[6.6.1] Model development The models presented above explore the potentia l for increased aquaculture production in EU 
Member States. They firstly identify potential mark et demand for fish and seafood products 
and compare this with supply from  the capture fisheries sector. Th e shortfall in supply is then 
expected to be met thro ugh aquaculture and net imports from  third countries. The implications 
of only part of the shortfall be ing met through aquaculture, or vi rtually all the shortfall being 
met through aquaculture are explor ed. The models are not intended to be predictive, but rather 
to indicate the development needed and asso ciated implications of different options. 
[Table 28]: Summary of main assump tion scenarios used for modelling 
Demand  Calculated as a function of population numbers multiplied by 
apparent average per capita fish and seafood consumption. Three 
main scenarios:  
that per capita consumption does not change  
that per capita consumption continues to rise based on last 15 year trend
 
that the per capita consumption falls  again (inverse of growth rate)  
Price is not included as a factor at this level, as although clearly 
important, it is only one of a wide range of factors affecting overall 
fish consumption. Demand is not  broken down by product group for 
the purpose of the model, but is a factor considered in the analysis.  
The first scenario is used as the demand baseline.  
Capture fisheries supply  The status of different EU fish and shellfish stocks varies widely, 
and the capture supply scenarios do not attempt to break down 
supply by individual stocks. Three main capture supply scenarios are considered:
 
supplies are maintained at current levels  
supplies fall in line with recent trends at 2% per annum  
supplies fall in line with more catastrophic projections at 4% per 
annum.  
 
 
EN 177   EN The second scenario is used for most of the models presented in the 
main report.  
Balance of trade  The models assume that if there is a shortfall in supply from EU production, it will be met through imports. Net import calculations 
therefore depend only on the assumptions used for demand, EU 
capture and aquaculture production. They do not consider production trends outside Europe, prices, market preference or any 
other factors. In practice, the development of aquaculture in Europe will depend very much on its ability to compete effectively in both EU and export markets. For the purpose of policy development 
however, the potential deficit in production in relation to expected 
consumption is a useful indicator. 
 
Aquaculture production  Four main aquaculture producti on scenarios are considered. Except 
for the first, these are target based:  
Minimal development – current trend of decline continues for remainder of this decade, before reversing as the gap between production and demand rises
 
To meet output targets derived from the EU 2002 policy objective of 4% annual increase in aquaculture production
 
EU aquaculture develops to fill the gap left by capture fisheries declining at 2% per annum
 
EU aquaculture develops to fill the entire gap between capture 
fisheries supply and expected demand.  
Within each scenario, 12 categories of aquaculture product are 
considered, and how these might develop in order to achieve the target production levels. Particular a ttention is given to the role of 
emerging aquaculture systems in achieving these goals. 
 
Within the different production scenarios, growth rates for each product group were 
considered in 5-year blocks. The overall 20-year growth rates are compared in [Table 29]. The EU 4% growth target would now require an 8.4% per annum average growth rate to reach 
the same production by 2025 as would have been achieved by a 4% annual increase from 2000 onwards. 
 
EN 178   EN [Table 29]: 20 year average annual growth rates for different aquaculture product 
groups by scenario (2005 to 2025) 
 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 
 (minimal) (EU output 
target) (Compensate 
fisheries)  (Meet all 
demand) 
Salmon, trout & other sa lmonids 0.0% 7.4% 5.8%  16.9%  
Sea bass, bream & similar 1.0%  7.7%  7.2%  23.9%  
Halibut, turbot, sole etc 20.3%  27.8%  50.4%  130.0%  
Cod, haddock, hake etc 5,462.5%  34,133.1%  14,721.3%  84,527.5%  
Carp, tilapia, catfish 1.7%  26.4%  2.3%  39.3%  
Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander etc. 0.3%  14.0%  43.1%  87.8%  
Tuna  -5.0%  150.9%  132.2%  132.2%  
Mussels 0.4%  2.5%  2.6%  7.4%  
Oysters & scallops 0.4%  0.7%  0.7%  4.5%  
Clams, cockles etc. 1.7%  0.5%  0.0%  2.3%  
New non-fish aquaculture sp. -0.3%  1,018.8%  1,727.5%  10,525.0%  
Aquatic plants -3.8%  231.3%  231.3%  146.9%  
TOTAL 0.9% 8.4% 6.1% 22.3% 
In this table, the product groups “cod, haddock, hake etc.” and “New non-fish aquaculture 
sp.” show very high percentage increases. This  is an artefact of starting from very low 
production in 2005 (e.g. only 69 tonnes of cod). The resulting projection of 471,100 tonnes of 
production of these marine species by 2025 is hi gh, but this growth rate was achieved by the 
salmon industry in Chile, and both the Norw egian and Chile marine cage aquaculture 
industries exceed 600,000 tonnes.  
The scenarios assume that the growth rates in marine whitefish will be highest. This is a 
reflection that whitefish have hi storically formed the largest share of the fish market, so 
demand is high, but capture fisher ies supply is declining. This should create opportunities for 
aquaculture, providing it can supply economica lly. Offshore aquacultu re appears the most 
likely system to meet the volume demands  projected. The technology is developing 
incrementally within the salmon, tuna and sea bass and sea bream industries with gradually 
larger cages moored in more e xposed locations serviced by larger vessels etc. Newer marine 
species will borrow heavily from existing gr owout technology and could therefore be 
expected to scale-up faster than was the case with the more established species. There also 
remains the possibility of transformational change. This could come about through the 
development of a new offshore cage design that swings the production economics in favour of offshore farming. Competitive fo rces would then ensure rapi d adoption, assuming appropriate 
regulatory measures are in place.  The main centres of investment  in offshore cage design at 
 
EN 179   EN present are Norway and the USA, which suggest s transformational development, if it occurs, 
is more likely to start outside the EU. 
Good growth rates for (bluefin) tuna culture ar e also assumed in most  scenarios if the life 
cycle can be closed and juvenile s supplied from hatcheries. The gr ow-out sector is already in 
place, but is expected to be increasingly c ontrained through juvenile supply. A switch to 
formulated diets would also improve environmental sustainability and should be possible if juveniles are weaned onto dry diets at an early age.  
Further development of recirculated systems fo r higher unit value species (both marine and 
freshwater) appears likely. This is assumed for species such as turbot, sole, eel, and perhaps 
perch and zander. Recirculated systems are also  used for African catfish culture in Europe, 
which has low unit value, but can be cultured at very high densities. There is scope for 
substantial increases in producti on if the market were better developed. Several companies are 
also producing tilapia in freshw ater recirculated systems, s uggesting there is some optimism 
that economic production can be achieve d and markets can be developed. 
Except for the baseline model, all assume quite strong growth for salmonids, which are 
already the largest fin fish group cultured in Eu rope. Salmon has the best  prospects if offshore 
farming is developed, but potential exists for fres hwater trout and in some cases charr. This 
may be through greater industrialis ation and use of recirculated  water systems, or may be 
through functional diversification of fish fa rms and local product and label development. 
Elsewhere however, further contraction of tr aditional trout farms is expected due to 
increasingly restrictive environmental regulation,  uncompetitive cost structures and failure to 
attract new entrants.  
None of the scenarios assumes high growth rates for molluscs, since there is much less scope 
for substitution than between say whitefish  species. Growth will depend on market 
development. Mussel farming is assumed to have the fastest growth rate since it is a lower unit value product and industrial scale farming operations are developing. More traditional 
shellfish bed style culture is less likely to expand due to growing pressures on coastal 
resources.  
[6.6.2] Model outputs 
The model helps to answer questions such as “if the EU wished to eliminate its trade deficit 
with respect to seafood (by volume), as well as compensate for declining fisheries, how much 
extra area would be required and how many jobs would it creat e?” The key figures generated 
by the model are shown below. 
 
EN 180   EN [Table 30]: Summary of key indicato rs by 2025 for the four scenarios 
 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 
 (minimal) (EU target) (Compensate 
fisheries)  (Meet all demand) 
Aquaculture production (million tonnes) 1.48 3.37 2.80 6.88 
Aquaculture value (€ billion) 3.64 11.01 9.69 27.40 
Direct jobs  89,890 162,030 131,690 327,830 
Land or water area required (M ha) 0.270 0.420 0.230 0.590 
Water use (billion m3) 3,429 6,975 6,048 13,108 
Industrial energy used (M MJ) 181 527 419 1,091 
Nitrogen output (t) 45,590 163,370 119,590 360,400 
Phosphorus output (t) 8,330 30,940 25,100 74,060 
Carbon output (t) 216,840 569,320 456,450 1,210,890 
Note, Figures are rounded as appropriate 
The model suggests that raising aquaculture output in  line with earlier EU  policy objectives 
would double the land and water ar ea required. However, overall  area usage would remain 
very small compared with agriculture (less th an 0.5 million ha estimated, compared with over 
6 million ha of terrestrial organic agriculture, which is only 4% of total agriculture)85. Of 
more concern would be increased output of nutri ents (a 3.8 fold incr ease in nitrogen output 
for instance). However, this should be judged in the wider context. In comparison with the 
livestock sector for example, the additional ni trogen would be equivalent to increasing the 
European cattle population by around 0.7%86. More important would be how and where the 
nutrients are released. Offshore aquacultur e would have very high waste dispersion 
characteristics, whilst recirculated systems pr ovide greater means of control and removal for 
further processing or use. 
The estimated direct usage of industrial energy  (based on selected mix of systems) would 
triple if aquaculture develops to meet EU ta rgets over the minimal deve lopment scenario. This 
increase of 346 million MJ is equivalent to  the average annual energy usage of 4,600 
European homes87, or 10,500 people, which is around 1% of the annual European population 
growth. In terms of power gene ration it equates to a wind farm  of about 15 turbines of 2.5 
                                                 
85 Eurostat press release 80/2007 (12 June 2007) 
86 An approximation based on a mean nitrogen output of around 100 kg per head per year for cattle 
(http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate/projected-balance-emissions-jun06/html/page11.html ) 
and a European cattle population of approximately 130 million (http://cattle-today.com/) 
87 Calculations based on energy use per dwelling of 1.75 to 1.8 t oil equivalent per annum 
(http://themes.eea.europa.eu/Sector s_and_activities/households/indicat ors/energy/hh06h ouseholds.pdf ) 
converted to MJ using 1 toe = 42 GJ (42,000 MJ) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ton_of_oil_equivalent). 
 
EN 181   EN MW capacity each88. However, full lifecycle analysis (L CA) is needed to understand total 
energy consumption, as Gr őnroos et. al.  (2006) found feed production to be the major energy 
cost in Finnish trout farming. 
Using constant multipliers, employment would more than double by 2025 if output matched 
the EU target growth ra te of 4% per annum for aquaculture de velopment. However, it is likely 
that price competition and market demand will result in the major increases in production 
volume through new marine fish production, especi ally in offshore systems that have much 
higher efficiencies. Employment per tonne of pr oduction however is grea test for small-scale 
artisanal and family-run farms, which might in creasingly need to address niche markets to 
survive.  
The scenarios outlined present a range of altern ative interpretations and implications with 
varying degrees of likelihood of emergence. The spread and combination of determining 
factors is effectively impossible to predict with any certainty. However the impacts of the most likely scenarios have been identified and the wider implications of these for policy are discussed in the followi ng concluding section. 
[6.6.3] Non-food aquac ulture species 
The models presented in this section have fo cused on fish as food. Aquaculture activities may 
also be carried out to produce fish for angli ng, ornamental purposes, or for the production of 
other biotechnology products incl uding pharmaceuticals, fine chemicals and functional food 
components. These are not major activities with in Europe, but can have considerable local 
significance. 
The global trade in ornamental fish was wo rth US$ 0.9 billion (€0.68 billion) at wholesale 
values in 2000. This equates to  at least US$3 billion (€2.28 b illion) at reta il values (FAO, 
2007). Europe plays a large part in this trade, with imports of ornamental fish into EU-25 
countries valued at around US$110 million (€85 million) in 2005
89. Ornamental fish are 
produced to some degree in many European countr ies, however, by far the largest producer in 
the Czech Republic, with an export va lue of US$7.76 million (€6 million) in 200590. Further 
expansion of this industry is anticipated, but unless there are major ch anges in the cost of 
transporting live fish, EU producers will continue to face substantial competition from third countries with lower cost base. Successful or namental production within the EU has focused 
on quality, or the production of  higher value marine species. 
Aquaculture is also providing stock for a ngling lakes throughout Europe. The European 
Anglers Alliance estimates the European leisure fi shing sector to be wort h at least €25 billion, 
of which €5 billion is in tackle sales
91. This is almost ten times the value of food fish 
aquaculture production. An increasing number of aquaculture farms include leisure angling 
facilities, particularly in East and Central Euro pe, or the valliculture areas in Italy, where 
larger water bodies are forming the centre pie ces for a variety of na ture-based activities, 
                                                 
88 Typical turbine output is 2,628 MWhours/year per MW of installed capacity 
(http://www.westmill.coop/windfarmsites.php ). Typical turbines are 2.5 MW capacity and 1 MWhour is 
equivalent to 3600 MJ. 
89 UN Comtrade data for classification HS2002/030110 Live ornamental fish ( www.comtrade.un.org ).  
90 Op cite. 
91 http://www.eaa-europe.eu /docs/DEFINITION-EAA_Angl ing_Def_long_FINAL_EN.pdf 
 
EN 182   EN include nature trails, angling and camping. In Scotland, 14.7 % of trout pr oduction is for 
restocking to “put-and-take” angling la kes, of which there were 287 in 200292. Although 
unlikely to significantly increase  total fish production, these in itiatives greatly increase the 
value and employment multipliers for aquaculture , and for that reason should be taken into 
account in aquaculture policy development.  
The potential for obtaining valuable fine chemicals, nutritionals and biologically active 
therapeutic compounds from marine organisms is continually under investigation. The major 
products at present are agar and carrageenan from seaweeds, but microalgae are also of 
interest for pigments, neurotoxins, polysaccharides, lipids, peptides and enzymes etc. Many other marine organisms are potentia l sources of future anti viral,  anti-microbial or anti-cancer 
drugs. Already commercialised compounds include an antihelmintic insecticide from the red 
algae Digenea simplex ; an antiviral (herpes) from the sponge Cryptotethya crypta, an anti 
tumoural compound from the sponge Cryptotethya crypta , and an antibiotic from marine 
fungi ( Cephalosporium sp. )
93. In some cases, once identifie d, a compound can be synthesized 
using chemical processes, or produced vi a bacterial fermentati on (e.g. using genetic 
engineering approaches). In other cases, aquacu lture of the species is the most appropriate 
solution. The high costs of product development,  especially for pharmaceutical products, is 
likely to restrict rapid development in this area. Aquaculture for bioactive compounds will 
also be subject to the same competitive pressures as aquacult ure for food products and would 
not necessarily develop in Europe even if the core development and primary market is here. 
[6.6.4] Export of aquaculture  related goods and services 
It should be noted that the models presented in this section do not take into account the value 
of aquaculture goods (e.g. feeds, medicines and equipment) or other services that are exported 
from Europe. Only goods and services sold w ithin Europe contribute to measured turnover 
from European aquaculture production. There is li ttle data available on the additional value of 
exports, but these may include for instance: 
• Aquaculture equipment such as cages, nets m oorings, tanks and water treatment equipment 
• Aquaculture feeds, ingredients, pharm aceuticals, vaccines and diagnostic kits 
• Information systems, software, monitoring and control equipment 
• Analytical, consultancy, management and advisory services  
• Contract research services 
• Financial and insu rance services 
• Education and training 
The greater the technological edge that Europe is able to maintain, the greater will be the 
prospects for, and potential  value of these exports. 
                                                 
92 Walker, 2002. 
93 European Science Foundation Marine Board, 2001.