Communication from the 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}
Date: 2009-04-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, aquaculture, common fisheries policy, health control, human nutrition, sea fish, sustainable development

EN

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 8.4.2009 
SEC(2009) 453 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

accompanying the 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE 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 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

1.4. 

1.5. 

2. 

Procedural issues and consultation of Interested Parties ..............................................4 

Introduction...................................................................................................................4 

The consultation process...............................................................................................4 

General overview on feedback and contributions received from the consultation exercise
......................................................................................................................................5 

Interservice Steering Group ..........................................................................................7 

Impact assessment – board opinion ..............................................................................7 

What issue/problem is the policy/proposal expected to tackle? ...................................8 

2.1.  What is aquaculture?.....................................................................................................8 

2.2. 

2.3. 

Aquaculture as an answer to increasing demand for aquatic food ...............................9 

Economic, social, and environmental dimensions of aquaculture..............................11 

2.4.  What is the problem and why is action required?.......................................................12 

2.5. 

Main factors influencing the development of the aquaculture industry and underlying 
drivers of the problem.................................................................................................16 

2.6.  Who is affected? .........................................................................................................25 

2.7. 

Does the EU have the right to act? .............................................................................26 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

4. 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

5.3. 

5.4. 

6. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

7. 

What is the overall policy objective in terms of expected impacts?...........................28 

General objective ........................................................................................................28 

Strategic and policy-orientated objectives..................................................................28 

What main policy options are available to achieve the objective? .............................30 

Analysis of impacts.....................................................................................................31 

General considerations................................................................................................31 

Possible action to contribute achieving the objectives and their incremental effect under 
Option 2 ......................................................................................................................36 

Likely economic, social and environmental impacts..................................................42 

Overall estimates of possible environmental and socio-economic impacts depending on 
aquaculture growth scenarios......................................................................................48 

Comparing options......................................................................................................52 

Comparing options......................................................................................................52 

Preferred option ..........................................................................................................58 

Monitoring and evaluation..........................................................................................58 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
ANNEX I ..................................................................................................................................60 

ANNEX II .................................................................................................................................87 

ANNEX III..............................................................................................................................106 

ANNEX IV .............................................................................................................................122 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

1.1. 

Introduction 

This  Impact  Assessment  accompanies  the  Commission’s  communication  for  a  “strategy  for  the 
sustainable  development  of  European  aquaculture”.  It  assesses  and  compares  different  possible 
options for the framework under which public authorities 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 environmental and health 
protection). This document is without prejudice to the final content of the Strategy 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 each 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  operators.  Any  specific  legislative  proposals  that 
may  be  presented  subsequently  to  this  Strategy  for  sustainable  development  of  European 
aquaculture and that would normally require an impact assessment will be accompanied by separate 
specific impact assessments. 

This  initiative  is  referred  to  under  item  2008/MARE/012  in  the  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 spring 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  particular  to  an  earlier  Communication  of  2002  on  an 
European aquaculture strategy (COM(2002)511 final). 

The  Commission’s  minimum  standards  for  consultation  have  been  met.  The  consultation  phase 
lasted  practically  until  the  end  of  2007  and  was  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  –  website).  In  order  to  provide  guidance  and 
facilitate  the  contribution  from  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 written contributions continued to be received later. 

•  In  parallel  with  the  consultation  published  on  the  internet,  specific  consultation  meetings  were 
organised with representatives and members of each of the main stakeholders and civil society 

1 
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/governance/consultations/consultation_100507_en.htm. 

The consultation documents can be found at the following address: 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
groups, namely finfish producers, shellfish producers, the fish feed industry, NGOs, and social 
partners.  A  similar  invitation  for  a  specific  consultation  meeting  was  offered  to  the 
representatives  of  the  aquatic  food  processing  and  marketing  sector,  but  this  invitation  was 
declined. 

•  As a third step, the Commission organised a large stakeholder conference in Brussels on 15-16 
November  2007  in  order  to  discuss  the  main  challenges  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  exchange  on  this  initiative  was  conducted  in  the 
framework  of  the  Advisory  Committee  for  Fisheries  and  Aquaculture  (ACFA)  and  its  Working 
Group 2, which is specifically dedicated to aquaculture. 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  accompanied  by  a  number  of  events  on  aquaculture 
organised  by  the  European  Parliament  (Special  hearings  by  the  Intergroup  on  Sustainable 
Development in October 20074 and by the Committee on Fisheries in March 2008). The Council of 
Fisheries  Ministers  also  held  an  informal  lunchtime  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 International Aquaculture Conference 
(Brussels, September 2008).5 

1.3. 

General  overview  on  feedback  and  contributions  received  from  the  consultation 
exercise 

Participants at each of the specific stakeholder meetings welcomed this initiative and all expressed 
their satisfaction at being consulted. 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 discussion on each subject were left to the various parties concerned. 
Stakeholder  representatives  attending  these  meetings  were  also  invited  to  submit  their  views  in 
writing,  preferably  via  the  internet  consultation  process.  Depending  on  their  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  July,  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:  

– 

– 

2 
3 
4 
5 

Aquaculture producer organisations or businesses (14) 

Feed industry (4) 

See http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/meetings_events/events/archives/events_2007/conference_151107_en.htm. 
Minutes of the meetings are available at: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/governance/acfa/minutes_en.htm. 
See http://www.ebcd.org/MeetingsEPISD2007-2007.htm. 
See http://www.ebcd.org/. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

NGOs (4) 

Scientists or scientific bodies (9) 

Social partners (1) 

Public bodies or similar (11); at national level (3) and regional/local level (8) 

Regional interest groups (2) 

Others (1) 

The contributions received were all rather substantial, 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  terms  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, while ensuring animal health and welfare 

The prospects of a new area of domestication (new species, feed limitations) 

The  need  to  overcome  space  limitation  through  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 Opportunities 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  organisations  and  other  stakeholders,  and  the  debate 
centred on the main problems and challenges facing the sustainable development of aquaculture in 
Europe and in particular the role of the public authorities in this context. The Conference was also 
attended by representatives from several Commission DGs. 

There was quasi-consensus during the whole consultation process in favour of a Community-wide 
Strategy for the sustainable development of aquaculture. The Conference ended 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 playing field and striking a 
better balance between environmental conservation and development of the aquaculture business. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
1.4. 

Interservice Steering Group 

Following this consultation exercise, an Interservice 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  ENV,  SANCO,  RTD,  TRADE,  ENTR  and  the  Secretariat-General 
were invited to participate in this Group.  

The  evaluation  of  the  opportunities  and  challenges  for  European  aquaculture,  mainly  conducted 
through  the  broad  consultation  process  in  2007,  identified  a  wide  variety  of  different  bottlenecks 
individually  and  collectively  affecting  the  aquaculture  sector.  The  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 (on topics such as environmental issues, animal 
health issues, market issues, research and innovation, etc.). These working groups brought together 
representatives from the main DGs concerned, under the lead DG for the policy issue at stake, with 
the  task  of  providing  the  Steering  Group  with  input  on  the  respective  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 address these specific problems.  

The  working  groups  focused  on  action  that  may  fall  under  the  responsibility  of  the  public 
authorities  and  on  action  that  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 medium term (e.g. post-2012 EU financing policies and 
instruments), which would go well beyond this sector-specific initiative. Consequently, 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 assessment. Moreover, considering that a Communication on 
a Strategy is primarily designed to establish general 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  which  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  the  changes  to  the  strategy  which  have  resulted 
from  the  impact  assessment  work.  In  this  context,  it  should  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  further  justified.  The  sustainability  criteria  should  be  clarified.  The 
definition  and  presentation  of  the  options  should  be  improved  and  the  possible  actions  should  be 

EN 

7 

   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 fuller description of the evaluation of the 2002 strategy. The report 
also underscores the justification to refocus some of the strategic objectives compared to 2002, and 
reformulates  some  of  the  strategic  and  policy  objectives  (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  frameworks  adopted  by  the  Council  and 
providing  possible  support  to  measures  in  aquaculture  (“FIFG  and  EFF  regulations”)  (see  section 
2), notably through a better presentation of the possibilities that had been envisaged under Option 2 
(section  4  &  5.1).  The  actions  planned  under  option  2  have  been  incorporated  from  the  annexes 
directly in the main text (Section 5.2). Similarly, the numerous factors and drivers contributing to 
the situation (cf. section 2.5) are described in far more detail (by incorporating into the main body 
of this report, data from the annex of the earlier draft). The aim was to improve the readability of 
the report and to show a clear link between the specific problems identified, the possible measures 
envisaged  and  their  contribution  to  the  strategic  and  policy  objectives.  Further  elaboration  on 
overall quantitative estimates of impacts 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 making the criteria defining sustainability more explicit (monitoring 
indicators)  and  reworking  the  table  of  possible  measures  in  section  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 comments 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 more 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 regulated and managed in an environmentally 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.  Despite  numerous  assets, 
such as the high quality of aquaculture products, the high demand for aquatic food by EU citizens 
and top European research and technological innovation in this relatively new farming activity, the 
Community aquaculture sector faces 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  organisms  in  question  beyond  the  natural 
capacity  of  the  environment.  It  also  differs  from  capture  fisheries  by  virtue  of  the  fact  that  these 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
aquatic  organisms  remain  the  property  of  the  natural  or  legal  person  throughout  the  rearing  and 
cultivation stage, up to and including harvesting. 

The European Aquaculture is a very varied industry. While cultivation of aquatic plants and algae is 
still marginal in Europe, farming of aquatic animals 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, carp, 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  techniques:  from  fully  open 
systems  to  totally  closed  and  controlled  recirculation  systems,  and  from  extensive  to  highly 
intensive production on land, in lakes, in ponds fed by rivers or even groundwater, at sea in lagoons, 
or near the shore or offshore, etc. 

There are also a wide variety of types of enterprises, ranging from part-time subsistence activities 
among  rural  families  (in  particular  for  traditional  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.  polychaete  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 aquaculture 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 Report have been extracted from different sources 
and may be subject to minor variation. However, this does not change the global analysis of trends 
and the overall evaluation. 

At  global  level,  aquaculture  production  is  growing  more  rapidly  than  any  other  food  sector.  The 
contribution  of  world  aquaculture  to  global  supplies  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  observed  since  1990  on  fisheries  and  aquaculture  production  and  on 
per-capita consumption levels indicate 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  role  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: 

– 

6 
7 

8 

“Aquaculture  2020  –  Transcending  the  Barriers  –  as  long  as…”  (Foresight  analysis,  The 
Research Council of Norway, 2005)8 

See http://www.fao.org/fishery/factsheets/en. 
J.  Nierentz:  Overview  of  production  and  trade  –  the  role  of  aquaculture  fish  supply;  in  the  proceedings  of 
“FAO Global Trade Conference on Aquaculture”, China, May 2007. 
See: http://www.forskningsradet.no/CSStorage/Flex_attachment/Aquaculture_2020_eng.pdf. 

EN 

9 

   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 

Additional 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

s
e
n
n
o
t
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Minimum 
supply gap 

Maximum 
supply gap  

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

Source: JRC prospective analysis 

Total fish production in Europe is dominated by capture fisheries, and is on the decline. In 2004, the 
combined  production  from  capture  fisheries  and  aquaculture  was  7.3  millions  tonnes  (live  weight 
equivalent). The average production for 2002-2004 was 16% lower than 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 declining capture fisheries, 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 
10 

11 

See: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a1454e/a1454e00.pdf , pp. 19-26. 
See: http://www.inra.fr/coordination_piscicole/content/download/3282/30855/version/1/file/prospective.pdf;  
The English version: Scenarios for French fish farming to 2021: 
http://www.inra.fr/coordination_piscicole/content/download/3350/31214/version/1/file/prospective_anglais.pdf
. 

  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 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure: European fish production  
(aquaculture & capture fisheries – live fish equivalent – EU-25) 

Aquaculture

Fisheries

)
t
h
g
i
e
w
e
v
i
l
(
s
e
n
n
o
t

f
o
s
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Source: JRC prospective analysis, based on Eurostat 2007 

On the other hand, average per-capita consumption in Europe has risen substantially 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 products remain limited (about 67 000 tonnes “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 (see 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  majority  of  enterprises  are 
SMEs, although a small number of larger enterprises do play a significant role in some specific sub-
sectors, particularly the salmon and sea bass/sea bream industries. More facts 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  production  sites  in  most 
regions of the EU and they contribute to employment and wealth in every part of Europe, be they 
coastal  areas  (shellfish  and  marine  fish  farming)  or  inland  areas  (freshwater  aquaculture).  The 

12 

13 
14 

According  to  their  Operational  Programmes  for  the  European  Fisheries  Fund,  a  number  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. 
Source: Eurostat EU-27 (2005). 
Source: AND International; see Annex I. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
aquaculture industry contributes to the development of regions, be they peripheral and rural areas or 
more urbanised zones (e.g. with the development of closed recirculation systems).  

The aquaculture sector also makes an active contribution 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  player  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  Communication  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  employment,  being  able  to  cope  with  the  main 
problems identified while ensuring health and environmental 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  initiatives  that  have  been  taken  to  support  this 
sector. The Union had already a vast legal armoury on aquaculture, and activities to enhance the 
legal framework were progressing. However, there was 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 that 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 particular 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 European Parliament on the Commission proposal tabled earlier in 2002 
for a reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (COM(2002)185 final), and particularly its possible 
consequences on jobs losses in the fisheries sector. 

The strategy recognised that the employment objective was ambitious and foresaw an increase of 
8000 to 10000 Full Time Equivalent jobs in aquaculture 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 aquaculture in freshwater and its contribution to rural development”; November 
2007. See: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/meetings_events/events/archives/events_2007/151107/varadi.pdf. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
– 

– 

– 

– 

Increasing the European Union’s aquaculture production growth rate to 4% per year.  

Solving the conflicts for space that were hindering the development of aquaculture in 
some areas. 

Promoting market development.  

Improving governance in the aquaculture sector. 

To  address  the  main  problems  and  challenges  for  this  sector,  this  strategy  proposed  a number  of 
measures  to  be  taken  at  different  levels  by  different  parties:  the  Community,  Member  States  and 
also economic operators. 

2.4.2.  Evaluation of the “2002 Aquaculture 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  expanded in this report, one of the prime weaknesses of this strategy 
may  have  been  in  defining  social  and  economic  growth  targets  at  EU  level  for  a  relatively  new 
economic sector with a variety of sub-sectors that was largely dependent on a fast changing market 
environment and a legal and administrative framework that relied on actions and decisions falling 
primarily  within  the  responsibility  of  national  or  regional  public  authorities,  and  on  decisions  of 
economic operators, including consumers. 

Main deliverables 

At  the  beginning  of  2007,  a  simplified  mid-term  assessment  of  the  strategy  allowed  to  draw  the 
following main conclusions. 

The actions identified in the 2002 Strategy as falling under EU responsibility had been launched. 
Initiatives of a legislative and financial nature that were put forward and in some cases implemented 
consisted of:  

– 

amending the Financial Instrument for Fisheries  Guidance (FIFG) in 2004  and providing 
additional  support  measures  for  a  sustainable  aquaculture  sector.  The  FIFG  thus  allowed 
Member States to support a number of measures in line with the objectives of the Strategy, 
not only towards more production where there were good market prospects (e.g. measures 
to  support  investment  or  innovation  in  new  aquatic  species  or  species  with  interesting 
market prospects), but also towards increased environmental protection (e.g. development 
of  techniques  which  substantially  reduced  environmental  impacts;  adhesion  to  Eco-
Management  and  Audit  System),  plus  measures  relating  to  public  health  issues 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
(particularly in the shellfish sector in the case of toxic algal blooms) and projects promoted 
by the professional organisations, notably small-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-environmental measures and animal health);  

establishing  EU  rules  to  prevent  risks  to  the  environment  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 disease 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 Framework 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 coastal 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 further specific legislation (notably 
in the case of GM fish or the risks of escape in aquaculture). 

Contribution of theses deliverables to the objectives 

The  above  deliverables  all  made  a  significant  contribution  to  two  of  the  strategy’s  objectives, 
namely: 

– 

– 

guaranteeing the availability of products that 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 additional or reviewed legislative 
measures.  The  FIFG  provided  financial  support  for  priority  measures  in  aquaculture  geared  to 
environmental protection, animal health and welfare, consumer protection, as well as investment in 
innovation  and  production  (notably  for  new  species  or  production  of  species  with  good  market 
prospects).  Eligibility  for  FIFG  support  was  to  last  until  the  end  of  2008.  Moreover,  FIFG-
supported research projects measures would only deliver several years after the financial framework 
had been put in place. 

16 
17 
18 
19 
20 

Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006. 
Regulation (EC) No 708/2007. 
Regulation (EC) No 834/2007. 
Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and Directive 2004/28/EC. 
Directive 2006/88/EC. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
As far as the 2002 objective of creating additional 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 evolution of the sector at the EU level, the Commission presented proposals for 
improved  monitoring  of  indicators  in  the  aquaculture  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,  monitoring  of  these  data  demonstrated  that  the 
prospects for average annual total growth of 4% in Community aquaculture production - identified 
as a necessary condition to increase the total number of jobs in this sector - had not materialised. At 
the  same  time,  worldwide  aquaculture  production  continued  to  grow  at  a  rate  of  close  to  7-9%, 
similar to the annual growth already observed 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 produced) 

x
e
d
n
I

250

200

150

100

50

0

EU-27 production

Global production

5
9
9
1

6
9
9
1

7
9
9
1

8
9
9
1

9
9
9
1

0
0
0
2

1
0
0
2

2
0
0
2

3
0
0
2

4
0
0
2

5
0
0
2

This general stagnation of the overall EU production is not however reflected evenly across all the 
main aquaculture subsectors and in all Member States. Production of marine finfish species (notably 
sea  bass  and  sea  bream  in  some  Mediterranean  countries,)  continued  to  increase  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, designed to act as a catalyst for 
investment  and  start-up  and  to  encourage  European  investors,  has  certainly  stimulated  growth  in 
production,  particularly  in  sea  bass  and  sea  bream.  However,  as  required  with  Community  funds, 
grants of this kind are only made available where there are good market prospects and should not be 
allocated where there is a threat of overproduction. Moreover, many of the measures eligible under 
the  FIFG  are  for  non-production  support  (i.e.  to  increase  environmental  protection,  to  develop 
organic  production,  to  improve  consumer  protection,  etc.)  and  do  not  necessarily  convert  into 
changes in the volume of production. 

21 

22 
23 

Employment in the fisheries sector: current situation (FISH/2004/4); 
See http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/studies/employment_study_2006.pdf. 
COM(2006)864 final and COM(2007)196 final. 
According  to  recent  communication  from  the  FAO  (in  “fish-farmer”  magazine;  Nov/Dec  2008),  there  are 
already signs that the rapid growth in the sector at global level is also starting to slow down (6% a year from 
2004-2006). 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
As a result of this overall stagnation, total EU aquaculture production 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 terms of production growth prospects and job creation would not be 
achieved:  overall  EU  aquaculture  production  does  not  benefit  from  the  growth  opportunities  and 
economic prospects of this sector at a global level. 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 consultation exercise in 2007 on 
the  opportunities  and  challenges  of  European  aquaculture.  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  overview of the outcome  of this 
consultation exercise. 

To sum up, the Community aquaculture 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  world,  in  terms  of  both  social  and  environmental 
impacts, but combined with other drivers, particularly economic and market ones, it makes it more 
difficult to compete price-wise with third-country producers (especially in Asia and South America 
where  aquaculture  production  growth  is  the  highest  in  the  world).  The  consultation  process 
emphasised  the  need  to  unlock  the  potential  of  European  aquaculture  and  to  make  full  use  of  its 
assets  and  innovative  capacity.  Farmers  may  leave  the  business  if  it  is  no  longer  sufficiently 
profitable  or  if  it  is  not  given  due  recognition  of  its  values,  notably  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 faces with other economic 
developments  or  societal  demands.  There  is  generally  a  need  for  better  coordination  of  existing 
policies and for some challenges to be dealt with at EU, national and local levels.  

As  regard  issues  that  are  within  the  remits  and  responsibilities  of  public  authorities,  the  various 
branches or sub-sectors of the Community aquaculture 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 environment established at 
national or local level. 

In addition to the Community financial support framework (FIFG and EFF), which allows Member 
States  to  contribute  to  a  number  of  policy  objectives regarding  aquaculture,  as referred  to  earlier, 
there are many other factors and policies that influence the development of aquaculture in the EU. 
Although  some  are  inherently  interdisciplinary  or  cross-cutting  in  nature,  these  main  factors  and 
drivers are as follows: 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
2.5.1.  The aquaculture industry in the EU needs to prove it is environmentally sustainable, while 

also being highly dependent on the availability 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  provisions  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  negative  impact  on  the  environment,  and  to  ensure  a  level 
playing field in the EU regarding authorisation given in Member States for such use. 

Addressing  the  environmental  effects  of  aquaculture  such  as  eutrophication,  on-growing  of  wild-
caught fish (tuna, eels), risks created 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  experience  to  be  gained  and 
knowledge  to  be  improved  to  address  specific  environmental  problems  and  to  reduce  the 
environmental  impact  of  aquaculture  or  to  enhance  the  basis  of  an  ecosystem  approach.  Major 
environmental impacts of aquaculture have been associated 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 and organic enrichment of recipient waters resulting in the build-
up of anoxic sediments, changes in benthic communities and eutrophication. However, the effects 
of fish farm effluents have been rather extensively 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  environmental  impact  assessments,  studied  the  effects  of  fish 
farming in the Mediterranean and found that siting cages at a reasonable 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 conservation of this priority marine natural habitat. 

Another  environmental  impact  often  mentioned  in  relation  to  aquaculture  is  escaped  fish.  There 
have  been  many  research  projects  carried  out  on  the  potential  impact  (interbreeding  with  wild 
population; spread of diseases; competition for 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  monitoring  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 limiting 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 
25 

26 
27 

28 
29 

30 

31 

COM(2006)154 final. 
Institute  of  Aquaculture,  Stirling  University,  UK:  “response  to  the  EU  consultation  document  on  the 
opportunities for the development of Community aquaculture”. 
See http://www.ecasa.org.uk/. 
See,  for  example,  FP6  research  projects  such  as  GENIMPACT  (genetic  impact  of  aquaculture  on  native 
populations) or IMPASSE (invasive alien species in aquaculture). 
http://www.euraquaculture.info/files/consensus_brochure_web.pdf. 
See,  for  example,  the  code  of  conduct  developed  by  the  Federation  of  European  Aquaculture  Producers 
(FEAP) (http://www.aquamedia.org). 
See, for  example,  “Guides for  sustainable development  of  Mediterranean  aquaculture –  interactions between 
aquaculture and environment”; BIOGES & IUCN workshop – Las Palmas, 26-28 October 2006. 
See,  for  example,  the  “Association  of  Scottish  shellfish  growers  Code  of  Good  practice”  -  Oct  2005;  or  the 
“Code of Good practice for Scottish Finfish aquaculture”- Jan 2006. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Extensive  aquaculture  is  also  usually  seen  as  an  environmentally  friendly  way  of  producing  fish, 
especially  with  regard  to  its  role  in  wetlands  and  biodiversity  conservation.  However,  extensive 
finfish or shellfish aquaculture can be subject to intense predation 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  point  while  sea  water  passes  through  cages.  Technologies  for 
cleaning  water  (removing  wastes  and  contaminants)  are  already  available,  but  the  further 
development of new technologies to decrease effluent is also 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  ingredients  (e.g.  unsaturated  fatty  acids),  but  farmed 
carnivorous  fish  convert  manufactured  feed  into  edible  flesh  with  maximum  efficiency.  Farmed 
salmon convert approximately 1.2 kg of feed into 1 kg of fish, while, on a comparable basis, poultry 
converts between 3 to 5 kg of feed into 1 kg of flesh and pigs require 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 approach)  and  aquaculture  may  not 
always be seen as an equal player with other industries, including 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 environmental law may create additional obstacles or administrative burdens 
for  the  aquaculture  industry.  On  organic  discharge  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 example, 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 excessive 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, etc.), it is an increasing concern 
for most aquaculture sectors, especially in view of the possible consequences of global warming. As 
such,  fish  producers  have  a  strong  interest  in  protecting  and  managing  the  water  on  which  their 
activity  depends.  This  is  even  more  the  case  for  shellfish  producers,  who  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 cause severe economic damage (direct public health threats and also 
subsequent  loss  of  image  among  consumers).  Shellfish  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  quality  of  shellfish  waters  has 
been  instrumental  to  shellfish  producers  in  having  Member  States  take  the  necessary  measures  to 

32 
33 

Directive 79/409/EEC. 
CONSENSUS project – see http://www.euraquaculture.info/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1. 

EN 

18 

   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 Framework Directive and the Marine Strategy Directive 
should be instrumental in ensuring high quality water. However, the 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  growing  areas,  thus  triggering  significant  concern 
among producers about their future prospects. 

2.5.2.  The aquaculture industry must produce 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 fully 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 inherent in the biology of 
these  groups  of  animals  and  in  the  production  methods.  However,  all  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  potential  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  unforeseeable  toxic  algal  blooms.  To  guarantee  a  high  level  of 
consumer  protection,  therefore,  the  competent  authorities  have  an  important  responsibility  for 
addressing such risks, not only by means of preventive measures and requirements to protect water 
quality,  but  also  through  surveillance  and  market  prohibition  where  necessary.  However,  closing 
market  access  to  products  originating  from  a  given  shellfish  growing  area  on  the  grounds  of 
potential  risks  to  consumers  has  significant  economic  consequences  on  the  shellfish  business. 
Scientifically  solid  identification  and  characterisation  of  these  risks  is  therefore  required,  as  is  a 
level playing field.  

Regarding  microbiological  risks,  some  producer  organisations  have  developed  risk  assessment 
models and contingency plans to deal 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  molluscs  have  led  to  an  increasing  number  of  “false 
positives”,  with  significant  subsequent  economic  losses,  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 safety of feed additives or preventing contaminants, helps to give 
full guarantees to consumers by addressing risks all along the food chain. However, this may create 
economic disincentives or the absence of a level playing field if some of these restrictions are not, 
and cannot be made compulsory outside the EU (e.g. some rules on feeding fish with fish products 
are  not  applied  outside  the  EU,  but  the  aquaculture  products  derived  from  fish  fed  under  these 
different conditions can enter the EU market). 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
2.5.3.  The  aquaculture  industry  in  the  EU  must  comply  with  strict  Community  rules  on  animal 

health, while ensuring a high level of animal welfare. 

Optimal health in farmed animals (disease and parasite 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  intrinsically  linked  to  business  performance.  Guaranteeing  the  welfare  of 
farmed fish also contributes to a better image for the aquaculture industry. Progress continues to be 
made  and  Community  research  programmes  play  an  important  role  in  numerous  areas,  such  as 
seafood quality and safety, welfare of aquaculture animals, and disease control.34 

The  legislative  framework  for  disease  control  in  aquatic  animals  was  subject  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 animal was generally welcomed by the industry, but specific problems 
had  arisen  for  some  specific  provisions  because  of  the  possible  economic  and  operational 
consequences for given business sectors. 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 revise and update Community legislation on animal health in aquaculture 
to bring it into line with new situations and scientific 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 diseases 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 framework 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 are neither appropriate nor necessarily 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  transport  provides  that  animals  should  be  fed  during  transport, 
however  feeding  fish  prior  to  or  during  transport  quickly  leads  to  poor  welfare  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 consultation process that some training courses on 
animal welfare, as required for drivers, do not address 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, and 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  reducing  fish  mortalities  while  also  lessening  the  need  for  drugs. 
However, health problems continue to be a real challenge for sustainable aquaculture, because of an 
insufficient  science  base  and  the lack  of  veterinary  medicinal  products  authorised  for  use  in  a 
given fish species (notably for high 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 present a risk to consumers.  

34 

35 

See, for example, FP6 Research projects such as WEALTH (Welfare and health in sustainable aquaculture), 
AQUAFIRST (genetic and genomic approaches for stress and disease resistance), EUROCARP (disease and 
stress-resistant  carp),  PATHMEDA  (pathogens  and  parasites  in  Mediterranean  aquaculture),  PIMAQUABI 
(pathogens and immune responses of molluscs). 
Directive 2006/88/EC. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
                                                 
As  announced  in  the  2002  Strategy,  the  veterinary  pharmaceutical  legislation  was  reviewed  in 
2004,36 but this has only partly allowed  the problem of insufficiency  of veterinary medicines that 
can be used by the animal heath professionals to be addressed. Member States also set up a specific 
task force to deal with this issue, with a specific recommendation in 2007 to address this issue.37 
The regulatory framework for setting maximum residue limits (MRLs) of active substances in food 
is currently also under review.38  

Part of the problem of the unavailability of veterinary medicines is down to economics, as the costs 
of developing and marketing a specific drug for a given disease and a given fish species may not be 
profitable for a pharmaceutical company. But the consultation exercise also highlighted the fact that 
aquaculture  producers  and  their  professional  organisations,  and  even  some  parts  of  the  animal 
health  professional  sector,  generally  lacked  sufficient  knowledge  of  existing  possibilities.  On  the 
other hand, nor did a number of competent 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  (notably  at  MS  level)  may  therefore  make  for 
additional obstacles. 

2.5.4.  The EU aquaculture industry has problems with access to space and water. 

The European natural environment provides very suitable conditions for growing a number of high 
value aquaculture species. However, the increasing competition for space is a major challenge for 
the further development of freshwater fish farming and aquaculture production sites in coastal areas. 
Public  acceptance  of  aquaculture  development  in  an  area  is  often  inversely  proportional  to  the 
population  density  and  especially  the  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, agriculture, 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  been  developed  for  some  years  now  and  these 
interesting developments may pave the way for further 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  while  the  needs  of  the  local  population  and  the 
protection and conservation requirements of the marine environment have to be respected. Moving 
aquaculture offshore is also seen as a possible way to avoid the conflict for space in coastal areas 
and  reduce  the  environmental  impact,  but  the  promises  of  such  technology  will  only  be  fulfilled 
through further research and technological improvement39 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 and the lack of guidance and reliable data for the 
possible location of an economic activity and its continuity over time (because of the need to renew 

36 
37 
38 

39 

Directive 2001/82/EC as amended by Directive 2004/28/EC. 
http://www.hma.eu/203.html http://www.hma.eu/uploads/media/TF_Report_Availability_Vet_Medicines.pdf. 
Cf. COM(2007)194 and its impact assessment, with the special focus on availability of veterinary medicines 
SEC(2007)484 & SEC(2007)485. 
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 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
licences)  creates  uncertainty  for  investors,  increases  the  risk  of  conflicts  and  means  lost 
opportunities to benefit from synergy  between aquaculture activities and protection 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  positively  or  negatively.  In  this  context,  the 
capacity of the sector to develop and be competitive on the EU and international markets depends 
on its ability to be cost-effective and to offer products 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  aquaculture  and  possible  demarcation  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 sector; these are illustrated in the 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 origin. 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 increased from approximately 30 000 to 67 000 tonnes 
over the same period). While farmed salmon accounts for most of this increase 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. Moreover, consumer awareness 
on  these  new  imported  products  and  their  production  methods  (from  a  health  or  environmental 
viewpoint in particular) is very limited. Thus, the price 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 lesser extent the sea bass and sea bream sector, the 
EU aquaculture industry is still largely dominated by SMEs. The total 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 vertical integration (in particular hatcheries 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  exclusively  dominated  by  independent  SMEs,  probably  due  to  the  fact  that 
these firms may have been established for a fairly long period, and that large-scale economies may 
not be as significant for the mass production of farmed marine fish. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
The aquaculture production industry is still very fragmented and isolated from the other players in 
the  marketing  chain.  This  structure  has  also  major  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  relatively  unknown  sector  to 
investors,  like  any  new  developing  industry,  early  business  failures  may  have  given  it  a  poor 
reputation in some Member States. Aquaculture also has a long production cycle (it generally takes 
at least 2-3 years to produce fish of marketable size), which means a significant time lag between a 
loan being taken out for site development and sufficient product sales to start making repayments.  

In  addition,  a  significant  proportion  of  the  assets  of  a  traditional  aquaculture  enterprise  lie  in  the 
value  of  the  stock,  which  makes  any  disease  or  abnormal  mortality  in  the  fish  stock  a  significant 
risk  to  the  economic  viability  of  an  enterprise.  The  long  production  cycles  also  make  it  more 
difficult  for  producers  to  cope  with  market  price  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  planned  production).  The  present  credit  crunch  and 
financial crisis may certainly make these problems worse in the short and medium term. 

Moreover, as for most SMEs, aquaculture SMEs have great difficulty in accessing markets, not only 
international or fast growing ones, but also large markets to which access is largely controlled by a 
very  small  number  of  powerful  supermarket  chains,  especially  where  aquaculture  producer 
organisations  are  not  sufficiently  established  or  efficient.  Difficulties  accessing  the  requisite 
information,  complicated  administrative  procedures  impossible  to  cope  with  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 environmental protection 
costs in third countries (notably in South America or Asia) have already been mentioned. Similarly, 
high  investment  technologies  and  power-consuming  production  systems  (e.g.  indoor  recirculation 
systems) push up overall production costs.  

Shellfish  farming  has  higher  labour  force  needs  than  finfish  farming.  However,  labour  costs  in 
finfish  farming  only  make  up  about  10%  of  production  costs,  most  of  the  operating  costs  being 
linked  to  feed  (and  depreciation  of  high  investment  production  systems  such  as  indoor  farming 
systems) (see Table 8 in Annex I). 

Regarding  feed,  the  main  aquaculture  species  wanted  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 are 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 comparison with other types of feed raw material is a major factor 
influencing  the  final  choice  of  animal  feed  manufacturers.  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. However, the increasing importance of omega 3 fatty acids 
content  in  aquatic  food,  which  depend  on  the  nutritional  value  of  the  feed  given  to  the  farmed 
animals, may also lead to an increase in the use of fish oil in this latter group of species. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
In view of its important contribution to the image of aquaculture products, the fishmeal and fish oil 
producing  industry  is  currently  developing  measures  to  demonstrate  that  their  products  are 
sustainable and originate from well and sustainably managed capture fisheries. 

In addition, as FMFO are of limited availability, significant progress has been made in developing 
new feeding sources, new forms of proteins and omega-3 fatty acids, 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  because  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 drives 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 marine oil and meal, but, in 
the light of its particular importance to the ecosystem, views differ as to whether it can provide a 
significant  fraction  of  feeding  material  in  the  future.  Vegetable  protein  concentrates  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  impacts  (potentially  increased  effluents  from  fish  farms).  As 
regards the increasing share of GM plant protein on the market, consumer information and choices 
will be the drivers of whether the aquaculture industry and the fish 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  aquaculture  industry  needs 
significant additional knowledge. The same goes for farming and production techniques. The need 
for continued research and technological development is crucial for the competitiveness of the EU 
industry, particularly in the context of competition with other parts 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 development and putting innovation 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  world  leadership,  to  provide  a  strategic  vision  and  to 
define  priorities  for  the  European  aquaculture  sector  with  regard  to  research  and  technological 
development. 

Community research programmes have been instrumental in putting EU aquaculture 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 weaknesses that stopped the sector from 
maximising the benefits, these being insufficient  coordination of national and Community efforts, 
insufficient involvement of economic operators in the setting of research priorities 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,  aquaculture  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 organised and represented at EU level, which allows it to dialogue 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
with  the  Community  administration.  The  Advisory  Committee  for  Fisheries  and  Aquaculture 
(ACFA), and in particular its working group II on aquaculture, has been a useful consultation body, 
but  further  improvements  to  consultation  may  be  achieved  and  the  Commission  services  are 
currently looking at how 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  varied  dimensions  of  the  aquaculture  industry,  and 
depending also on the administrative organisation of the Member States, 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  justify  a  NIMBY  (“Not  In  My  Back  Yard”)  policy  at 
regional or local level. During the consultation process, some producers claimed that some Member 
States require more than 20 different 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  consultation  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  Community  and  Member  States  public  authorities,  and 
other  public  administrations  at  regional  and  local  level.  The  political  leadership  embodied  in  a 
strategy and the concrete measures identified to promote the sustainable development of European 
aquaculture make this initiative of high interest 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 adaptable 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  animals)  and  depending  on  crucial  external  factors 
such as the quality of the water needed or climatic conditions. 

•  Aquaculture-related  industries  include  technology  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 material for feed (fishmeal and fish oil, feed of plants origin) 
is  available  on  the  global  market,  the  manufacturing  of  formulated  fish  feed  is  generally  more 
regional  and  the  fish  feed  industry  usually  develops  close  to  the  major  aquaculture  production 
areas. 

•  The  final  consumers  and  all  European  citizens  (including  NGOs  and  other  associations 
representing  civil  society)  have  a  legitimate  interest  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 marketing chain (wholesalers, importers and processors 
of  fish  and  other  aquatic  food  products)  are  all  important  shapers  of  the  market.  Retailers, 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
especially  supermarkets,  are  playing  an  increasing  role  in  establishing  the  characteristics  and 
prices  of  the  aquatic  food  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  demand  for  aquatic  food, 
aquaculture should first be seen as a necessary complement to capture 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  and  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  means  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  the  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,  equitable  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  specific  EU  support  should  be  provided  to  aquaculture  from  the 
European Fisheries Fund (Regulation (EC) No 1168/2006). 

•  Aquaculture  is  about  farming  animals  with  the  aim  of  producing  food:  the  development  of 
aquaculture  therefore  not  only  to  meet  the  objective  of  ensuring  a  high  level  of  protection  of 
health and welfare of farmed animals (cf. Article 37 of the Treaty), it also has 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 standards (cf. Articles 152 -153 the Treaty). 

•  The EU aims to ensure a high level of protection of the environment. Aquaculture is about the 
use  of  high  quality  natural  resources,  primarily  water:  it  has  to  be  sustainable  and  compatible 
with these high levels of environmental protection (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, aquaculture 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 marine organisms: the development of aquaculture 
at sea and in coastal areas has to be on an equal footing with other activities, such as fishing, and 
also be seen in the context of the development of an integrated European maritime policy. 

EN 

26 

   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 described in previous sections 
also  have  a  very  clear  dimension  of  subsidiarity.  The  development  of  aquaculture  also 
fundamentally  depends  on  the  priorities  and  decisions  taken  at  national  and/or  regional  level,  in 
accordance  with  the  principle  of  subsidiarity.  Issues  such  as  setting  stricter  environmental  rules, 
access to water and space, allocation or renewal of licences to operate an aquaculture farm remain 
fully  within  the  remit  of  national  and  local  authorities.  Their  standpoint  and  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 

27 

   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 political impetus and leadership at EU level, and 
thus to help unlock the potential for the sustainable 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 farming industry can make optimum use of its innovative capacities 
and  further  develop  its  contribution  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 the public authorities. 

Given  the  primary  role  of  entrepreneurs  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– notably licensing for production and access to space 
and water – the objective of this strategy is not to provide the aquaculture 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 gained 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  the  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, conservation and management of natural resources and public health. 

In view of the various challenges and problems facing the European aquaculture sector, as outlined 
in  the  previous  sections,  these  strategic  objectives  should  be  met  through  a  number  of  general 
policy-orientated objectives, in particular by: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

40 

giving the highest priority to research 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;  

See http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st10/st10917.en06.pdf. 

EN 

28 

   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  industry,  through  securing  animal  health  and  animal 
welfare, addressing the need for specific veterinary medicines and providing high quality 
and sustainable feeding-stuffs for fish; 

ensuring consumer health protection and recognising the health benefits of aquatic food;  

improving  governance  in  the  design  and  implementation  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 relate to ongoing measures, some to new (mainly non-legislative) initiatives 
and some to medium-term initiatives, such as the 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 these 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 measures will be monitored, in particular within the framework of 
the  Advisory  Committee  for  Fisheries  and  Aquaculture,  which  provides  a  forum  for  regular 
consultation of all stakeholders. Monitoring will also cover the actual evolution of the aquaculture 
sector  (mainly  by  way  of  the  indicators  established  in  2008  within  the  new  instruments  on 
aquaculture statistics and data collection in the fisheries and aquaculture sector; see also chapter 7). 

More specifically, the economic dimension  of  the  sustainable  development of aquaculture will be 
monitored  by  statistical  production  indicators  (in  terms  of  both  the  volume  and  the  value  of 
aquaculture  production)  and  by  the  growth  of  this  production  vis-à-vis  global  production  and  its 
importance in terms of markets and trade. 

The  social  dimension  of  aquaculture  can  be  monitored  through  the  level  of  employment  in  the 
sector, and through business structure indicators of aquaculture sub-sectors, notably in terms of the 
social roles of SMEs and the role of aquaculture in structuring coastal and rural areas. However, the 
collection  of  information  on  these  indicators  is  primarily  a  national  concern,  and  it  needs  to  be 
recalled in this context that, in 2008, the Council did not include requirements for collecting 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 (Regulation (EC) No 2008/199). 

Finally, as regards the environmental  sustainability of  aquaculture,  Member States have  to  ensure 
that  all  appropriate  legislation  is  complied  with,  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 aquaculture in wetland conservation. 

EN 

29 

   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 challenges for the development of EU aquaculture cover 
a broad range of areas, this analysis does not scrutinise every specific option for measures to tackle 
each  specific  problem.  It  looks  instead  at  the  best  approach  for  achieving  the  general  policy 
objective. In addition,  any  individual  legislative action  that  may  be identified under  this initiative 
would  be  subject  to  an  own  impact  assessment  as  appropriate  if  subsequently  taken  by  the 
Commission. 

Option 1: Status quo (baseline option) 

This option implies continuing with the current situation. This would 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 other words, no new integrated initiative 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 initiative 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  Strategy  would  provide  a  general  vision  on  the 
prospects  for  this  sector  and  set  out  the  main  principles  and  updated  strategic  objectives.  In 
providing  leadership  in  favour  of  the  sustainable  development  of  this  industry,  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  Strategy  for  Community  aquaculture  would  serve  as  a  basis  for  a 
continued  debate  with  the  other  European  institutions  and  the  main  players  concerned  from  civil 
society.  Endorsement  of  these  principles  and  objectives  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 existing 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  under  section  3  and  based  on  the  evaluation  of  the 
2002 strategy. It would also include action to be taken by the public authorities in different fields to 
address  both  the  bottlenecks  highlighted  during  the  2007  consultation  process  and  the  general 
challenges  that  EU  aquaculture  may  continue  to  face.  In  envisaging  also  some  possible  lines  for 
future  orientation  of  Community  instruments,  this  option  would  allow  sparking  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 Strategy along the lines of sub-option 2.2, but 
include a parallel  legislative  proposal to amend the “aquaculture-related" aspects of the European 
Fisheries  Fund,  with  the  view  to  refocus  and  reprioritise  the  different  possibilities  to  support 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
measures in the aquaculture sector to give it more leverage in one or the other of the 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  necessary  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  (addressing  only  capture  fisheries)  and  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  measures  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 anticipate what type of progress could be achieved over 
the long run at EU and Member State level, but the main impact of option 1 would be to lessen the 
pace  of  measures  conducive  to  aquaculture  development,  and  probably  an  increased  risk  of 
divergent approaches across Member 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 coordinating existing policies; 

gaps not properly addressed by established or planned measures; and 

need across the board for improved governance 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  bottlenecks,  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 considering 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 

31 

   EN 

 
This “inaction” may represent a missed political opportunity – or even a political 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  stakeholders  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,  including  between  the  Commission‘s  various  Directorates-
General with responsibility in this area. It could even give the false impression 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 develops – or not. This alone is sufficient justification for defining a 
common vision for the sustainable development of EU aquaculture. Developing 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 (cf. Section 2). This would make for a coherent 
approach, adapted to new and developing circumstances, 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  subsidiarity  often  prevails.  The  main  added  value  of 
this option is to be found therefore in the political signal European Commission would be sending 
out  to  the  other  European  institutions,  to  the  industry  and  to  the  general  public  at  large,  namely, 
recognising the increasing importance of the aquaculture 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-territorial importance of this sector. 

In the light of experience with the 2002 Strategy and its 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 Strategy, was not regarded as right and has not be retained. This was 
not  either  called  for  during  the  consultation  process.  Indeed,  aquaculture  development  also 
fundamentally  depends  on  the  priorities  and  decisions  taken  at  national  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  authorities,  and  their  stance  is  crucial  as  regards  the 
economic  prospects  for  the  overall  aquaculture  production  at  EU  level.  Moreover,  the  economic 
operators  themselves  have  the  prime  role  to  play  in  the  actual  development  of  this  industry,  and 
hence  on  trends  in  terms  of  aquaculture  production  in  the  EU  or  competitiveness.  Business 
structures  and  employment  cannot  be  dictated  by  EU  public  authorities  alone  within  such  a 
Strategy. For all these reasons, sub-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 possibilities 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 with 2002, the general aim of 
amending the EFF would be to review those provisions that have not sufficiently 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 

32 

   EN 

 
The rapid growth of seabass and seabream aquaculture 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  financial  support  instrument 
specifically to review some of its provisions that may benefit the aquaculture 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 regard, the following additional considerations were 
made during this assessment:  

– 

– 

– 

The  use  of  the  EU  financing  available  for  projects  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 needed 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 possible 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  evaluation  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 Fisheries 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,  namely,  formulating  national  strategic  plans  and 
operational  programmes.  At  such  an  early  stage,  it  was  not  appropriate  to  change  the 
conditions of the EFF. As a result, the “EFF aspects” of the broad stakeholder consultation 
exercise  conducted  in  2007  on  EU  aquaculture  (see  Section  1.2)  focused  mainly  on  the 
“governance aspects” of this first implementation 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 support 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 without 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  the  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 Commission initiative in the 
much  wider  and  urgent  context  of  addressing  the  economic  crisis  in  all  industrial  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 strategic 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 potential in the light of both their assets and 
their  constraints.  It  identifies  also  possible  action  by  the  public  authorities  to  address  certain 
bottlenecks highlighted during the consultation and evaluation process. 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
Option 2 is expected to have a significant 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 and national action to establish the right framework conditions for 
aquaculture to fully develop its potential. By increasing the level of coordination and governance at 
EU and national level, by providing leadership, by recognising the value of EU aquaculture and by 
restoring  confidence  in  the  outlook  for  the  aquaculture  industry,  Option  2  would  give  substantial 
added value to Community action, particularly in the following areas: 

The cross-border dimension of the remaining 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 cross-border dimension. Another example concerns 
market tools (e.g. labels) and recognition of the high 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 externalities 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,  there is a strong case, for  developing inter-linkages  between  national 
policies  and  coordinating  their  approaches  to  generate  spill-over  and  synergy.  Action  taken  by 
national public authorities in favour of – or against – their own aquaculture business has an impact 
on other countries’ aquaculture development and affects the EU’s internal and external markets. In 
such  cases,  purely  regional  and  national  views  or  strategies  –  or  simply  the  absence  of  sufficient 
consideration  of  this  sector  by  the  public  authorities  –  would  be  suboptimal:  cross-border 
externalities and other prospects for the EU aquaculture business as a whole (and associated sectors, 
such as the fish feed industry or the technology-providing industry) would be largely overlooked. 
Aquaculture  development  is  essentially  interdisciplinary,  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 administrative burden and increased 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  allocation  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  jurisdiction.  However,  as  stated  above,  Community  leadership  in 
promoting  aquaculture  may  have  significant  leverage  effects  and  can  go  a  long  way  to  unlocking 
such bottlenecks. Other useful action could consist 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.  The  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 

34 

   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  sustainable  growth,  the  additional  content  of  Option  3  is 
basically to set production targets at Community level. 

Concerning  the  objective  to  increase  competitiveness,  many  areas  relevant  to  aquaculture 
development are mainly in the remit of the Member States, or even depend on regional and local 
authorities  (e.g.  space  allocation  and  spatial  planning,  licensing  and  setting  of  associated 
requirements,  regional  development  policy,  etc.).  Establishing  an  EU  policy  framework  for 
aquaculture  will  require  the  EU  assuming  responsibility  for  a  significant  part  of  these  areas.  This 
would include setting market and production standards and rules, providing structural support, etc.) 

On  the  objective  of  improving  governance,  Option  3  will  require  the  EU  to  develop  policies  to 
promote harmonisation and a level playing field across the Member States. 

Since business development in aquaculture in Europe also depends on the investment possibilities 
and  willingness  of  entrepreneurs  to  invest,  establishing  a  regulatory  framework  with  principles, 
legally  binding  objectives  and  production  targets  to  be  met  at  EU  and  Member  State  level  would 
appear to be in contradiction with 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. Developing a single legal framework to encompass all the dimensions 
of  this  sector  (production  management,  markets,  financial  support,  environment,  health,  controls, 
etc.) would require a parallel comprehensive assessment and review of existing provisions relating 
to  aquaculture  under  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  set  of  legislation  –  and  particularly  the  “basic 
CFP Regulation” ((EC) No 2371/2002). Such a fundamental change in approach to aquaculture at 
EU  level  would  call  for  further  parallel  changes  to  the  provisions  developed  under  other  EU 
Policies, e.g. the Common Agriculture Policy 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  viable  alternative  to  tackling  the 
problems  identified  at  this  stage.  The  fundamental  questions  raised  in  relation  to  the  overall 
institutional set-up, including the consequences on subsidiarity, would have a negative impact that 
would  outweigh  any  social,  economic  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 therefore discarded, before any more detailed analysis of impacts. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
5.2. 

Possible action to contribute achieving the objectives 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  address  the  main  problems  and  challenges 
summarised in Sections 2.4 and 2.5. The table below provides an overview of possible action that would fall within the responsibility of the public 
authorities, and help achieve the different objectives identified in Section 3. These measures are all cumulative and complementary. Most of them are 
of non-legislative and could be implemented within 2 to 4 years.  

Annex III of the  report provides  more detailed information about these possible measures and their incremental effect. It also provides information 
about possible action that was considered, but not pursued.  

Problem/issue 
identified 

•  Not properly 
managed, 
aquaculture => 
negative impact on 
the environment 

•  Aquaculture 

is 
highly  dependent 
on  water  resources 
of high quality 

•  Legal  uncertainty 
guarantying 
waters 

on 
shellfish 
quality after 2013 

Possible action by public authorities  

Actors 

Objective being contributed to. 

Commission  Member 
States 

- Monitor developments regarding the problem of escapees 

-  Pursue  supporting  research  on 
aquaculture. 

interactions  between  environment  and 

- Ensure that the level of protection of shellfish waters is maintained (2009 and 
onwards). 

- Enhance information to ensure proper implementation of the Water Framework 
Directive  (WFD)  and  of  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  as  regards 
aquaculture activities; Develop guidelines (possibly 2009-2012). 

-  Assess  the  need  to  review  some  parts  of  the  EU  water  protection  legal 
framework (possibly 2009-2010) 

-  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 economic activities. 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

(X) 

X 

X 

X 

•  Ensuring  a  high 
environment. 

level  of  protection  of 

the 

•  Ensuring  a  high 

level  of  protection  of 
environment and a high level of public health. 

the 

• 

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 

36 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
directly  impacts  on 
safety 
for 
consumers 

•  “False 

positive” 
safety  tests  lead  to 
economic losses 

•  Scientific  opinions 
are  addressing  only 
issue 
one  policy 
(related risks) 

•  Specific  problems 
related 
some 
to 
parts  of  the  aquatic 
animal 
health 
Directive (2006/88) 

•  Diseases  in  aquatic 
animals  attract  low 
level of attention. 

•  Scientific 

knowledge  in  fish 
welfare  is  still  very 
poor. 

•  Some  EU  welfare 
legislation 
is  not 
perfectly  suited  to 
aquatic animals 

-  Support  the  development  of  alternative  methods  and  standards  for  these 
detection methods. 

-  Evaluate  how  to  make  more  widespread  use  of  risk  assessment  and  risk 
prevention tools 

- Continue to base evaluation and assessments on scientific advice 

- Request scientific advice to provide for a more integrated assessment of fish 
related issues (including health benefits related to the consumption of aquatic food) 

-  Keep  under  review  (by  2011)  the  list  of  important  diseases  for  aquatic 
animals. 

-  Assess  additional  guarantees  for  some  diseases  taken  at  Member  State  level  
(2009-2010) 

-  Pursue  assessment  of  preventative  measures  in  relation  to  vector  and 
susceptible species, on the basis of scientific advice and research. 

-  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). 

- Seek advice on fish welfare on a species-dependent basis, and further promote 
animal welfare research 

-  Promote  the  need  for  a  species-dependent  approach  in  international  fora 
addressing fish welfare  

-  Assess  fish  welfare  issues  in  aquaculture  (by  2011)  in  order  to  evaluate  the 
value of non-legislative or possible legislative measures, (2009). 

- Propose revision of some provisions of the “animal transport Regulation”41 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

 X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

• 

Improving competitiveness 

X 

X 

•  Recognising  health  benefit  of  aquatic 

food 
contributes  to  both  the  competitiveness  objective 
and the consumer protection agenda 

•  Securing animal health  

•  Contributing 

to  shaping  a  performing  animal 

industry, thereby improving competitiveness. 

•  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 

37 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
•  Lack  of  veterinary 
medical  products 
for fish 

• 

• 

Insufficient 
knowledge 
on 
practicalities  and 
(between 
needs 
stakeholders 
and 
public authorities) 

Increasing 
competition 
for 
space  and  water 
(and  “gold-plating” 
environmental 
of 
protection  rules)  => 
creates  uncertainty 
for investors. 

•  The 

aquaculture 
remains 
industry 
fragmented 
very 
and 
isolated  from 
the  other  players  in 
the marketing chain. 

•  The 

aquaculture 
industry 
is  facing 
business challenges 
and 
is  competing 
within  a  global 
market 

- Adopt the proposal for a new regulation on Maximum Residue Limits (while 
seeking to ensure provisions of particular interest to aquaculture). 

Council 
and EP 

•  Ensuring a high level of animal health and welfare  

•  Contributing to the competitiveness objective 

-  Implement  the  recommendations  made  by  the  “Availability  Task  Force” 
(2009-2010). 

-  Improve  information  exchanges  between  the  competent  authorities  and  the 
different stakeholders of fish health (2009-2010). 

-  Promote  Integrated  Coastal  Zone  Management  and  launch action  as  foreseen 
within the roadmap for maritime spatial planning42 (2009). 

- Develop marine spatial planning systems 

-  Ensure  that  “inland”  spatial  planning  fully  integrates  the  needs  and  values  of 
freshwater aquaculture. 

-  Assess  and  address  needs  of  the  aquaculture  sector  within  the  context  of  the 
review of the market policy of fisheries and aquaculture products (2009). 

- Assess and develop the value of labelling possibilities (to allow the aquaculture 
sector to benefit from compliance with high environmental standards). 

-  Envisage  a  possible  simplification  and  review  of  the  custom  nomenclature 
(2009-2011). 

-  Continue 
certification issues, notably with the FAO. 

international  cooperation  on 

labelling  and  aquaculture 

-  Make  full  use  of  the  possibilities  available  under  the  European  Fisheries 
Fund to support market initiatives, promotions campaigns, etc. 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

• 

Improving competitiveness and governance 

•  Optimising  environmental  performance  by  means 
of appropriate assessments and optimal location of 
farms. 

• 

competitiveness 

Improving 
governance 
(enabling  the  aquaculture  business  to  cope  with 
market demands) 

and 

42 

COM(2008)791 final. 

EN 

38 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
• 

 Numerous red tape 
and  administrative 
challenges  

-  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 

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  procedures  and  established  time  limits  to 
decision. 

•  Aquaculture 

a 
has 
negative image 

still 
rather 

•  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 

•  Sill  very 

science  base 
aquaculture  

limited 
of 

• 

of 
Insufficiency 
of 
coordination, 
involvement 
of 
economic  operators 
and 
level  of 
low 
and 
transfer 
of 
dissemination 

-  Contribute  to  meeting  the  need  for  information  (in  particular  under  the 
possibilities available in European Fisheries Fund). 

- Make sure that information (e.g. outcome of studies supported by public bodies) 
is made publicly available (Internet). 

- Promote research for feed substitution and for optimisation of feeding regimes 

- 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. 

- Contribute to adequate information on feeding behaviour and needs of fish to 
ensure  that  EU  legislation  adequately  covers  the  needs  for  aquaculture 
development 

- Make a special effort on RDT priorities for aquaculture (2009-2013). 

-  Ensure  that  public  funded  projects  benefit  the  EU  industry  through  greater 
involvement of EU business. 

-  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). 

-  Better  promote  the  exploitation  and  dissemination  of  EU  funded  aquaculture 
research projects (2009-2013). 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

• 

Improving 
competitiveness). 

governance 

(and 

thereby 

also 

•  Contributing to the objective of better governance, 

and improving competitiveness. 

•  Ensuring  that  feeding-stuffs  for fish  are  both  from 
sustainably  managed  sources  and  of  high  quality, 
thereby  contributing  to  both  the  competitiveness 
objective and the sustainable development agenda.   

•  Giving 

highest 

and 
technological development, thereby contributing to 
the competitiveness objective. 

research 

priority 

to 

43 

COM(2008)394 – see http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/entrepreneurship/sba_en.htm. 

EN 

39 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
RTD results 

•  Risks  of  neglecting 
importance  of 
and 

the 
extensive 
traditional 
aquaculture. 

•  EU  leadership  in 
R&D is not always 
to 
best  exploited 
the  benefit  of  the 
EU  industry  on  the 
international 
scene.  

•  MS  may  decide  to 
allocate a low share 
of  EFF  funds  to 
aquaculture 
projects. 

•  Uneven 

situation 
because  of  different 
interpretation 
and 
implementation  of 
EU legislation 

-  Consider,  with  the  Member  States  and  the  European  Technology  Platform  for 
Aquaculture,  the  future  opportunity  for  launching  a  Joint  Technology  Initiative 
(JTI)44 in aquaculture (possibly by 2011). 

-  Recall  the  value  and  importance  of  traditional  and  extensive  forms  of 
aquaculture 

-  Assess  if  EU  aquaculture  industries  have  an  interest  in  joining  working  groups 
established to develop market access partnerships. 

-  Promote  the  need  for  sustainability  in  aquaculture  when  participating  in 
international fora as well as at regional and bilateral level. 

-  Develop,  in  the  context  of  its  new  animal  health  action  plan,  an  export 
Strategy  in  order  to  strengthen  the  Community  role  in  negotiating  exports 
conditions  related  with  animal  and  public  health  issues  under  the  SPS  agreement 
(2009-2011) 

-  Ensure  that  support  for  aquaculture  is  continued  within  the  Operational 
programmes (e.g. priorities such as supporting innovation or environmental values 
in aquaculture) (2009). 

- Begin exploring possible future direction of Community support) 

-  Contribute  to  better  mutual  understanding  of  the  scope  and  aims  of  EU 
environmental legislation 

-  Facilitate  a  level  playing  field  by  developing  guidance  documents  and 
organising specific workshops with stakeholders and national authorities (2009-
2011).  

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

•  Contributing  to  Europe  being  a  reference  on  the 
international  scene  and  to  the  competitiveness 
objective  

•  Promoting environmental sustainability outside EU 

•  Contributing  through  EFF  to  the  social,  economic 
and environmental dimensions of aquaculture. 

•  Ensuring a level playing field among operators and 
among  Member  States,  thereby contributing  to the 
objective of better governance 

44 

EN 

Joint  Technology  Initiatives  are  proposed  as  a  means  of  implementing  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. 

40 

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”). 

•  Aquaculture 

industry has limited 
means  to  provide 
to  public 
input 
to 
authorities  or 
dialogue 
with 
scientists 

-  Assess  the  need  to  revise  the  place  and  role  of  the  aquaculture  industry  in  the 
Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture (by 2011) 

-  Improve  the  consultation  process  with  the  aquaculture  sector  in  the 
framework of the research agenda 

•  The  collection  of 
reliable 
indicators 
on  aquaculture  is 
not 
difficult 
considered 
worthwhile 
public authorities. 

by 

or 

-  Ensure  that  the  new  instruments  for  statistics  and  data  collection  are 
implemented to deliver the necessary indicators (cf. section 7) 

-  Actively  participate  in  international  fora  (notably  the  FAO)  for  the 
development and collection of global and harmonised indicators 

-  Establish  a  price  monitoring  system  for  fish  and  aquaculture  products 
throughout the marketing chain. 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

•  Contributing 
stakeholders 
governance. 

through 

the 

involvement 

in  policy  development 

of 
to  better 

•  Ensuring  regular  monitoring  of  the  aquaculture 
industry, thereby making for better governance and 
public action based on facts. 

EN 

41 

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 measures focusing on some of the main determinants 
of  growth,  in  particular  support  for  R&D  and  innovation,  support  for  sustainable  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  and  the  insufficient  consideration  of  aquaculture 
stakeholders  and  their  needs  may  through  up  serious  challenges  to  the  sector,  as  was  clearly 
expressed during the consultation process. 

5.3.1.1.  Economic impacts 

A  number  of  initiatives  are  already  ongoing  under  this  first  option  and  will  result  in  support  for 
R&D,  public  funding  of  some  measures  in  the  aquaculture  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  SMEs).  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 Development (FP7) is operational 
and  it  also  includes  a  number  of  incentives  for  aquaculture-orientated  research  and  for  SME 
participation. 

As  regards  another  source  of  public  funding,  the  European  Fisheries  Fund  (EFF)  is  the  largest 
Community  funding  instrument  benefiting  the  aquaculture  development.  Around  29%  of  the  total 
EFF allocation, an amount of about €1 275 million for the 2007-2013 period, is initially planned to 
be spent under the so-called “Axis 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 billion of public money (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  currently  in  the  order  of  about  1.3  million  tonnes  (cf. 
more  detailed  data  in  previous  sections  and  in  Annex  I).  According  to  the  information  and  data 
provided  by  the  Member  States  in  their  first  national  Operational  Programmes  (OPs),  the  figure 
below illustrates the estimated increase in national production levels by 2013/2015 (depending on 
MS data). These figures are provisional and may change with possible modification of the OPs and 
actual use of EFF. 

45 

See Annex IV. 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Aquaculture production and prospects for increase (according to EFF first operational 
programmes) :  

Current situation

2013/2015

350.000 

300.000 

250.000 

)
t
(

n

o

i
t

200.000 

c

u

d

o
r

P

150.000 

100.000 

50.000 

0 

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 State

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)  Regulation  adopted  in  2006  provides  numerous 
possibilities for financial support for the sustainable development of aquaculture (e.g. not 
only productive investment and innovation, 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 possible 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 indicators 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 scenarios. 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 operators 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.  addressing  aquaculture  licensing  difficulties, 
simplifying  administrative  burdens,  ensuring  a  level  playing  field,  etc.),  funding 
opportunities in favour of innovation and productive 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 Council 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 allocation, increasing possibilities to the restructuring of the 

46 

Regulation (EC) No 744/2008 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
national fishing fleets can only be done by reducing the budget allocation under the other 
EFF axis, including priority Axis 2 dedicated to aquaculture and processing. Consequently, 
not only may the overall contribution to aquaculture 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  demand  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 sufficient 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 their cutting edge vis-à-
vis  competitors  in  other  parts  of  the  world  (e.g.  Asia  and  South  America).  If  so,  EU  production 
could enter into a virtuous circle. Otherwise, the unsatisfied demand will most likely be covered by 
increased imports of aquaculture (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 eliminated. 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 operational programmes from the Member States do not include any 
projections regarding the evolution of employment. 

However, as emerged from the evaluation of the 2002 objective concerning job creation, stagnation 
in overall aquaculture production is very unlikely to be accompanied by an increase in the number 
of jobs – on the contrary. Option 1 may lead to a slow increase in production if not to a continuation 
of  the  current  stagnation  even,  with  significant  differences  across  sub-sectors.  Further  production 
increases  in  marine  fish  aquaculture  would  normally  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 labour-intensive. The continued decline of fresh water 
aquaculture  could  have  negative  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 neutral or even negative. The same will also apply 
to jobs in the sectors upstream and downstream 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 environmental 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 

44 

   EN 

 
However, as highlighted in the consultation process, knowledge of actual aquaculture impacts, the 
importance of good management and best practices and the possibilities offered by technologies are 
not yet taken fully into account. Under Option 1, this situation would probably continue, 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 negative 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  extensive  sectors  like  shellfish 
farming or pond farming). Progress on these issues would probably continue under Option 1, albeit 
at a slower pace. At first sight, such situation could be seen as having additional positive effects for 
the environment in the EU, as it prevents aquaculture from expanding and therefore adding to the 
overall impact of human activities on the environment 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 attendant loss of the environmental services these 
sectors  were  providing  (conservation  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  perspective:  whether  EU 
aquaculture develops or not will largely depend on whether bottlenecks for aquaculture are properly 
addressed by the parties responsible 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 bottlenecks 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 decisions in aquaculture by creating conditions for a 
more stable and predictable framework and by ensuring a level playing field for aquaculture. Option 
2 is expected to help increase competitiveness, for example through action in R&D and know-how 
which  are  expected  to  increase  productive  efficiency;  and  in  the  areas  of  image  and  markets 
(labels), which could contribute to increasing demand for 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  the  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 recognition of the industry and supportive 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 effect and therefore act as 
a facilitator for entrepreneurs in search of investment funds when negotiating 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 

45 

   EN 

 
improve  the  association  of  the  business  to  the  definition  of  research  priorities  eligible  for  public 
support  (particularly  in  conjunction  with  the  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 production currently accounts for a mere 2% of global 
production and that production levels in third countries continue to increase much faster than in the 
EU. 

5.3.2.2.  Social impact 

From a social point of view, to the extent that bottlenecks, in particular the issue of access to sites, 
will be largely or completely eliminated at national and regional level, production should increase. 
Option  2  would  thus  have  an  incremental  effect  compared  to  Option  1.  Jobs  would  be  created  in 
fresh  water  and  molluscs  and  crustacean  aquaculture,  which  will  remain  more  labour  intensive. 
Marine fish aquaculture will also make a positive 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 technologies, 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  already  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  sustainability  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 positive impact on the environment. 
One of the main impacts would be to highlight the efforts already made to ensure 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  importance  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 

46 

   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 the need to meet the objectives of environmental 
protection,  there  may  be  scope  for  Member  States  to  examine  whether  measures  implemented  at 
national  or  local  levels  are  best  suited  to  providing  sustainable  aquaculture  growth.  A  broader 
partnership  approach  between  the  EU  and  the  Member  States  by  way  of  a  reviewed  strategy  for 
aquaculture could improve the situation for aquaculture operators, on the one hand by making sure 
that  legislation  is  conceived  from  the  start  in  a way  that  ensures  a  high  level  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  Community  directives  are  exceeded  significantly  when 
implemented  in  national  law  (so-called  gold-plating  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  legislation  (especially  the  water  quality  legislative 
package and the Natura 2000 network of protected areas). Exchange of information, best practices 
in  the  use  of  veterinary  medicines  in  aquatic  animals  and  guidelines  for  limits  on  the  release  of 
certain chemical substances into the aquatic environment are other examples of possible action that 
would help to ensure animal 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  understanding  of  the  scope  and  aims  of  these 
legislative  instruments.  This  approach  could  therefore  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 stifled by other activities. Reviewing the strategy 
is expected to help address this problem and to stress the importance of spatial planning (especially 
marine  spatial  planning).  The  proper  siting  of  aquaculture  facilities  should  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, drought, erosion, etc., and to underscore the role of 
aquaculture facilities (e.g. freshwater 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  minimising  the  impact  of 
aquaculture on the environment. The reviewed strategy 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 aquaculture 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  Programmes  to  increase  the  scope  for  restructuring  the 
capture fishing fleets. 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
Rules on organic aquaculture, development of eco-labels for aquaculture products and international 
cooperation on aquaculture certification are other areas of measures where the industry can expect 
to improve its environment record. 

5.4. 

Overall  estimates  of  possible  environmental  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 some 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  simplistic  approach,  increased  production  could  mean 
more extensive use of natural resources and increased output of pollutants. However, 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 impacts, or the level of mitigation required, should be 
put in balance with the social 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 issues 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 environmental output and jobs and wealth creation.  

These  scenarios,  hypotheses  and  projections  of  this  specific  chapter  of  the  JRC  prospective 
analysis48  are  copied  in  full  in  Annex  IV.  These  figures  cannot  be  considered  in  themselves  as 
Commission targets, but rather as an aid to illustrate impacts from the different options. It needs to 
be said in this context that this JRC prospective study was launched already in 2006, and was not 
intended to serve as a basis for this impact assessment. Thus, there is no direct link - and no such 
link shall be made - between the 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  potential  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 capture fisheries sector. The shortfall in supply is 
then expected to be met through aquaculture and net imports from third countries. The implications 
of only part of the shortfall being met through aquaculture, or virtually all the shortfall being met 
through aquaculture, are explored. The JRC models are not intended to be predictive, but rather to 
indicate the development levels needed and the implications of the different options.  

Four main aquaculture production scenarios were considered by the JRC: 

(i) 

48 

Minimal  development:  current  trend  of  decline  continues  for  remainder  of  this  decade, 
before reversing as the gap between production and demand rises. 

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 

48 

   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% annual 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  entire  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 resources (space, water, energy) was also assessed. 

JRC quantitative models with regard to the expected outcome of Options 1 and 2 

When putting the production scenarios modelled by the JRC in correspondence with Options 1 and 
2 in this impact assessment, we can reasonably consider that: 

– 

– 

– 

the consequences of Option 1 (status quo) roughly 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 bottlenecks, at both EU and national level) would 
be  somewhere  between  the  output  modelled  for  scenario  1  and  the  output  modelled  for 
JRC  scenario  2  (4%  growth  since  2000),  which  is  already  an  unachieved  scenario.  JRC 
scenario 3 illustrates this intermediate situation (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 

49 

   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 
(cid:217) 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) 

Aquaculture 
value 
billion) 

(€ 

Direct 
(x 10³) 

jobs  

Land  /  water 
area 
required 
(10³ ha) 

Water 
(billion m3) 

use 

used 

Industrial 
energy 
(M MJ) 

Nitrogen 
output (t) 

Phosphorus 
output (t) 

1.26 

1.17 

1.20 

1.57 

1.94 

1.84 

2.44 

2.83 

2.79 

2.86 

3.65 

5.18 

4.31 

6.58 

75.8 

72.8 

74.9 

88.0 

101.7 

94.9 

122.5 

200 

224 

237 

208 

215 

230 

301 

2 960 

2 720 

2 760 

3 600 

4 270 

4 340 

5 460 

150 

142 

146 

195 

257 

255 

359 

34 070 

35 060 

36 790 

45 860 

65 640 

56 500 

97 160 

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 slightly increase in the longer term, by about 20-
30%  in  2025.  The  other  two  scenarios  anticipate  more  of  a  contribution  from  aquaculture  to 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
projected EU consumption demands. As a result, 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 decrease or stagnate in the 
next 5 to 10 years.50 Using constant multipliers, employment 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  since  2000.  However,  price  competition  and  market 
demand  are  likely  to  result  in  major  increases  in  production  volume  through  new  marine  fish 
production,  especially  in  offshore  systems  with  higher  efficiency.  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 projections in the 2002 Strategy (4% growth a year 
from  2000)  would  multiply  the  land  and  water  area  used  by  aquaculture  by  1.5  in  2015.  Even  if 
continued until 2025, an annual increase in production 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).  Output  of  nutrients  should  see  a  2.8-fold  increase  in 
nitrogen output by 2015 (and 3.8 by 2025). However, this should be seen in the 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  increasing  European  cattle 
population by around 0.7%. More important would be how and where the nutrients are released and 
treated.  Offshore  aquaculture  would  have  very  high  waste  dispersion  characteristics,  whilst 
recirculated systems provide greater means of control and removal for 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 (based 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 about 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 

51 

   EN 

 
                                                 
6. 

COMPARING OPTIONS 

6.1. 

Comparing options 

The following tables provide a comparison of the three options in terms of contributing to meeting objectives, possible advantages and drawbacks and 
environmental, economic and social impacts. 

Strategic objective identified 

Option 1 

Option 2 

Option 3 

conditions 

Establishing 
for 
aquaculture in line with the EU 
sustainable 
development 
agenda 

Continues  horizontal  policies  development, 
without  any  new  specific  approach  or  any 
updated vision for aquaculture. 

Ensures  the  same  high  level  of  protection  of  the 
environment,  of  consumer  protection  and  of 
animal health and welfare. 

Comparable to Option 2. 

Ensures  a  high  level  of  protection  of  the 
environment  through  numerous  areas  of 
action  (pollution,  water  quality,  nature 
protection...) 

Also  promotes  an  environmentally 
friendly 
aquaculture  development  while  recognising  the 
aquaculture  industry  as  an  equal  right  competitor 
in  access  to  space/water  and  develops  integrated 
spatial planning. 

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. 

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 medicines and high quality 
and sustainable feeding-stuffs for fish. 

Highlights the health benefits of aquatic food. 

Promotes a level playing field for this sector. 

EN 

52 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Promoting  competitiveness  of 
EU aquaculture branches  

Does  not  provide  sufficient  stimulus  to 
the 
address, 
bottlenecks  faced  by 
industry  for 
sustainable development.  

in  a  coordinated  manner, 

the 

Improves  coordination  and  interpretation  of  all 
the  aim  of  eliminating 
EU  policies  with 
bottlenecks  and  developing  sustainable  EU. 
Aquaculture. 

Keeps with an objective of job creation that 
is known not to be achieved. 

to 

increase 

Develops  new  opportunities 
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). 

governance 
policies 

in 
Improving 
designing 
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. 

Brings  stakeholders  together  to  seek  solutions  to 
current  problems  in  a  coherent  and  consistent 
manner for the EU-27. 

the 

Maintains 
“administrative 
same 
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. 

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 
information on aquaculture.  

image  and  provides 

factual 

Ensures increased stakeholder participation. 

for 

instruments 

Establishes  ad  hoc 
the 
aquaculture  sector  (production  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, 
associated 
setting 
licensing 
requirements, structural policies, etc.) 

and 

of 

Comparable to Option 2.  

further 

Establishes 
ensure 
harmonisation of production and a level playing 
field across MS.  

action 

to 

EN 

53 

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  for  sustainable  development 
investment).  

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 aquaculture development are not addressed; the sector is not 
boosted by political impetus.  

Slower pace of measures conducive to aquaculture development. 

Increased risk of divergent approaches across Member States and regions. 

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 endorsement 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. 

Option 2  

Developing  a  new  Strategy  for  EU 
aquaculture  

Does  not  require  a  specific  initiative  for  a  new  framework 
for the development of 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  assets,  the  Strategy  sends  out  a 
political  signal  from 
the  public 
authorities at national and regional level, and to the public 
at large. 

the  Commission 

to 

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  governance  at  EU  and  national 
level. 

Brings  specific  added  value 
to  Community  action 
(including  the  cross-border  dimension  of  the  remaining 
specific problems of EU aquaculture).  

EN 

54 

EN 

 
  
 
Extends  the  debate  to  EU-27  (the  2002  strategy  was 
discussed with 15 MS only) 

Option 3  

Basically covers the objectives of option 2. 

Developing  a  specific  Community 
policy for aquaculture 

Builds  on  it  by  setting  up  a  comprehensive  sector-specific 
policy framework. 

The  development  of  an  integrated  Community  aquaculture  policy  initiated  by  the 
creation of a single legislative reference framework requires a fundamental review of 
the  present  EU  legal  architecture.  Developing  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 provisions and references to aquaculture under 
the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  –  and  particularly  its  “basic”  Regulation  (EC)  No 
2371/2002.  This  fundamental  change  in  approach  to  aquaculture  at  the  EU  level 
would  require  additional  parallel  changes  of  provisions  under  the  present  Common 
Agriculture Policy (or possibly others, like the animal health policy)).  

Addressing at EU level some of the present 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 tackling the problems identified at this stage. The fundamental 
questions raised in relation to the overall institutional setup, including the consequences on subsidiarity, would generate negative consequences, which 
would outweigh any incremental social, economic and environmental benefits resulting from this option. For these reasons, this option is discarded.  

EN 

55 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Possible impacts 

Option 1  

Option 2  

Status quo (baseline option) 

Developing  a  new  Strategy  for  EU  aquaculture  based  on  a  new  political 
Communication from the Commission 

Environmental impacts 

The environmental status of the EU aquaculture industry is 
generally  good  and  this  will  be  maintained  or  even 
improved under Option 1. 

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 
increase  of  EU  aquaculture 
estimate  of  an  overall 
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 are not properly addressed. 

The environmental status will 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 cross-border externalities such as pollution. 

Stresses  the  importance  of  spatial  planning  to  make  for  better  integration  of  this 
sector  to  its  environment  and  help  avoid  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 innovation and technological development and 
minimising the impact of aquaculture on the environment. 

Addressing aquaculture bottlenecks is expected to have a positive 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,  which  could  help  to  increase  demand  for  EU 
aquaculture products. 

The  importance  and  the  strategic  dimension  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  view  of  the  recent  credit  crunch  and  severe 
economic crisis). 

Social impacts 

The overall impact on employment could be neutral or even  The overall economic benefit of Option 2 should also lead to more positive impacts 

EN 

56 

EN 

 
  
 
 
negative. The same applies to jobs in EU sectors upstream 
and downstream of aquaculture. 

in terms of employment in the aquaculture sector (and of related business activities, 
such as technology providers, fish feed industry, etc.). 

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. 

EN 

57 

EN 

 
  
 
 
6.2. 

Preferred option  

The  analysis  of  the  state  of  play  in  Section  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  period,  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  States  to  act  and  proposing  action  to  remove 
obstacles  more  quickly  and  efficiently  than  Option  1,  it  is  more  likely  to  help  unlock  the 
potential  for  sustainable  development  in  the  sector.  Option  2  would  also  lead  to  more 
extensive use of natural resources and to an increase in pollutant output, but this increase in 
pollution  has  to  be  balanced  again  the  pollution  (and  other  aspects)  of  other  forms  of 
production  of  high  value  proteins  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. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Development  of  the  EU  aquaculture  industry  requires  the  full  commitment  of  both  the 
Community and the Member States. The Commission therefore expects the Council, with the 
support of the European Parliament and the other EU institutions, to endorse the Strategy and 
thereby  recognise  the  role  played  by  the  aquaculture  industry  and  the  need  to  unlock  its 
potential. 

This will require closer monitoring of the industry, and the indicators 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  statistics  (Regulation  (EC)  No  762/2008)  was 
adopted  by  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  in  July  2008.  It  requires 
Member States to collect and submit data on annual production (volume and value), 
annual  input  to  capture-based  aquaculture,  annual  production  of  hatcheries  and 
nurseries and data on the structure of the aquaculture sector. This Regulation (which 
repeals  the  former  Regulation  (EC)  No  788/96)  not  only  significantly  extends  the 
scope of data to be monitored, compared to the previous regulation, it also provides 
additional guarantees regarding quality. 

In February 2008, the Council adopted a Regulation establishing an EU framework 
for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for 
scientific advice regarding the CFP (Regulation (EC) No 2008/199). This new data 
regulation  has  been  extended  to  cover  additional  data  concerning  the  marine 
aquaculture 
implementing  Regulation  ((EC)  No 
665/2008) was adopted in July 2008 and provides for the collection of the following 
economic  variables:  income,  personnel  costs,  energy  costs,  raw  material  costs, 
investment, employment and number of enterprises. 

industry.  The  Commission 

These new tools will be implemented in the coming year, and they should help to improve the 
monitoring of the economic, social and environmental components of the aquaculture industry 
(cf. chapter 3).  

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
Lessons  from  the  past  –  based  on  the  experience  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 policies. However, monitoring 
the  aquaculture  industry  and  its  sub-sectors  will  show  whether  growth  opportunities  are 
emerging for this industry over time. In addition, permanent dialogue with stakeholders will 
allow  in  the  coming  years  to  evaluate  whether  the  different  measures  identified  have  been 
taken and have delivered, and bottlenecks are gradually being eliminated. 

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
ANNEX I  

BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 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 
large  sub-sectors,  with  different 
characteristics: shellfish, fresh water fish and marine fish farming. Crustaceans and algae are 
also grown in the EU, but their production is marginal so far. 

is  mainly  composed  of  3 

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 the introduction from the Americas of a protozoan parasite in 
the  late  1970s  which  significantly  affected  most  flat  oyster  growing  regions  of  Europe, 
including France, Spain, the Netherlands, 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 order 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  peaked  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 registered an increase in production to 12,089 tonnes 
in 2005 (nearly six times the 1995 level). Irish production of flat oysters was 1708 tonnes in 
2005 compared with 1412 tonnes  in 199551. 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 repercussion on overall production within the coming 
years. 

51 

Source BIM: Status of Irish Aquaculture 2005 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
1.1.2.  Mussel farming 

In  the  Community  today  there  are  three  types  of  mussel  farming.  The  largest  volume  is 
cultured  on  ropes  suspended  from  rafts  or  long  lines  as  in  Galicia  in  Spain  and  on  the  east 
coast  of  Italy  and  to  a  lesser  extent  in  France,  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) increased 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  Spain,  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  seed  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  access  to  collection  grounds  due  to  hydrocarbon 
extraction in the northern part of the Netherlands. New mussel industries have developed in 
recent  years  in  Greece,  Ireland,  the  UK  and  Sweden.  The  oyster  and  mussel  production 
sectors have been affected by increasingly frequent 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%  and  Portugal  7%  with  smaller  quantities  grown  in  France, 
Ireland  and  the  UK52.  Italian  production  grew  to  50000  tonnes  in  1999  but  had  dropped  to 
27737 tonnes by 2003,53 (Facts and figures on the CFP). The 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 mesh covering to protect from 
birds.  Growth  of  the  clam  cultivation  using  this  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  dominated  by  farming  of  trout,  carp,  and  some  other 
species in smaller amounts. 

1.2.1.  Trout: an intensive but high quality water demanding production. 

Trout  production  is  spread  throughout  Europe  and  fresh  trout  can  be  bought  everywhere. 
trout 
Because  of 

requirements  and  production  performance, 

its  growth 

rainbow 

52 
53 

Source: Forward study of Community Aquaculture, MacAlister Elliot and Partners Ltd, Sept 99. 
Source: Facts and figures on the CFP- Basic data on the Common Fishereis Policy- Edition 2006 

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(Oncorhynchus mykiss) largely dominates European trout production (approximately 95% of 
the total production). 

Almost every Member State has trout farms. Most of them are near to rivers, 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  year.  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  period  2000-2005  the  production  of  portion  trout  showed  a  slow 
declining trend (approximately 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. Most  large  trout are portion-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 produces more than the whole EU. Norwegian and 
Faroese production collapsed after 2003 (following the imposition of a 20% duty on imports 
of this fish into the EU). In 2005, production was approximately 100 000 tonnes. 

1.2.2.  Extensive or semi-extensive aquaculture: 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 Republic, Poland, Hungary, and Germany being the 
biggest producers) where the fish is mostly produced in ponds using traditional extensive or 
semi-intensive techniques. 

In  addition,  the  extensive  polyculture  techniques  practised  in  carp  ponds  also  allow 
simultaneous  production  of  other  freshwater  species  such  as  pike,  pike-perch,  perch,  eels, 
tench and other small Cyprinids. 

Statistics on carp production may not be fully reliable, but the trend over the last six years in 
the EU is towards a fall in total volumes, in particular in Austria 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 
55 
56 

Source: FEAP - Aquaculture Production. AQUAMEDIA 2007 
Source: FEAP - Aquaculture Production. AQUAMEDIA 2007 
Source: FAO Fishstat.  

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
                                                 
1.2.3. 

Intensive  aquaculture  in  closed  systems  with  water  recirculation:  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, while 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  producers;  Italian  production  (once  the  biggest  EU 
producer)  is  on  a  constant  downward  trend  since  the  late  90's,  and  Danish  production  also 
went  down  after  2001.  These  losses  have  been  partially  compensated  by  some  increase  in 
Dutch production. However, because of the uncertain supply of young eels, some eel farmers 
switch production to other species 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  minor  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 farming 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  coast)  are  the  main  EU  producers.  Estimated  2006  production 
was 128 000 tonnes in the UK and 15 000 tonnes 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  regarded  as  mature  and  salmon  is  the  sector  of  European 
aquaculture  which  is  most  subject  to  globalisation  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  list,  are  responsible  for  66%  of  UK  production. 
Several European companies are also significant producers in Chile and Canada. Production 
has tended to surge ahead of market demand periodically. 

There  are  still  important  environmental  bottlenecks  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 producing countries on the European continent). 

57 

All statistics from Kontali Monthly Salmon Report, January 07. 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
                                                 
1.3.2. 

Sea bass and sea bream 

The development of sea bream and sea bass aquaculture in Greece was probably the biggest 
success story of the entire EU aquaculture sector; in the decade 1990-99 the average yearly 
increase in production was nearly 70%, bringing 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. Greece 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 led 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, particularly in Greece where 
some  Greek  enterprises  went  bankrupt.  Since  then,  sea  bream  and  sea  bass  production  has 
remained stable overall during 2003 and 2004 in Greece, while it restarted moderate growth in 
most other countries. By 2005, production again took off strongly almost everywhere. Spain 
is an interesting example; with its moderate but regular yearly increase, this Member State is 
the only European producer which has constantly 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 the Mediterranean and the 
market  opportunities  opened  up  by  this  practice  has  led  to  its  continued  increase  ever  since 
(EU,  Turkey,  Tunisia,  Libya,  Croatia,  Morocco…).  Although  there  have  been  some  recent 
positive  research  results  on  tuna  reproduction60,  this  new  sector  of  aquaculture  is  still  only 
based on the capture of wild fish, including juveniles. Moreover, it has not yet been possible 
to adapt these caught wild fish to industrial pellet feeding, and fattening 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, Malta, 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 anticipate the closing of 
this  fishery  in  2008.  The  reduction  in  catches  foreseen  in  the  blue-fin  tuna  recovery  plan 
might  have  a  consequence  on  farming,  as  there  will  be  less  fish  available  for  farming 
activities. 

58 
59 

60 
61 

FAO Fishstat.  
University of Stirling - “Study of the market for aquaculture produced seabass and seabream”. Stirling 
2004.  
Cf FP5 Research project REPRODOT for example 
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 

64 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Significant  research  and  technological  progress  are  still  necessary  and  high  investment  is 
needed to make tuna farming becoming a "fully-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 (or other flat fish). Farms are usually located close to markets. 
Overall production in Europe remains proportionally 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 production in 2005 was a mere 3.4 % larger than what it 
was  in  1996.  Furthermore,  production  in  2005  was  close  to  12%  less  than  the  maximum  of 
1999. Decline in production has been broadly speaking steady since then, with the exception 
of 2003 and 2004. 

As already referred to earlier, there 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 from 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 

the 

from 

come 

following 

Data 
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  will  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  Report,  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,  Amber  Himbes  and  Roger  Lewins.  Centre  for  the 
Economics and Management of Aquatic Resources Portsmouth, United Kingdom of Great Britain and 
Northern 
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 analysis" or "JRC 2008". 

Ireland. 

2007", 

"FAO 

FAO, 

2007. 

p.51. 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The production volume of marine fish farming has been growing for nearly the entire period, 
with the exception of 2005. Production in that year was anyway 88% larger than that of 1996. 

The  production  volume  of  marine  farming  (marine  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),  after  which  the  production  has  levelled  off  at 
approximately 1 million tons (but with a general negative trend in shellfish production, while 
marine fish farming continued to increase). Overall marine farming has grown from 720,000 
tons in 1990 to 980,000 tons in 2005, representing an average growth rate of 2% per year. The 
value of the production has grown 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  (France  Spain,  Italy,  United 
Kingdom  and  Greece)  account  for  about  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 total 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  and  sea  bream,  and  Atlantic  salmon.  Mollusc 
production  has  remained  fairly  constant  for  the  last  ten  years,  dominated  by  mussels  and 
oysters. 

As can be seen in the Table 3, the most important producers of carp in 2006 were Poland, the 
Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary and France, which produce close to 90% of the EU carp 
production. Nearly all EU Member States produce significant amounts of trout. 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  Spain,  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  individual  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 much lower, as well as the growth rate of the 

EN 

66 

   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 aquaculture are scarce and not very reliable. They vary significantly 
depending  on  the  sources  and  the  definitions  used.  According  to  what  can  be  compiled  and 
extrapolated  from  diverse  available  data,  including  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 Federation of shellfish farmers (EMPA/AEPM), the 
European  shellfish  farming  industry  generates  about  37  000  direct  jobs.  This  shows  that 
shellfish  farming  is  generally  more  human  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  salmon,  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 less 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 with more women employed in the sector (44%), followed by 
France  (42%),  the  3  Baltic  States  and  Poland  (40%).  The  Czech  Republic,  the  Netherlands 
and  Malta  represent  the  other  extreme  (5,  2  and  1%  of  women,  respectively).  There  are  no 
data available regarding their level of education, although it can be presumed that particularly 
as regards molluscs and crustaceans, most of employments 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  these  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  thirds  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-Charente  (France)  and  Algarve  (Portugal),  are 
those which concentrate most of the employment. 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 employees per firm is 4.47, 
with  many  variations  across  Member  States.  As  an  example,  in  France  which  is  the  second 
biggest  EU  aquaculture  producing  countries  (in  volume),  the  number  of  shellfish  farming 
enterprises in 2005 was 3 317, representing 9 933 full-time equivalent jobs64; 36 marine fish 
farming enterprises generating 493 jobs, and 306 freshwater fish farms for 1 070 jobs65. 

63 

64 
65 

However, specific data on the total employment in the aquaculture sector have not been provided by all 
Member States (aggregates with the capture fisheries and/or the fish processing activities). 
Source OFIMER, les chiffres clés de la filière pêche et aquaculture en France – édition 2008. 
Extensive aquaculture in ponds not included 

EN 

67 

   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. almost 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  aquaculture  products  have  grown  significantly,  with  the 
exception  of  carps.  The  total  value  of  imports  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  traditionally  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, representing 120 000 tonnes of live weight of mussels, 
90 % of which are from Chile). 

Sea  bass  and  sea  bream  imports  are  also  growing  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,  imports  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%). Approximately 50% of these imports are scallops 
and about 38% are mussels in different product forms. 

It  has  to  be  noted  that  imports  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 exclusively from Southeast Asian countries. Figures 
are shown on Table 7. 

According  to  a  study  carried  out  by  the  EU  Fish  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  aquaculture  species'  products  amounted  to  67  000  tonnes  "live 
weight  equivalent"  in  2007  (see  table  8),  worth  €  278  million.  Generally  speaking,  exports 
have grown significantly during the 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 products remain limited when 
compared to the total EU production or to the imports of aquatic food in the EU (the volume 
of exports was around 5 % of imported volume and 10 % in value in 2007). 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
Exports of sea bream are growing quickly. The volume of exports has multiplied by 30 since 
1999, in particular to Russia, the 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 the period 2003-2005. Regarding salmon, even if exports of whole 
fish are still the most important export product (close to 60% of volume), exports of smoked 
salmon,  salmon  fillets  and  other  transformed  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 important. 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  the  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 further 2.6% have a turnover between €10 and €20 
million, and a further 4% have a turnover between €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 the total turnover of the sample and these 
between €5 and €10 million for a further 10.4%. Overall, 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 turnover of less than €1 million. Together they account 
for 9.5% of the total turnover 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  Norwegian  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 

69 

   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  producer  (leaving  aside  Pescanova)  is  4  times  smaller  than  the 
largest Norwegian producer. 

In  conclusion,  EU  aquaculture  firms  are  not  only  small  in  terms  of  employees,  but  also  in 
terms  of  turnover.  However,  next  to  thousands  of  SMEs,  there  is  a  small  but  significant 
number of larger firms. Nearly all of the latter produce salmon 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 consolidation 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 controlled by Norwegian interests. It appears that 
firms form the Netherlands also have major interests 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  production  so  as  to  benefit  from 
economies of scale. Horizontal concentration is already quite significant and barriers to entry 
are high in view of the scale of production required and the 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 reductions, and by a certain 
trend to move into processing and marketing as ways to counter the buying 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,  mainly  Greek,  are  taking  positions  in  other  EU 
producers  in  the  Mediterranean  and  expanding  into  adjacent  non-EU  countries,  particularly 
Turkey and Croatia, partially at least as a way 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  labour  cost  disadvantage  does  not  exist  as  regards 
salmon, where competing producers face also high labour costs. 

Horizontal  concentration  is  significant  although  not  as  marked  as  in  salmon.  Nevertheless, 
barriers  to  entry  are  also  significant  in  particular  as  far  as  the  availability  of  new  sites  is 
concerned.  This  horizontal  consolidation  is  accompanied  by  some  diversification  into  other 
aquaculture  producers:  salmon  producers  into  trout  and  sea  bass/sea  bream  producers  into 
salmon. In both cases, diversification is always 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 and 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.  Nevertheless,  it  is  probable  also  that  scale 
economies  are  not  as  significant  as  in  respect  of  fish,  which  could  limit  the  potential  for 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
consolidation. Lack of room for scale economies, combined with the decline in demand, could 
also be an explanation for the lack of consolidation of carp's producers (and to a lesser extent 
as regards trout). 

3.3. 

Production cost factors 

Aquaculture productivity has to date been improved through increased use of mechanisation 
and scale of production effects (e.g. through consolidation) that are lowering the labour and 
overhead costs per unit of production. These have combined with biological efficiency gains 
associated  with  better  quality  seedstock,  feeds  and  feed  utilisation,  and  with  better 
management  of  (though  still  troublesome)  risks  associated  with  aquatic  diseases.  However, 
rising input costs (feeds, energy, water, etc.) and environmental charges (waste disposal costs 
or increasing barriers to environmental resource use), combined with potential technical limits 
to  further  biological  performance  gains  (excluding  possible  options  available  through 
genetically  modified  –GM-  technology)  may  make  it  increasingly  difficult  to  break  further 
production cost and price barriers. 

Globalisation is increasing competition in national markets, but also improving opportunities 
for  exports.  By  the  nature  of  food  markets,  much  of  the  larger  scale  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 factor in successful competition and any regional 
factors  that  add  to  production  costs  (either  directly  such  as  higher  labour  costs,  or  site 
licensing  costs)  or  indirectly  (e.g.  increased  administrative  costs  due  to  regulatory 
requirements) could affect business investment decisions. The alternative competition strategy 
is niche marketing, where producers are able to differentiate their product e.g. on the basis of 
quality, locality, service or brand. 

As  can  be  seen  in  Table  10,  there  are  wide  variations  in  the  cost  of  production  of  different 
species,  depending  on  system  type  and  other  inherent  characteristics.  Estimated  costs  range 
from €2.33 to €10.50 per kg for the species presented therein. 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 highest for those systems relying 
on  wild  sources,  especially  tuna,  eel  and  currently  octopus.  Feed  is  a  higher  component  of 
costs in cage systems (mostly due to other costs being lower) whilst labour costs are a higher 
proportion  in  systems  with  lower  output  (char  and  organic  salmon  in  these  examples). 
Depreciation  is  not  cash  cost,  but  is  usually  included  in  comparative  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  these  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 

71 

   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 are 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  development,  and  sufficient  product  sales  to  start  making  repayments.  On 
the other hand, it seems that obtaining bank loans for aquaculture had been difficult in many 
countries,  as  the  sector  had  earned  an  uncertain  reputation  from  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 other means than loans to 
get finance. For instance, some big groups are quoted 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 the financial risk themselves. 

The  price  of  licenses  is  not  generally  a  very  important  production  cost  factor,  however,  the 
access to space and to licenses represent a crucial 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 opportunities for consolidating central services 
and facilities. It is however difficult to reflect access to water as a separate cost component. 

R&D effort is another factor worth mentioning here, although not directly visible in the table. 
EU aquaculture producers are said to have a competitive 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  also  country  and  size  of  the 
company. 

As mentioned above, the most important factors affecting economic performance are, at the 
moment: 

•  Heavy (global) competition with imports of farmed species from other parts of the world. 

Imports are putting pressure on prices of EU produced species;  

•  Strong demand for fish in Europe and worldwide;  

•  As stated above, supermarkets require constant supply of constant quality, with guarantee 

of environmentally friendly production chains;  

•  Increasing costs of fish meal; and 

•  Access to sites, licences and waste disposal. 

EN 

72 

   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  conclusions  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)  and  profitability  ratios  (well  above  10%  of 
turnover),  active  in  a  sector  where  concentration  is  low.  Contrary  to  that,  most  poultry 
producers show very small progression of their turnover (less than 5%) and profitability ratios 
very close to zero or even negative. The sector is heavily concentrated. 

There is a big difference between sizes of firms 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 only a supplementary source of income. Small 
producers manage to integrate their farming activities in for example agro-tourism or sports 
fishing to be less dependent 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,  caused  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 which has significantly recovered since 2000. 

The  economic  performance  of  trout  farmers  depends  significantly  on  the  firm  size.  Small 
producers  have  difficulty  to  maintain  sufficient  growth  of  productivity  and  must  focus  on 
local  niche  markets  as  they  are  not  able  to  offer  regularly  sufficient  quantities  to  sell  to 
supermarket  chains.  Over  the  past  years  a  consolidation  process  has  been  going  on  and  the 
numbers of small producers have been falling. 

Lack of new suitable locations, environmental restriction 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 

73 

   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 was 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 standards. They show also acceptable profitability, 
which exceeds that of most other sectors, apart from sturgeon. 

The main problems of the EU salmon farming appear to be: 

•  Increased price of fishmeal, as feed represents 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 environmental impact of salmon farming. 

•  As many other species, competition for space with other users and consequent difficulties 

to obtain new permits. 

The value of EU salmon production has steadily increased over the period 1996-2005 thanks 
to both higher prices and greater volumes. 

The  sea  bass/sea  bream  sector  shows  similar  trends  to  salmon  –  consolidation  into  a  small 
number of internationally operating (Greek) companies which account for a significant share 
of  the  total  production.  Because  of  increasing  constraints  on  growth  within  the  EU,  new 
production facilities are built in non-EU Mediterranean countries. After a crisis of this sector 
in 2001 and 2002 due to over supply which resulted in low prices, there has been a general 
recovery and profitability is illustrated by on-going new investments. The sector enjoys strong 
demand. The leading companies are vertically integrated, from hatcheries through on-growing 
to processing and wholesale trade. The most important 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 those 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 

74 

   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 small producers whose profitability appears to be 
significantly determined by their regional location. The location determines the suitability of 
on-growing  conditions  but  also  specific  profitable  specializations  /  activities  such  as  the 
purification.  

The  value  of  the  EU  production  of  Pacific  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 

75 

   EN 

 
 Aquaculture production in the European Union (EU-27) - Quantities (tonnes live weight)  

Table 1a: Volume of EU aquaculture production  

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  

Mussels  

Oysters  

Clams & arkshells 

Finfish* 

Freshwater fishes ** 

Rainbow trout 

Carps + other cyprinids 

River eels  

Tilapias + other cichlids 

Marine fishes** 

Atlantic salmon  

Gilthead seabream 

European seabass  

Atlantic bluefin tuna 

634.249 

691.511 

714.535 

708.974 

817.357 

825.013 

779.487 

741.345 

660.788 

702.742 

705.072 

679.419 

422.964 

457.822 

498.038 

491.971 

600.448 

603.408 

562.516 

548.827 

480.401 

541.347 

538.964 

470.197 

157.323 

156.178 

163.336 

160.067 

152.134 

155.529 

148.772 

123.960 

130.837 

129.344 

131.250 

132.053 

52.654 

75.945 

51.075 

54.243 

62.630 

64.516 

67.063 

67.377 

49.411 

31.898 

34.679 

76.996 

465.197 

486.786 

510.440 

539.814 

557.235 

603.439 

618.977 

647.359 

615.457 

643.674 

627.016 

592.731 

356.036 

361.813 

361.549 

361.802 

352.396 

356.408 

357.848 

365.223 

334.059 

345.181 

331.229 

312.846 

231.986 

243.085 

245.178 

247.784 

244.055 

236.766 

237.817 

246.264 

221.389 

221.791 

214.786 

202.900 

98.160 

96.436 

88.447 

88.153 

82.326 

88.576 

89.997 

89.954 

83.254 

89.433 

83.919 

80.912 

7.943 

200 

6.819 

320 

8.503 

320 

8.605 

200 

9.686 

10.439 

10.658 

10.151 

200 

246 

180 

200 

7.953 

186 

8.997 

507 

9.024 

473 

8.202 

521 

109.161 

124.973 

148.891 

178.012 

204.839 

247.031 

261.129 

282.136 

281.398 

298.493 

295.787 

279.885 

77.728 

83.748 

98.920 

116.926 

127.346 

146.139 

146.952 

162.267 

169.478 

162.552 

172.939 

144.801 

12.779 

17.487 

23.751 

29.868 

37.858 

50.137 

58.747 

63.605 

59.798 

71.524 

64.004 

71.475 

12.753 

16.999 

19.253 

23.739 

29.209 

37.198 

40.849 

41.443 

39.256 

46.632 

42.030 

49.202 

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 

EN 

(Source Eurostat datasets) 

76 

EN 

 
  
 Global aquaculture production - Quantities (tonnes live weight)  

Table 1b: Volume of world aquaculture production  

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  

Mussels  

Oysters  

Clams & arkshells 

Finfish* 

Freshwater fishes ** 

Rainbow trout 

Carps + other cyprinids 

River eels  

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

334.727 

365.240 

384.180 

427.329 

437.816 

416.238 

447.313 

511.595 

509.376 

495.953 

499.262 

486.928 

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 

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** 

Atlantic salmon  

Gilthead seabream 

European seabass  

Atlantic bluefin tuna 

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 

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 

20.570 

24.466 

33.198 

41.472 

54.388 

67.204 

87.288 

82.152 

77.495 

96.305 

92.718 

110.705 

14.863 

19.475 

21.095 

27.517 

35.129 

41.883 

52.802 

44.824 

43.779 

52.374 

47.767 

57.550 

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 "Freshwater 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 fish neither under Marine fish. 

EN 

(Source Eurostat datasets) 

77 

EN 

 
  
Table 2- EU Aquaculture production 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)  

Belgium  

Bulgaria  

Cyprus  

Czech Republic  

Denmark  

Estonia  

Finland  

France  

Germany  

Greece  

Hungary  

Ireland  

Italy  

Latvia  

Lithuania  

Luxemburg  

Malta  

Netherlands  

Poland  

Portugal  

EN 

10.9  

3.5  

9.6  

na  

38.9  

98.3  

2.6  

44.1  

2.4

1.2

3.1

na

20.5

39.0

0.6

14.3

2.954

-25.62% 

0.865

+38.73% 

5.024

-38.3% 

0.731

na 

18.061

+13.5% 

42.064

-7.19% 

0.298 +101.34% 

16.827

-15.01% 

537.0  

239.3

281.739

-15.06% 

171.2  

341.3  

26.3  

107.8  

52.3

105.2

19.1

62.9

60.427

-13.45% 

42.886

+145.3% 

9.376 +103.71% 

33.609

+87.15% 

562.0  

234.1

224.572

+4.24% 

87%

5%

37%

55%

83%

4%

1%

10%

30%

14%

54%

64%

19%

38%

0.444

+12.61% 

0.5%

1.631

+22.62% 

na

- 

1.42

-50.7% 

102.284

-33.62% 

27.156

+34.05% 

6.3

+3.17% 

1%

na

36%

11%

19%

3%

1.0  

4.2  

na  

5.4  

108.4  

77.2  

28.4  

0.5

2.0

na

0.7

67.9

36.4

6.5

78 

   EN 

 
Romania  

Slovakia  

Slovenia  

Spain  

Sweden  

United 
Kingdom  

Total  

16.2  

2.1  

4.1  

7.3

1.0

1.5

14.948

-51.16% 

1.258

-20.51% 

0.831

+80.5% 

318.3  

279.8

237.22

+17.95% 

20.9  

5.9

7.09

-16.78% 

619.3  

172.8

111.302

+55,25% 

55%

36%

56%

21%

2%

21%

3,159.0  

1,376.3

1.451

-5.15% 

18%

(Source: Framian 2007) 

EN 

79 

   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 

BG 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

ET 

EL 

ES 

FR 

IE 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

MT 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SV 

400 

400 

150 

1151 

926 

597 

17814 

1 

26 

69 

36587 

1673 

18 

19343 

11999 

329 

149 

25 

451 

44 

40 

171 

280 

9470 

85 

8 

68 

950 

2274 

18481 

38566 

41468 

535 

2446 

107 

372 

6 

43829 

30959 

26048 

3 

103770 

25959 

2 

427 

1 

15433 

5713 

5572 

158059 

4861 

1143 

217170 

32412 

4230 

200 

1190 

1778 

3913 

791 

84775 

119400 

1810 

250499 

1614 

1132 

13764 

6 

38265 

6153 

161 

59963 

30558 

263 

20 

6914 

6262 

63577 

69678 

178404 

70 

2 

514 

46 

1932 

28 

9739 

5 

141 

1465 

583 

540 

196 

50 

4000 

350 

75 

59500 

1729 

321 

2 

15700 

18600 

2118 

516 

1978 

0 

9913 

736 

63975 

2052 

34300 

844 

1 

1514 

1526 

214 

331 

1491 

5921 

815 

2256 

124 

995 

241 

742 

169 

13693 

4210 

222 

2 

25 

201 

1069 

3195 

1464 

911 

13693 

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 

80 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Table 4 - Value of EU aquaculture production by species, 2005 

Species 

Rainbow trout  

Atlantic salmon  

Gilthead sea bream  

Pacific cupped oyster  

Blue mussel  

European sea bass  

Japanese carpet shell  

Common carp  

Mediterranean mussel  

European eel  

Atlantic bluefin tuna  

Turbot  

Other species  

Total  

Value 

(Euro million) 

601.6 

593.5 

369.8 

358.8 

350.1 

315.1 

272.1 

166.8 

133.2 

87.7 

54.4 

52.5 

190.6 

3,546.2 

(Source: Framian 2007) 

EN 

81 

   EN 

 
Table 5- EU aquaculture sector: employment and firms (2005) 

Country 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxemburg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

Total 

Employment 

Number of firms 

Average employees 

500 

84 

na 

127 

1,693 

674 

42 

332 

12,374 

6,609 

4,975 

1,518 

1,144 

5,771 

426 

333 

na 

105 

194 

2,610 

4,051 

na 

233 

254 

17,619 

200 

2,430 

64,298 

(Source: Framian 2007) 

400 

na 

na 

na 

690 

205 

96 

187 

3,720 

1,058 

937 

349 

253 

725 

na 

18 

na 

na 

155 

900 

1,471 

na 

na 

na 

2,306 

325 

589 

14,384 

1.25 

na 

na 

na 

2.45 

3.29 

0.44 

1.78 

3.33 

6.25 

5.31 

4.35 

4.52 

7.96 

na 

18.5 

na 

na 

1.25 

2.9 

2.75 

na 

na 

na 

7.64 

0.61 

4.13 

4.47 

EN 

82 

   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 

Sea bream 

Oyster 

Mussel 

424 

1 075 

85 

405 

444 

48 

424

533

102

380

862

115

285

222

133 

1 101 

446

1 159

1 416

2 512 

2 244 

3 450

118

225

405 

221 

229

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 
water fish 

fresh 

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 fresh water fish from some Asian countries 
(tonnes) 

Origin 

1999  2000  2001

2002

2003

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

Vietnam 

China 

Indonesia 

Thailand 

Total 

572 

848 

2 106

3 290

7 627

20 023

38 016

103 151  140 187

58 

81 

90 

293

110

1

53

1 211

4 157 

7 233

58 

68

35

217

1 021

835

1 228 

1 230

90 

144 

231

270

546

714

799

876 

984

802 

1 140 

2 697

3 705

8 392

21 811

40 862

109 412  149 634

Source: AND-International (based on data from Eurostat/COMEXT) 

EN 

83 

   EN 

 
 
Table 8 - Evolution of exports (in "live weight equivalent" tonnes) 

Species 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

190 

242 

128

190

147

191

126 

131 

124

615 

717 

894

1083

954

1194

1406 

1732 

2228

666 

707 

773

Sea bream 

65 

213 

257

731 

1041 

833

593

333

673

718

250

700

412

295

785

164 

458 

184

438 

852 

1839

805 

840 

1180

6063 

8313 

10450

11849

12936

13252

8996 

10840 

11988

19602 

14909 

14944

18170

33336

30326

23849 

36408 

46011

1890 

1215 

2506

2593

871

1633

2618 

3040 

3634

29823 

27357 

30783

35484

49912

48088

38401 

54301 

67188

Eels 

Sea bass 

Carp 

Oysters 

Mussels 

Salmon 

Trout 

Total 

Source: AND-International (based on data Eurostat/COMEXT); conversion factors: OFIMER 

EN 

84 

   EN 

 
Table 9 – Exports per country of destination in 2007 (tonnes) 

Destination 

Salmon  Trout 

Sea 
bass 

Sea 
bream 

Eels  Mussel  Oysters

USA 

Russia 

Switzerland 

Japan 

Norway 

Vietnam 

Ukraine 

Australia 

Canada 

Croatia 

Thailand 

Lebanon 

Tunis 

China 

Hong-Kong 

Israel 

Serbia 

Kuwait 

United 
Emirates 

Arab 

Bosnia 

Total  

16 060 

0

7 054 

1 485

2 487 

1 084 

762 

826 

659 

985 

556 

254 

587 

531 

66 

461

341

169

182

12

10

99

0

1

247 

139

0

0

1

184 

175 

213 

338 

173 

54 

653

586

301

171

508

163

6

4

30

48

45

21

4

0

194

37

1

7

41

4

2

0

294

245

35

0

0

48

5

0

0

1

1 036 

825 

585 

32 

205 

0 

218 

14 

12 

0

329 

7 

24 

28 

0 

5 

9 

29 

0 

15 

56 

56

4

0

0

0

2

365

214

0

41

1

67

3

7

4

2

5

248

2

0

0

53

0

36 669 

3 461

2 122

1 751

118

4 190 

1 180

Source: AND-International d'après Eurostat/COMEXT 

EN 

85 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 10 - Comparative operating cost profiles of different aquaculture systems  
(percent of total operating cost) 

Breakdown 
of  operating 
costs 

Offsho
re 
salmo
n 

Organ
ic 
salmo
n 

Sea 
bream 
cages 

Tuna 
cages 

Turbo
re-
t 
circula
ted 

Turbo
t  flow 
throug
h 

Eel  re-
circula
ted 

Octop
us  on-
growi
ng 

Arctic 
charr 
cages 

Africa
n  

catfish 

45.6 

54 

27 

15 

18 

29 

13 

43 

58.7 

7.1 

13.5 

20 

48 

10 

11 

29 

42 

21 

7.9 

9 

10 

0.4 

6 

14 

7 

10 

8 

10 

9 

1 

11 

19 

Depreciation 

5 

7.1 

13 

35 

33 

20 

7.2 

9.6 

5 

2.2 

1.1 

2.2 

12 

11 

3 

1 

2 

15 

2 

2.2 

0.7 

9.3 

2.5 

4.6 

1 

2 

4 

2 

4 

2 

1 

1 

2 

4 

2 

1 

46 

17 

8 

7 

6 

Feed 

Selling 
costs/Packing 

Seed  stock  (fry 
or smolts) 

Wages/salaries 

Misc./other 
operating  costs  – 
inc.  consumables 
& contingency 

Maintenance 

Vet/medicines 

Administration/
Overhead costs 

Transport 

3 

3 

Harvest expenses 

Stock  &  general 
Insurance 

3 

Legal 
& 
professional fees 

Licensing/lease/ 
discharge costs 

Power and fuel 

2 

0 

2 

1 

9 

1 

3 

11 

9 

2 

3.3 

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 

(Source: JRC2008)

EN 

86 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX II  

OUTCOME OF THE CONSULTATION 

Report on the results of the open consultation on the 

“Opportunities for the development of Community aquaculture" 

This overview of the main points raised in the consultation process is primarily based on the 
written  submissions  received  with  additional  references  –  where  necessary  –  to  indications 
provided in specific meetings. 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 consultation 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. 

2. 

Do  you  consider  it  justified  for  the  Community  to  develop  a  specific  strategy  for 
aquaculture and why?  

Do you share the vision for a sustainable development of European aquaculture as 
set  out  in  the  2002  Strategy?  Would  you  consider  that  it  needs  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 contributors when highlighting their justification and 
views  on  what  they  consider  should  be  the  scope,  the  vision  and  the  objectives  of  such  a 
strategy,  although  views  diverge  on  one  or  the  other  specific  domain  that  should  be 
addressed70.  

Differences in both the functions of, and the approaches to, fisheries and aquaculture are seen 
to  entirely  justify  a  specific  strategy  for  aquaculture  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" approach, with reference to a "European Fisheries and Aquaculture Funds" 
(French Aquaculture Federation).  

69 
70 

See at http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/governance/consultations/consultation_100507_en.htm  
As,  an  example,  the  Finnish  Fish  Farmers  Association  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 

87 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Generally,  the  vision  and  objectives  of  the  2002  strategy  are  fully  supported  and  are 
considered  being  still  valid,  but  several  arguments  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 forward 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 Agricultural 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 sustainability of aquaculture. The 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 striving for strong growth 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  Strategy  should  be  adapted  to  new  and  developing 
circumstances,  with  a  sharper  focus  on  encouraging  successful  sectoral  development  of  the 
business through positive proactive actions, level playing field and a better balance between 
business  development  and  environment  conservation.  Several  contributions  refer  to  the 
importance that should be given to aquaculture and to giving it similar support to other sectors 
(notably to allow an aquaculture strategy to contribute 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 indication of possible targets for the development 
of  aquaculture,  and  quantitative  objectives  can  be  found  in  two  contributions  only  (one 
advocating  for  an  EU  objective  of  doubling  production  over  five  years,  while  another  one 
even mentions that the objective for Europe should be self-sufficiency). 

2. 

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK FOR EU AQUACULTURE 

3. 

4. 

5. 

What effect is globalisation having on the EU aquaculture sector and what are the 
main factors affecting its competitiveness? 

How  do  you  see  the  future  of  the  market  for  Community  aquaculture  (niche 
markets, mass production …)?  

How  can  the  image  problem  of  aquaculture  be  addressed  to  increase  consumer 
acceptance of farmed products? 

All those that have expressed their views on the above issues 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  also  contribute  to  increasing  outsourcing  of 
seafood processing, while processed products represent the highest 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 level playing field. They contest the fact that fish 

EN 

88 

   EN 

 
produced under different and less stringent conditions can easily enter the European Market. 
As an example, some "traditional" European products (trout and salmon) are now produced in 
industrial  quantities  at  highly  competitive  prices  outside  the  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  example  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  potential  for  a  permanent  and  real  time  monitoring  of  markets,  or 
the creation of an observatory of European Aquaculture. 

Despite  the  above  challenge  in  a  global  market,  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  production  (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  given  to  mass  products  vs.  niche  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 intensity of such a problem. While generally most 
contributions  received  from  public  bodies,  the  scientific  Community  or  NGOs  highlight  the 
importance of transparency and better communication 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…),  argued  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  makers  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  (tackling  industry  credibility  and 
production method,  promotion  and  marketing of products, 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 Aquaculture 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  criteria  for  sustainable  fish  farming  (e.g.  Marine  Conservation 

EN 

89 

   EN 

 
Society) or their views for detailed legislation changes (e.g. Federation of Greek Maricultures 
regarding  Reg.  2065/2001  on  consumer  information).  The  future  reform  of  the  common 
organisation of the markets for fishery products is also mentioned in this context. 

3. 

ENVIRONMENTALLY - FRIENDLY AQUACULTURE GROWTH 

3.1. 

Environmental impact of aquaculture 

6. 

7. 

What are the most important environmental challenges faced by aquaculture and 
what are the appropriate avenues to address them? 

Can you identify, within the framework of Community environmental legislation, 
business-friendly options to regulate aquaculture activities? 

Although  it  can  be  noted  that  contributions  from  environmental  bodies  in  the  consultation 
process  have  been  rather  limited,  environmental  aspects  of  aquaculture  are  confirmed  to  be 
very important issues addressed 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 effluents 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 that 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 Producers 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 

90 

   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  Agriculture  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 hampering growth or, even, leading existing business 
to  shut  down  (e.g.  problems  with  licence  renewals).  Generally,  contributions  from  the 
aquaculture sector express the view summarised by FEAP when stating that "there is little in 
the  way  of  business-friendly  environmentally  legislation,  since  the  latter  tends  to  assume 
negative  rather  than  positive  impacts  of  aquaculture  and  impose  associate  restrictive 
actions". Some contributions also insist on the fact that environmental  services  provided by 
aquaculture  to  the  environment  should  be  recognised  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  comprehensive  retrospective  investigation  into  the 
additional  regulatory  burden  placed  on  EU  aquaculture  over  the  last  decade  should  be 
commissioned. However, the most frequent and important concerns refer to legal instruments 
in two main policy domains, namely water quality and nature conservation.  

For  example,  the  contribution  from  the  Brittany  region  reports  "that  –according  to  the 
producers-  the  strengthening  of  regulations  such  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 water 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. for use of bath treatment medicines) because of fear of EU action 
(court  challenge).  The  planned  repeal  of  the  shellfish-waters  Directive  is  also  of  significant 
concerns to shellfish producers.  

In terms on nature conservation, many producers 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 "precautionary principle" by authorities, even at 
renewal  of  the  existing  operating  licences.  Increased  consultation  and  discussion  among 
stakeholders and authorities (rather than imposed measures) are also called for. 

The  need  for  better  level  playing  field  for  aquaculture  development  appears  to  be  an 
important  common  denominator  to  numerous  contributions  and  comments  in  this  regard. 
Referring to different levels of imbalance – between MS, between environmental and socio-
economic  considerations,  but  also  between  different  competing  or  comparable  activities  - 
several  contributions  see  benefits  from  increased  forms  of  harmonisation  between  Member 
States.  The  development  of  interpretation  or  guidance  documents  on  EU  environmental 
legislation, of common estimators of "carrying capacity", of scientific evaluations and impact 
assessment  guidelines  on  the  basis  of  common  predictive  models,  are  often  quoted  as  ways 
forward. Some insist however for such common guidelines to address the need for species and 
regional specific sets of environmental indicators and critical 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 

91 

   EN 

 
The difficulty of conciliating an increasing level playing field at EU level while keeping the 
possibility to decide on "higher" environmental protection requirement at region or Member 
States  level  is  illustrated  in  the  contribution  from  Åland  Provincial  Government.  They 
considers that detailed regulation should be set according to the subsidiarity principle, while 
cautioning against possible shifting of aquaculture production 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  practices  and  sound  management,  or  for  a  more 
reasonable  application  of  the  precautionary  principle,  the  aquaculture  producers  would  also 
see  benefit  in  respecting  principles  of  Better  Regulation,  such  as  a  more  streamlined  and 
business-friendly authorisation process (e.g. concerns regarding the multiplicity and diversity 
of current approval procedures and numerous licences required to run a business, the various 
counterpart administrations to work with, etc). 

Numerous  contributors  considers  that  an  important  part  of  impacts  of  aquaculture  on  the 
environment  can  be  managed  and  minimised  through  effective  siting  of  farms  and 
understanding of processes involved. Environmental challenges are therefore also viewed in 
relation to spatial planning or development of an integrated 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  contributions  received.  Some  advocate  for  precise  evidence  based 
research (notably for knowledge gaps when assessing specific production sites), but numerous 
contributors  also  consider  the  need  for  research  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 aquaculture development? 

All  forms  of  water  pollution  (including  algal  blooms  and  introduction  of  alien  species, 
highlighted as particularly important 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 dependency of aquaculture on an aquatic environment of 
high  quality,  contributors  develop  their  views  around  two  different  types  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 importance given to one or the other 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 number of contributors as an efficient user of water (often by 
comparison  to  agriculture  in  respect  of  water  consumption  to  produce  high  quality  food). 
Aquaculture (notably shellfish) also plays a role as an indicator of water quality. Numerous 

EN 

92 

   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 closely 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  concentrated  on  the  principal  sources  of  pollution  or 
recommend  effective  regulation  and  enforcement  of  other  water  users  whose  activities  can 
impinge on aquaculture water quality. 

In  this  context  also,  some  support  the  development  and  application  of  (marine)  spatial 
planning  or  integrated  coastal  zone  management  (ICZM)  to  facilitate  the  allocation  of 
appropriate sites - with the correct water quality - for aquaculture applications. 

Specific needs are also expressed for shellfish production, especially the necessity to amend 
the  WFD  to  incorporate  the  specific  microbiological  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 coastal areas and could also 
affect offshore sites). 

4. 

9. 

AN  AQUACULTURE  INDUSTRY  PROVIDING  HEALTHY  FOOD  WHILE  ENSURING 
ANIMAL HEALTH AND WELFARE  

What are the most important challenges related to animal health and welfare and 
how  should  they  be  addressed,  in  view  of  the  different  constraints  faced  by  the 
aquaculture sector? 

The aspects related to aquaculture 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  rather  long  and  precise  comments  to  very  specific  health  and 
welfare  issues  (e.g.  from  the  Federation  of  Greek  maricultures).  A  few  contributions  to  the 
consultation are even practically entirely dedicated 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  welfare  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  stocking  density,  poor  health  conditions,  crowding, 
handling  and  grading,  transport,  starvation,  tagging,  sea  lice,  algal  blooms  and  jellyfish 
threatening farmed fish, mortality, biotechnology, genetic engineering, artificial lighting and 
photoperiod manipulation, slaughtering…). 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  supportive  for  fish  welfare,  but  to  be  placed  in  the  context  of 
promoting  and  maintaining  the  optimum  conditions  for  species.  Some  consider  that  the 
challenge is to resist the temptation of applying pseudo-anthropomorphic suggestions for best 
practices (FEAP), or that there are many opinions but few facts (Danish aquaculture), or that 
any  Policy  on  these  issues  should  avoid  being  exaggerated  and  counterproductive  (French 

EN 

93 

   EN 

 
producers). The need to look for robust welfare indicators based on science, but also allowing 
adaptation  to  fast  developing  techniques  has  been  put  forward  several  times.  Best  practices 
and  codes  of  conducts  for  stocking  density  are  given  as  examples  (e.g.  SSPO)  or  as  the 
preferred option by several contributors. The Directive 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  for  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  legislation  (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, Austrian carp producers, 
COPA-COGECA).  Shellfish  producers  however  consider  that  this  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  that  it  gives  a  to  strong  dimension  to  trade 
facilitation in comparison to protecting shellfish production from possible diseases. 

Genetic selection (resistant brood stock) and the development of vaccines are often mentioned 
as solutions to fish health problems. 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  salmon  aquaculture  for  example).  More  generally, 
availability of and access to veterinary medicines 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  medicines,  the  disparities  among  MS,  the  difficulties  of 
addressing  health  issues  in  new  species  (markets  without  interest  for  the  pharmaceutical 
industry)… In a comparable manner, the European Feed Manufacturers Federation (FEFAC) 
consider  that  the  authorisation  procedures  for  feed  additives  are  tailored  made  for  land 
animals  and  do  not  specifically  address  characteristics  of  aquatics  animals,  limiting  thereby 
the possibilities to address specific nutritional needs for some fish species. 

Healthy food from fish aquaculture is also often referred to in relation to feeding and the high 
value of unsaturated fatty acids (see question 11 below). For shellfish producers however, the 
main  concerns  regarding  public  health  relate  to  microbiological  testing  and  biotoxin 
monitoring.  They  consider  being  severely  constrained  by  the  "hygiene"  package,  and  the 
continuous  trend  on  an  always  stricter  approach  of  legislation  on  public  health  and  too 
frequent  changes  in  this  domain.  The  shellfish  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  threat  to  the  viability  of  their  companies  in  the 
short-term. The role of the European Food Safety Authority, the position of national reference 
laboratories and some form of "abuse" of the 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  health  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 

94 

   EN 

 
5. 

AQUATIC FARMING: A NEW ERA IN ANIMAL DOMESTICATION 

10. 

What do you see as the most promising avenues in fish or shellfish domestication 
to provide opportunities for aquaculture growth in the EU? 

Some  contributors  recognise  that  developing  new  alternative  species  could  be  a  promising 
avenue, but do so only in general terms.  

the  majority  of  contributions  received  provide  some  detailed  views  on 
However, 
"domestication" of fish and shellfish. A number of contributions from producers identify the 
"new"  aquaculture  species  that  they  would  see  an  interest  in.  For  example,  recognising 
climatic differences in the Community, FEAP sees 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 environment, the range of option 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  environmental  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  number  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  shellfish  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 producing more of the same species72, produced even more efficiently 
and also processed with more efficiency. Improved domestication of local 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  contribution  when  referring  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 considering what is a new species or not, there is a 
common  and  unanimous  view  that  domestication  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 

95 

   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 efficiency, disease resistance, feed source and nutritional needs, food 
conversion efficiency, brood stock management, selective breeding (including use of genomic 
tools)… 

According  to  most  comments,  domestication  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  (negative  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 sometimes 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 new market opportunities. 

11. 

To  what  extent  do  you  consider  that  fish  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  contain  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 
limits  are  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. 

these 

The  International  Fishmeal  and  Oil  Organisation  (IFFO)  considers  even  that  statements  on 
fish  meal  and  fish  oil  limitations  look  "unnecessarily  alarmist"  in  the  Community  2002 
Strategy on aquaculture or in the Consultation document, and they provide an extensive set of 
information and data to support their views.  They recognise  however  that fishmeal and fish 
oil, "once commodities, will increasingly become strategic 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 

96 

   EN 

 
at critical stages in the life-cycle such as starter diets, brood-stock diets, or finisher diets. They 
consider  therefore  that  production  (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  products  with  a  transparent 
market, and their prices fluctuate and reflect global production and demand. Both FEAP and 
COPA-COGECA consider that what is preventing 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  countries  where  labour  and  other  costs  are  much 
lower. Fish oil availability could be a more serious limiting factor in the future, considering 
that global fish oil production is already practically totally used for aquaculture purposes, but 
partial  substitution  by  vegetable  oils  (e.g.  rape  seed  oil)  is  already  current  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  process  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 for exclusive use in feeds). 

The fish feed industry agrees that it must reduce the inclusion of FMFO in its formulations in 
order  to  be  able  to  support  a  sustainable  aquaculture  development.  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  aspects  of  feeding  FMFO  to  farmed  fish  (e.g. 
competition with prey stocks of natural predators). 

The  general  current  position  is  seen  as  one  of  demonstrating  that  the  industry  still  requires 
FMFO for its sustainable development, but alternative raw material will be used more once a 
better  understanding  of  formulation  and  nutritional  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 the 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  Federation  of  Greek  Maricultures  considers  that 
research  in  this  area  must  become  a  strategic  priority,  asking  also  for  some  particular 
quantified targets. 

Notwithstanding  zoo-technical  work  such  as  species  selection,  breed  improvements, 
physiology  knowledge,  the  most  quoted  key  replacements  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  "anecdotal  options"  are  also 
foreseen in a few contributions, such as exploring possibilities of bacterial and algal culture 
(IMARES), producing marine lipids from natural gas (SINTEF) or even using insects (House 
of the Dutch provinces). 

In addition to promoting research, several contributors also call for more immediate political 
or legal changes. Several contributions 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 

97 

   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 for a mandatory gradual reduction of FMFO used 
to feed land terrestrial animals towards an ultimate prohibition of such use within a decade, 
arguing that aquaculture is by far the best and most 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  availability  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 Processors and Renderers Association calls for an 
amendment  to  the  TSE  regulation  as  soon  as  possible  to  allow  terrestrial-non-ruminants-
processed  animal  proteins  to  be  used  in  feeds  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 also 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  recognised  by  numerous  contributors  as  a  very 
important  element,  influencing  their  individual  input  to  the  consultation.  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 consumers on the present evolution 
(on  issues  such  as  for  example  the  re-introduction  of  blood  meal)  or  by  FEFAC  which 
highlights the need to address fish farmer and consumer perception, with regard to omega 3 
fatty acids contents of fish and 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 forms of possible limits on 
feeds, in the sense that they need to have access to the natural 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 species) aquaculture. 

6. 

OVERCOMING  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" and offshore technologies are the main possible 
innovations referred to by all groups of contributors, 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  farming  and  higher  stocking  density,  and  techniques  to  increase 
production, such as biotech and genetic engineering risk being introduced. 

EN 

98 

   EN 

 
There  is  a  consensual  trend  to  consider  that  on-land  aquaculture  systems  using 
recirculation (and possibly heating) provide most promise where space is the limiting factor 
for fresh water but also coastal sites. Water recirculation and treatment technology is also seen 
as  an  excellent  way  to  address  impacts  of  aquaculture  on  the  environment  and  for  optimal 
control  of  environmental  parameters  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 recognition that such technological uptake 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 has 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 that the "sustainability" criteria should attract 
for  a  premium  price  and  allow  therefore  positive  developments  (e.g.  Marine  Conservation 
Society). 

However,  there  appears  to  be  still  some  need  for  technological  development  and  some 
zootechnical  issues  have  not  yet  been  completely  resolved  for  an  optimal  management  of 
recirculation  systems.  Contributions  received  highlight  the  need  for  innovation  in  managing 
and  monitoring  recycling  processes,  efficient  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  product  (muscle  tone  and  quality, 
absence of off-flavour)…  

Moreover, since many recirculation systems use species that support a high farming density 
(notably to reduce costs per unit produced), several contributors 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  the  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  farmers'  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  farmers,  suitability  of  sites  and 
equipments, and availability of appropriate plankton food for shellfish. Much more research 
and  developments  needs  to  be  carried  out  in  this  area  before  it  becomes  a  reality". 
Environmental  NGOs  express  some  more  cautious  position  about  possible  promises  of 
offshore aquaculture, notably regarding 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 challenge, a number of contributors 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 aquaculture. The Federation of Scottish Aquaculture 
Producers  see  a  major  challenge  in  finding  investors  that  are  willing  to  risk  large  sums  of 

EN 

99 

   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  views  that  technological  innovation  should  be 
encouraged  trough  efficient  EU  cooperation  in  research  and  investments.  Some 
contributors recall also that, if offshore aquaculture 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.  Possibilities  of  linking  with  other  industries 
(renewable energy for example) where aquaculture can take advantage of structures that have 
the  potential  to  alleviate  stress  on  containments  are  mentioned.  Promoting  recirculation 
aquaculture  systems  by  subsidising  energy  costs  is  also  an  option  put  forward  by  some 
contributors (Finnish Fish Farmers' association).  

It  is  worth  noting  that  several  contributors  (from  various  categories  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 aquaculture production needs to be high-tech. The 
positive  role  of  extensive  aquaculture  is  highlighted,  and  traditional  aquaculture  should  be 
able  to  continue  and  to  benefit  from  support.  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. 

14. 

What  are  the  main  obstacles  to  access  to  marine  or  fresh  water  space  for 
aquaculture activities? Would you consider that there is a need for public decision 
maker to set aside specific locations dedicated to the development of aquaculture?  

How could marine/maritime spatial planning 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  procedures  to  get  an  approval  of  licences  to 
operate. In numerous contributions, there is quite 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  related  issues  and  the  current  "low"  status  of 
aquaculture as a stakeholder in marine and freshwater policies appear also at the heart of this 
debate. There are unanimous voices for a full stakeholder involvement in any such process. 

A number of producers consider that current policies and legal frameworks are unsuited to the 
sector's  needs,  specifically  at  Member  State,  regional  or  at  local  level,  which  impedes  the 
issuing  of  licences  and/or  other  control  procedures  and  leads  to  an  effective  blocking  of 
aquaculture development. 

Very frequent concerns refer to: 

EN 

100 

   EN 

 
–  Bureaucratic delays in procedures, 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 necessary licences to operate).  

–  Licence  validity  periods  are  too  short  which  does  not  stimulate  investment,  but  creates 

uncertainty and confusion for the producer and investor.  

–  Differing  interpretation  of  European  legislation  at  national  level,  combined  with  a 
frequently  reported  tendency  for  local  authorities  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 first 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 decision, for obtaining aquaculture 
operating  licences  should  be  provided  in  each  Member  State.  Licences  should  also  be 
accorded  for  reasonable  periods  of  time  with  clear  conditions  for  renewal  in  order  to  bring 
about longer term investments. These conditions are seen by the sector as symptomatic that it 
remains  poorly  understood  and  reflecting  its  low  status  as  a  stakeholder  in  freshwater  and 
maritime  activities.  The  need  for  better  communication  is  often  reiterated,  with  the  EU  -  or 
the  European  Commission-  being  seen  an  important  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.  Support  for  spatial  planning  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 among contributors, even within a given category 
of the main stakeholders, thus reflecting probably different levels of difficulty already faced 
by operators in terms of access to space and licensing. 

As  an  illustration,  the  Danish  aquaculture  organisation  considers  that  it  "is  imperative  that 
specific locations are dedicated to aquaculture, otherwise the local authorities will apply the 
"NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) principle". The need for designation of specific aquaculture 
sites  –including  supporting  the  existing  ones-  is  also  seen  as  necessary  by  the  French 
Aquaculture  Association,  which  considers  that  such  planning  should  also  have  legal  force, 
and they insist that this is only possible if there is a real political will. The EAS board is of the 
view  that  reserved  specific  locations  are  probably  crucial  for  the  sustainability  of  shellfish 
sector  as  well  as  for  artisanal  finfish  production  in  riverside  and  coastal  zones.  The  Greek 
producers report that their central administration has decided to move towards the creation of 
designated aquaculture zones, or Areas of Organised aquaculture development, in response to 
the  need  for  better  control,  collective  managements  within  a  flexible  business  environment, 
but  also  with  respect  to  natural  resources.  The  Dutch  department  of  fisheries,  recognising 
inconsistent  legislation  at  different  government  levels,  considers  that  the  establishment  of 
specific  locations  for  aquaculture  development  could  prevent  the  damaging  of  vulnerable 
ecosystems. 

Other stakeholders have more mitigated views. COPA-COGECA does not consider it useful 
in  every  case  to  designate  areas  potentially  suitable  for  aquaculture.  Conditions  and 

EN 

101 

   EN 

 
requirements  as  well  as  insight  into  site-specific  needs  may  change  over  time  (due  to 
environmental change, for example, or new species 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.  The  Irish  producers  also  recognised  there  are 
differing  opinions  on  giving  specific  zones  to  specific  sectors  (uncertainty  involved  in 
specialisation and expertise on those who may draw up the zones, need to cope with possible 
increasing  demand  in  the  future,  unforeseen  environmental  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 selected…). 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  aquaculture  sites  in  rural  areas,  neither  do  the 
Slovakian authorities (although recognising that access to aquaculture is limited because of a 
great number and space of protected areas). 

Public bodies or similar, although supportive of some general principles, such as participation 
processes, often appear to have more of a precautionary stance regarding dedicated allocation 
of  space  to  aquaculture.  There  are  nevertheless  a  few  more  pro-active  views,  such  as  for 
example  the  Fisheries  and  Aquaculture  Strategic  Group  that  advises  the  Welsh  assembly 
which  supports  the  creation  a  public  body  in  charge  of  setting  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 development. 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  entrepreneurship  and  sustainability’  has  been  quoted  and  supported  by  both 
FEAP and the EAS board. 

Numerous contributions make references to ICZM and the development, use and application 
of spatial planning procedures are seen as contributing to the resolution of conflicts for space 
and  support  the  overall  recognition  of  fish  farming  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 development 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  consolidate  on  fewer  but  larger  sites  to  maintain 
production  on  a  competitive  scale  (British  Trout  Association).  The  Federation  of  Greek 
Maricultures is of the view that there is an urgent 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 already 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  knowledge  on  carrying  capacity,  non-implementation  of 
biomass  limits...  The  Norwegian  Ministry  of  Fisheries  indicates  that  spatial  planning  and 
management is the main tool in coastal management, and its implementation relies on local 
authorities.  They  also  indicate  that  there  is  a  need  for  science  based  knowledge  of 
environmental  impact  of  farms  on  a  local  scale.  However,  the  central  authorities  (regional 

EN 

102 

   EN 

 
office of the Directorate of Fisheries) may raise objections if sufficient areas for aquaculture 
are not set aside by the municipality. 

The  scientific  community  appears  generally  supportive  of  spatial  planning  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  assessment.  They  consider  that  it  will  increase 
certainty  for  industry  as  government  licensing  bodies  will  abide  by  the  Marine  Plan  unless 
significant impacts revealed by environmental impact assessments.  

7. 

PROVIDING SUPPORT FOR SUSTAINABILITY 

15. 

16. 

How  can  we  ensure  that  EFF  implementation  will  contribute  to  sustainable 
aquaculture growth in the EU? 

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  (producers  from  UK,  IE,  FI)  have  been  expressed  regarding  the 
uncertainty  of  the  outcome  of  National  Strategic  Plans  and  Operational  Programmes  under 
elaboration, the insufficient allocation of money compared to previous structural funds or the 
too- restrictive measures of the new EFF Regulation. Other producers 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  Greek  associations).  However,  the  Danish 
aquaculture association expresses its satisfaction on the collaboration with national authorities 
and  the  general  consensus  about  industry  development,  which  they  consider  will  appear 
important in relation to local decision making. 

As far as contributions from national authorities are concerned, the Ministry of Agriculture of 
the Slovak Republic indicates that the preparation of their national 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 such action, they intend to focus their efforts 
into  existing  farming  capacity.  The  Dutch  authorities  (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 that are the most promising.  

EN 

103 

   EN 

 
8. 

RESEARCH: A POWERFUL DEVELOPMENT TOOL 

17. 

18. 

19. 

How  can  research  policy  be  set  in  a  strategic  context  to  enhance  its  benefits, 
specifically  for  European  aquaculture  and/or  European  technology  and  know-
how? 

How can the transfer of research results be optimised so as to maximise the benefit 
to European business?  

Which cross-cutting areas in marine research would you consider most important 
for aquaculture? 

There is a clear common view among contributors to see research as a fundamental element to 
sustainable  development  of  Aquaculture  in  Europe,  although  views  vary  on  the  facets  of 
sustainability to be more developed. The views on (marine) research for aquaculture are often 
focused or referring to the conclusions provided in several workshops and seminars made in 
recent months, such as the "Aberdeen Declaration" of June 2007 for example", as well as in 
relation to the development of the Maritime Policy. 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 few themes that would be seen as most important 
for  aquaculture  as  the  need  for  further  research  –being  specific  or  crosscutting-  has  been 
raised for all issues covered under the previous questions, such as for example:  

–  New  technologies  (materials  and  management  systems  offshore  aquaculture,  marine 

biotechnology 

–  (alternate feed) 

–  Environmental issues, efficient and optimal use of aquatic resource, Climate change effects 

–  Health monitoring and maintenance, improved hatchery performance for the production of 

marine juveniles (reduced malformations, better growth), alternate feeds 

–  Spatial  planning  and  modelling  for  improved  ICZM,  potential  for  integrated  aquaculture 

activities. 

Several  contributors  insist  therefore  on  the  fact  that  the  research  policy  should  reflect  the 
overall  strategy  or  that  it  should  be  directed  by  objectives.  Providing  a  specific  research 
policy  for  European  aquaculture  would  have  visible  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 wider 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. Nonetheless, the industry will need to accommodate 
how it can provide financial support for such research work. 

EN 

104 

   EN 

 
 
While supportive of the need for research, some stakeholders express concerns regarding the 
present  state  of  research.  For  example,  the  Federation  of  Greek  Maricultures  is  of  the  view 
that  there  is  an  apparent  lack  of  strategic  guidance  and  support  in  the  research  field.  The 
Danish Aquaculture Organisation expresses some rising concern that even though the EU is 
investing  heavily  in  R&D,  production  is  stagnating.  The  House  of  Dutch  Provinces  even 
states that in an open economy, it seems inevitable that supporting know-how and innovation 
will  spill  over  to  non-EU  Member  States  and  "will  capitalise  only  there",  and  considers 
therefore  crucial  the  need  for  a  good  picture  on  the  focus  points  and  chances  in  Europe 
beforehand.  A  number  of  stakeholders  also  express  concerns  regarding  the  bureaucratic 
procedures for EU RTD projects, which represent a major limiting factor for joining in. 

Quite  a  number  of  contributors  also  indicate  that  European  aquaculture  research  remains 
dispersed  with  duplication  of  effort,  particularly  between  the  National  Programmes.  Some 
would see benefits in the creation of a central database for future aquaculture research or in a 
regular  appraisal  by  relevant  stakeholders  –  including  industry  representatives  of  RTD 
progress, based on definite benchmarks to measure progress.  

A  closer  involvement  of  economic  operators  in  the  definition  of  research  priorities  at 
Community  level  also  appears  as  a  frequent  request  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 should 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 intellectual property or of the 
competitive  advantage  gained.  A  structured  effort  to  optimise  the  dissemination  and 
availability of information, and training should help bridging the gap that exists between the 
research  and  professional  sectors.  Positive  experiences  are  often  used  as  examples73  to 
support numerous proposals in this regard, such as:  

–  The assistance of strong professional associations of inter-professional organisations with 
personnel who are responsible for RTD actions for efficient communication and transfer to 
the industry 

–  The development of accessible RTD project summaries, explaining why the RTD work is 
done, how it can benefit the sector and debating progress and/ or direction (in conferences, 
regional workshops) 

–  The need for improved networking between research 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 

105 

   EN 

 
                                                 
ANNEX III 

POSSIBLE ACTIONS TO CONTRIBUTE REACHING THE OBJECTIVES  
AND THEIR INCREMENTAL EFFECT UNDER OPTION 2 

The table below provides additional information on possible actions referred to under section 5.2. 

Problems/issues identified 

Possible actions by public authorities  

•  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  and  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  legislation  with  the  view  to  reduce  the  level  of 
protection (not proportionate, neither in line with the Treaty). 

-  Decision  on  the  need  to  develop  new  specific  legislation  to  address  a  specific 
environmental  problem  of  aquaculture  (extensive  environmental  legislation  already  in 
place, no evidence for additional one). 

Objective  being  contributed  to  and  incremental 
effect 

level  of  protection  of 

the 

•  Ensuring  a  high 
environment. 

• 

Incremental effects 

restating 

Primarily  of  political  nature,  by  recognising  that  well 
managed  aquaculture  is  an  environmentally  compatible 
activity,  but  also 
the  general  political 
commitment  to continue,  when developing  policies  and 
ensuring 
actions, 
environmentally 
of 
the 
aquaculture.  Highlight  also 
Commission  to  take  additional  measures  if  this  would 
prove necessary. 

in 
development 

the  readiness  of 

sustainable 

emphasis 

placing 

to 

EN 

106 

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) 

•  Ensuring  a  high 

level  of  protection  of 

the 

environment and a high level of public health. 

-  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 maintained (2009 and onwards). 

• 

Improving  competitiveness  and  governance  by 
providing 
industry  with  an 
environment  of  high  quality  compatible  with  its 
needs 

the  aquaculture 

• 

Incremental effects 

These  actions  should  facilitate  the  development  of 
aquaculture  with  the  associated  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  farmers 
to  high  quality  water 
resources,  and  the  legitimate  recognition  of  these 
stakeholders among all other actors. 

- The Commission to enhance information targeting national competent authorities and the 
industry  to  ensure  a  proper  implementation  of  the  WFD  and  of  the  Marine  Strategy 
Framework  Directive  as  regards  aquaculture  activities,  including  by  developing 
guidelines  on  the  application  of  the  WFD  to  shellfish  areas,  in  order  to  ensure  a  certain 
degree  of  harmonisation  in  the  implementation  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  which 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 elements of the EU water protection to possibly 
increase  water  quality  requirements  for  the  protection  of  shellfish  growing  areas  (prior 
deeper assessment required) 

EN 

107 

EN 

 
  
•  The aquatic environment directly impacts 
on  the  potential  safety  for  consumers  of 
water-filtering  molluscs, 
in  particular 
regarding 
risk  of  concentrating 
the 
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 
subsequent 
economic  losses,  without  increasing  the 
apparent  level  of  protection  afforded  to 
the consumers. 

important 

the  one  on  given  health 

•  Aquatic  food  has  high  nutritional  values 
that  contribute  to  the  health  of  citizen 
(Omega 3 fatty acids for example). EFSA 
is  usually  providing  specific  one-sided 
scientific  opinion  on  a  given  issue,  such 
as 
risks 
associated  to  aquatic  food  or  on  fish 
welfare  consideration.  Scientific  opinion 
often 
a  more 
comprehensive  assessment  of  both  the 
benefits  and  the  risks  with  reference  to 
the overall public health related aspects. 

in  providing 

fails 

Background: cf. section 2.5.2: 

•  Potential actions (non-legislative) 

•  Ensuring 

and 
consumer 
recognising  health  benefit  of 
food 
contributes  to  both  the  competitiveness  objective 
and the sustainable development agenda.  

protection 
aquatic 

health 

-  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) 

• 

Incremental effects 

-  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 shellfish industry in order to complement existing 
surveillance requirements for pathogens in live molluscs (2009-2010). 

•  Potential actions not retained  

- To review immediately the provisions of the mouse biological assay test and modify the 
observation  period  to  5  hours,  without  any  new  scientific  basis  and  assessment  of  the 
consequences. 

•  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 benefits related to the consumption of aquatic food, 
taking  into  account  also  the  possible  significant  differences  in  the  content  of  high  value 
nutrients  (e.g.  omega  3  fatty  acids,  protein  content)  depending  on  the  origin  and  species 
concerned. 

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 
scientific 
development.  In  addition,  they  will  provide  better 
monitoring and risk prevention tools which will help to 
a  better  management  limiting  possible  economic  losses 
for market prohibition. 

based  on  new 

protection 

•  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  impacts  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 

108 

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 
in 
disease  of  significant 
terrestrial  animals  (recent  crisis  on  avian 
flu, foot and mouth disease, blue tongue). 

importance 

Background: cf. section 2.5.3: 

•  Potential  specific  actions  (primarily  non-legislative  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  unjustified  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 scientific advice and promote scientific research. 

-  The  Commission  to  assess  (by  2011),  as  part  of  its  action  plan  on  animal  health,  the 
present  financial  instruments  available  to  support  measures  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 sustainable 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 

109 

EN 

 
  
farmed 

•  The  EU  legal  framework  in  relation  to 
welfare  developed  for  farmed  animals 
also  generally  covers 
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  develop  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 (in 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 

the 
for  Sustainable 

to 

objectives  of 
Development. 

the  Strategy 

• 

Incremental effects 

These actions should ensure that specificities of aquatic 
animal welfare are taken into account, beyond measures 
of  the  Community  action  plan  2006-2010  for  animal 
welfare,  and  that  proportionate  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 

110 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
•  There  is  a  lack  of  authorised  veterinary 
medical  products  for  fish  -  because  of 
economic  considerations 
(absence  of 
profitability  of  developing  drugs  for  a 
given  disease  in  a  given  fish  species  by 
the  pharmaceutical  industry),  legal  and 
(notably  at 
administrative  provisions 
Member 
level). 
In 
insufficient 
there 
knowledge  by  the  stakeholders  on  the 
existing  pharmaceutical  framework,  as 
insufficient  awareness  from 
well  as 
public  authorities  on 
the  needs  and 
specificities  related  to  the  treatment  of 
aquatic animals. 

addition, 

Sates 

is 

•  Potential actions (legislative 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. 

•  Addressing 

for 

the  need 

specific  veterinary 
treatments  in aquatics  animals contributes to a  high 
level of animal health and welfare, and therefore to 
both 
the 
the  competitiveness  objective  and 
sustainable development agenda.  

- The Commission and the Member States to implement the recommendations made by 
the "Availability Task Force" (2009-2010). 

• 

Incremental effects 

- 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  stakeholders  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 reasoned use of veterinary treatments in fish (2009-
2010). 

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). 

•  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  Directive  adopted  only  back  in  2004).  Such  a  review  may  be 
considered in a medium or longer term (full assessment required before). 

EN 

111 

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 protection 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 
synergies 
lost  opportunities 
between 
and 
protection of the aquatic environment.  

aquaculture 

activities 

to  use 

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 planning. These planning tools should also facilitate anticipating 
risks  from,  for  instance,  climate  change  effects,  floods  or  coastal  erosion  that  may  affect 
aquaculture sites. 

-  The  Member  States  to  ensure  that  "inland"  spatial  planning  fully  integrates  the  needs 
and values of freshwater aquaculture. 

- (see also other actions contributing to an improved governance) 

• 

Improving  competitiveness  and  governance  by 
ensuring 
right 
that  aquaculture 
competitor in access to water and space 

is  an  equal 

• 

Incremental effects 

the 

Highlighting 
importance  of  aquaculture  while 
developing EU leadership in promoting spatial planning 
should allow this activity to develop much better at EU 
environmental 
level,  while 
performance  by  appropriate  assessment  of  optimal 
location of farms. 

also  optimising 

it 

75 

COM(2008)791 final 

EN 

112 

EN 

 
  
 
                                                 
•  The  aquaculture  production  industry  still 
remains  very  fragmented  and  isolated 
from  the  other  actors  in  the  marketing 
chain. 

•  The  aquaculture 

is 

industry 

facing 
business  challenges  and  is  competing 
within a global market. Lower production 
costs  and  lower  environment  protection 
requirements in certain non-EU countries 
to  produce  aquaculture 
allow 
products  that  are  increasingly  present  on 
the EU market at low prices.  

them 

•  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  cope  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 
considerations, 
environmental 
impacts,  welfare 
sustainability,  etc.)  products  and 
labels  based  on 
certification  schemes  should  contribute  to  satisfy  the 
increasing  consumer  demand  for  this  kind  of  products 
and allow commanding higher prices. 

•  Potential actions (non- legislative 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, consumer information and 
marketing  instruments  such  as  labelling  of  aquatic  food  products).  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  possibilities  for  organic  labelling,  the  value  of 
labelling  possibilities  that  would  promote  the  sustainability  aspects  of  EU  aquaculture 
products  (in  full  respect  of  international  obligations).  The  Member  States  to  adopt  the 
Commission's  proposal  for  a  revised  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  differentiate  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  use  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  operational  costs  and  that  cannot  lead  to  a  self 
sustained  indutry  (would  be  inefficient  in  terms  of  competitiveness,  disproportionate  and 
not creating a level playing field with other economic sectors) 

-  Establishing  non-tariff  trade  restrictions  or  other  measures  that  would  contradict  the 
international trade rules. 

76 

COM(2008)401 final 

EN 

113 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
challenges. 

•  Aquaculture enterprises face a number of 
administrative 
Particular 
problems  lie  in  difficulties  to  obtain 
licences  to  run  an  aquaculture  farm, 
complex 
delays 
bureaucratic 
of 
procedures, 
bureaucratic 
registration,  uncertainty  of  the  outcome, 
short 
different 
administration  involved,  etc.  This  all 
creates  uncertainty  and  confusion,  which 
in 
does  not 
aquaculture. 

investment 

stimulate 

validity, 

licence 

costs 

and 

•  Potential actions (non- legislative, 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  procedures  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 

licenses. 

It  would 

- Many advantages for both the sector and the competent 
authorities would arise from a clearer and well organised 
facilitate  business 
system  of 
development  and  possibly  stimulate  new  investments. 
Moreover, establishing clear procedures for the renewal 
of  the  licenses  would  reduce  uncertainty  and  would 
encourage  longer  term  investments.  For  the  competent 
the 
reduce 
it  would  contribute 
authorities 
administrative burden and to rationalise procedures. 

to 

77 

COM(2008)394 – see http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/entrepreneurship/sba_en.htm 

EN 

114 

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 
and 
because  of  misleading  press 
lobbying. There is a need to develop and 
disseminate  scientifically  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) 

•  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. 

-  The  Commission  and  the  Member  States  to  make  sure  that  relevant  information,  in 
particular the outcome of studies or research supported by public bodies is made publicly 
available (notably on the Internet). 

• 

Incremental effects 

•  Potential actions not retained 

-  The  Commission  to  launch  information/promotion  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  interfering  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 treatments between sectors, products, etc.). 

Producing  and  disseminating  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 

115 

EN 

 
  
 
•  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 

•  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 

-  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. 

All  these  actions  are  expected  to  have  very  positive 
effects for the sector as well as for the consumers.  

-  The  Commission  and  the  Member  States  to  contribute  to  adequate  information  of 
feeding behaviour and needs of fish (most of EU produced fish are carnivorous) to ensure 
that the EU legislation adequately covers 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 applied in the EU, notably when considering that 
such feeding raw material is available on a global market) 

•  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  gives  also  rise  to  a 
debate  on  the  sustainability  of  such 
fisheries. 

feed 

•  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 
feed 
products, 
or 
contaminants, 
additional 
guaranties  to  consumers,  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). 

additives 
provide 

EN 

116 

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,  spatial  planning,  climate 
change, etc.). 

• 

Insufficient  coordination  of  national  & 
insufficient 
efforts, 
Community 
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 
forms  of 
aquaculture. 

traditional 

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  allocated  to  aquaculture  projects  to  further 
develop all dimensions of the knowledge-base 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  science  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 

to 

should  contribute 

By highlighting the value of aquaculture and ensuring it 
is fully taken into the broad picture of EU RTD, all these 
actions 
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. 

increase 

the  value  and 

Recalling 
importance  of  extensive 
aquaculture  in  parallel  will  give  impetus  to  MS  in 
considering  also  possibilities  of  developing  production 
in existing sites and facilities. 

78 

EN 

Joint Technology Initiatives are proposed as a means to implement 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 

117 

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 access 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  improve  the  environmental  record  of  some  present 
practices and improve the level playing field for this sector at a global level. 

- The Commission to develop, in the context of its new 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 hatcheries and nurseries. 

•  Contributing  to  Europe  being  a  reference  on  the 
international scene is fundamental in contribution to 
the competitiveness objective 

• 

Incremental effects 

providers 

Such possible actions are expected to increase the role of 
EU aquaculture business on the 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 
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 
if 
successful,  would  certainly  contribute  to  a  fairer  global 
competition with benefits for EU production. 

international 

(off-shore 

cages, 

fora, 

in 

EN 

118 

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 
to  aquaculture 
funds 
projects. 

•  Potential actions (non- legislative) 

-  The  Commission  to  use  the  Communication  on  a  Strategy  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  programmes  (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 strategy, 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 limited financial resources. 

EN 

119 

EN 

 
  
 
•  Different  ways  of 

situation  within 

interpretation  and 
implementation  of  EU  environment 
legislation  at  national  level  lead  to  an 
uneven 
the  EU. 
Moreover,  as  Member  States  may 
additional 
own 
establish 
environmental  protection 
the 
environment  legislation  may  be  used  to 
justify  a  NIMBY  ("Not  In  My  Back 
Yard") policy at regional or local level. 

rules, 

their 

• 

in  particular  regarding 

Implementation  of  EU  public  health  and 
animal  health  policies  may  also  lead  to 
possible  disparities.  Concerns  have  been 
the 
expressed 
present  application  of 
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). 

the 

•  The 

and 

industry 

aquaculture 

its 
numerous  sub-sectors  remain  of  limited 
economic  importance  which  does  not 
always  allow 
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. 

it 

in 

•  RTD  does  not  sufficiently  contribute  to 
aquaculture  development 
the  EU, 
because  of  insufficient  dialogue  between 
industry  and  scientists  when  designing 
research  priorities  needs.  The  industry 
also 
the 
outcome of such research projects. 

lacks  sufficient 

return  on 

•  Potential actions (non- legislative) 

- The Commission and the Member States to contribute to better mutual understanding 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  related  aspects  -  e.g.  use  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  playing  field  among  operators, 
among  Member  States,  but  also  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  avoid  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. 

•  Potential actions (non- legislative, and possibly legislative) 

• 

Involvement  of  stakeholders  in  policy  development 
is essential to better governance. 

-  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) 

• 

Incremental effects 

- 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 the value of international multi-stakeholder 
platforms in close association with the EU aquaculture producers) (cf. section 2.5.5) 

These  actions  will  raise  the  profile  of  the  aquaculture 
industry  allowing  it  to  better  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 

120 

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  from  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 collection 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.  (Several  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 which 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  markets  mechanisms  should 
enable producers to adapt their production and supply to 
get better value for their products. 

EN 

121 

EN 

 
  
 
ANNEX IV 

DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS 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 therefore be read in conjunction with the main 
body  of  the  present  impact  assessment  report.  For  readability  reasons  and  not  to  alter  the 
content of this extract, the presentation of the text below and all cross referencing refers to the 
original report from with this section has been reproduced. 

--------- 

[…. 

[6] SCENARIO ANALYSIS 

[6.1] Summary prospective analysis and scenario definition 

The  factors  outlined  in  [section  2]  set  out  the  expected  upper  and  lower  limits  for 
development of the aquaculture sector in Europe up to 2025. The objective for the analysis in 
this section is to examine the identified drivers with respect to the strength of their influence 
on  development,  possible  interactions  between  drivers,  how  the  drivers  might  be  modified 
through  policy  or  other  interventions,  and  the  composite  impact  on  the  aquaculture 
development  trajectories.  Of  those  identified  earlier,  only  the  most  significant  ones  are 
included at this point, to avoid 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 government and business investment in R&D, 
education  and  training,  and  the  support  of  government  and  financial  institutions  for 
commercial (technology-based) risk takers 

Species are grouped with respect to culture and market characteristics into: 

•  Salmon, trout, charr and other salmonids 

•  Sea bass, bream and similar species 

EN 

122 

   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 other 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  covered  above  (squid,  cuttlefish,  octopus,  lobster, 

crab, shrimp, abalone, echinoderms etc.) 

•  Aquatic plants (seaweeds)  

Previous growth rates for these species groups provide some guidance, but future factors such 
as  technology  break-throughs  and  changes  in  the  marketplace  are  likely  to  have  greater 
impact,  so  more  emphasis  is  placed  on  foresight  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 terms, than primary production. Other changes 
in aquaculture practice may also occur in response to market demands. For instance demand 
for  larger-size  trout,  and  to  some  extent  sea  bass  and  bream,  suitable  for  processing  (e.g. 
fillets)  has  been  increasing  in  recent  years.  In  responding  to  this,  the  French  rainbow  trout 
production fell from 46,462 tonnes in 2001 to 32,412 tonnes in 2005, although 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 changes would be necessary within the sector 
to achieve differing levels of output. From this, consideration might then be given to which 
scenario  appears  more  likely  in  relation  to  larger  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. The other three scenarios are essentially target-based. The overall growth 
in aquaculture is set by the target growth assumptions. Which sub-sectors develop and at what 
rate is then determined with reference to discussed drivers and barriers, but the actual rate is 
calculated to deliver the target production 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 

123 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In all scenarios it is assumed that a proportion of the aquaculture production will be exported, 
but that an equivalent or greater quantity of other seafood products will be imported. [Table 
12]  summarises  the  main  drivers  that  were  considered  in  constructing  the  models.

EN 

124 

   EN 

 
Species group 

Consumer trends and issues 

Resource constraints and sustainability 

Policy and investment issues 

[Table 12]: Summary of driver effects by sub-sector 

Salmon, trout & other salmonids 

Lower  prices  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  for  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. 
is 
constraining this trend, at least in the UK. Other 
sustainability  issues  are  being  addressed  through 
innovations and new guidelines for best practice. 

Environmental 

regulation 

There  are  significant  constraints  on  further 
inshore  sheltered  sites,  but  further  expansion  at 
more exposed sites is feasible. 

further 

Low  prices  throughout  the  first  half  of  the 
current  decade  slowed  expansion  and 
encouraged 
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. 

The  sea  bass  and  bream  industry  is  only 
moderately  consolidated  and  suffered  low 
prices in the early part of the decade. Further 
restructuring 
is 
expected. 

is  emergent  and  more 

Sea bass, bream & similar 

Halibut, turbot, sole etc 

Cod, haddock, hake etc 

Carp, tilapia, catfish 

The  whole  fish  format  is  popular  in  Southern 
Europe,  but  even  here,  trends  have  been  towards 
easier  to  prepare  and  convenient  fish  products. 
Market 
somewhat 
is 
constrained, although further substitution is likely if 
capture fisheries decline. 

expansion 

therefore 

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. 

Traditionally  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. 

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 
for 
European  market,  with  good  prospects 
for 
suitable 
expansion 

versatile  meat 

as 

Most turbot and sole are produced in tank-based 
systems,  sometimes  recirculated.  Halibut  also 
produced 
systems.  Relatively 
in 
unconstrained. 

cage 

Likely  to  witness  only  modest  expansion 
given  comparatively  high  production  costs 
and desire to maintain high unit value status 
of products. 

Industry  still  very  small  and  not  resource 
constrained.  Possible  competition  with  salmon 
etc. for resources as expansion occurs. 

Further 
production 
investment 

research  needed 
processes 

and 

to 

improve 
encourage 

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 
in 
imported  products  with  those  locally  based. 
Competitive advantage remains to be proven 

to  exploit  growing  market 

EN 

125 

EN 

 
  
Species group 

Consumer trends and issues 

Resource constraints and sustainability 

Policy and investment issues 

incorporation in a range of products. 

for mass market. 

Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander etc. 

Tuna  

Mussels 

Carnivorous  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  businesses  with  relatively 
limited investment resources.  

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. 

the  development  of 

Substantial  R&D  investment  is  required  to 
close  the  tuna  production  cycle  and  allow 
for 
commercial 
hatchery/nursery  operations.  Early  weaning 
of  fish  onto  dry  diets  would  also  reduce 
environmental impacts.  

Reasonable  prospects  for  market  expansion  with 
improved 
packing 
technologies. 

processing 

quality, 

and 

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 
constrained. 

near-shore 

sites 

are 

highly 

These  shellfish  might  form  part  of  IMTAS. 
The  industry  is  mostly  small-scale  private 
producers  with 
for 
investment. 

limited  means 

Clams, cockles etc. 

Lower value shellfish commonly incorporated into a 
range of dishes.  

New non-fish aquaculture sp. 

Prospects  for  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 

126 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
Species group 

Consumer trends and issues 

Resource constraints and sustainability 

Policy and investment issues 

Aquatic plants 

markets. 

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. 

Likely 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 

127 

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  detail  in  the  Part  2  report,  in  the  context  of 
overall  prospects  for  aquaculture  development  (partly  because 
is  where  most 
development/growth,  if  occurred,  would  be  based).  The  emerging  systems  that  were 
identified, and the anticipated prospects are as follows: 

it 

Production technology driven 

Recirculated  aquaculture  systems  -  The  number  and  scale  of  commercial  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 technology 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  and  optimisation  of  both  build  and  operating 
costs.  

Offshore  aquaculture  systems  -  The  salmon  industry  in  particular  is  increasing  production 
scale  at  individual  sites,  and  developing  the  handling  and  harvesting  systems  that  would  be 
required  for  true  offshore  aquaculture.  Support  for  further  R&D  is  being  given  by  the 
governments of Ireland and Norway. It is also notable that the USA have prioritised this type 
of  development  both  investing  in  R&D  and  introducing  a  bill  to  bring  in  the  regulatory 
changes  required  to  allow  for  offshore  aquaculture  developments  in  designated  zones 
(http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/offshore.htm). 

Integrated systems - IMTA systems have potential for reducing environmental impacts whilst 
optimising overall production through making best use of ecological 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 wastes such as ammonia, whereas the molluscs are used to 
remove solids waste (Chopin et al 2006). Currently the seaweeds have the least value in the 
system as they are not widely consumed in the 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 legislation) is increasingly demanding 
assurances of product safety, transparency concerning production and processing, and many 
consumers are also seeking products that clearly embody ethical and environmental values or 
quality concepts. Where labels seek to differentiate a product from other similar offerings in 
the  marketplace,  the  production  and/or  distribution  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  production  and  distribution  systems  do  meet  the 
claims made for the label. As the number of participants in any scheme increases so too does 

EN 

128 

   EN 

 
the  risk  of  brand  degradation  through  the  rogue  actions  of  individual  producers.  This  adds 
cost  and  the  proliferation  of  standards,  organisations  and  labels,  whilst  providing  a  wider 
range of consumer choice, is sometimes regarded as potentially confusing, diluting the value 
individual  labels  may  have.  In  recognition  of  this,  the  European  Commission  DG  Fisheries 
conducted a survey on certification of aquaculture products during the first half of 2007. This 
concluded  that  action  at  EU  level  would  be  helpful,  and  this  is  now  receiving  closer 
scruitiny80.  Supermarket  chains  across  Europe  seem  set  to  continue  their  increasingly 
receptive view of standards which reinforce their ‘green’ credentials; undoubtedly there may 
be  a  cost-based  constraint  on  any  unbridled  enthusiasm,  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 established 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  base  among  policy  makers. 
This  study  identified  around  50  species  that  are  either  produced  at  small  scale  or  research 
levels,  with  potential  for  expansion.  Some  species  are  clearly  constrained  by  technical 
barriers,  such  as  the  reproduction  and  early  rearing  of  bluefin  tuna.  For  other  species,  it  is 
usually  a  combination  of  technical  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 concentration 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  technologies and management practices within the mainstream 
aquaculture systems. Those with greatest impact include: 

Breeding  technology  –  Closing  the  lifecycle  has  been  the  single  most  important  technical 
advance  for  many  aquaculture  species,  especially  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  artificial  diets  etc.  The  Mediterranean  sea  bass  and  bream  industry 
effectively started once commercial hatchery production of fry became feasible in the 1980s. 
Since then, production efficiencies have improved 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 
bream81 (Berg & Cittolin, 1987). Survival rates from egg to fry were often less than 5%. One 

80

81 

EN 

http://www.ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/governance/consultations/consultation_240407_conclusi

ons_en.htm 
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 

129 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
of the most important advances was the introduction 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.  These  improvements  have  lowered  the  cost  of 
production  (in  both  real  and  relative  terms)  as  shown  in  [Figure  62],  based  on  data  from 
Greece. Fry prices reduced from €0.45 from 1991 to €0.21 in 2003, allowing the total cost of 
bass and bream production to be reduced and markets 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 

350.000

300.000

250.000

0,45 

0,40 

Thousand 
Fingerlings 

200.000

150.000

100.000

50.0 00

0 

0,42 

0,33 

0,29 

0,28 

0,29 

0,26 

0,25 

0,23 

0,23 

0,21 

0,22 

0,50 
0,45 
0,40 
0,35 
0,30 
0,25 
0,20 
0,15 
0,10 
0,05 
0,00 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

No. of Fingerlings

P rice (€)

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  have  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 control over the genetics of 
farmed  populations.  As  discussed  in  [Section  5],  this  is  being  achieved  through  selective 
breeding programmes using a combination of traditional stock rearing approaches and the use 
of  genetic  markers  and  statistical  techniques.  Ongoing  research  to  identify  quantitative  trait 
loci  (QTL)  and  ultimately  full  genome  mapping  is  likely  to  allow  further  advances82.  This 
assumes  that  the  “domestication”  or  improvement  of  wild  species  remains  ethically 

82 

1987 with the average extrapolated Euro to dollar value calculated from the DEM-US$ and FRF-US$ 
rates and adjusting accordingly. 
The breeding company “Landcatch Natural Selection” has recently announced the introduction of QTL 
technology  into  their  salmon  breeding  programmes,  allowing  selection  of  broodstock  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/aid/8347/_Quantum_leap__in_salmon_breeding_.html 

EN 

130 

   EN 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
acceptable (as it has done in most other branches  of livestock, agriculture and  horticulture). 
This may not be a safe assumption, as concerns over the technology of genetic modification 
appear  to  have  made  many  consumers  more  suspicious  of  any  technologies  that  are  seen  to 
artificially  interfere  with  the  genetics  of  farmed  species.  This  may  be  particularly  the  case 
with  fish,  which  are  hard  to  contain  securely  in  open  culture  systems,  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 this initial disposition, which  may  recede over 
time as familiarity and acceptance increases. 

Selective breeding programmes have proved to be a fundamental tool in lowering the cost of 
production  for  terrestrial  livestock,  and  are  having  an  increased  impact  on  aquaculture.  By 
only breeding from broodstock that have shown the best performance with respect to desired 
characteristics  (usually  growth  rate,  feed  conversion  efficiency  and  disease  resistance, 
although  flesh  fat  content  and  colour  or  other  qualities  are  increasingly  included),  average 
performance can be improved incrementally each generation by up to 20%. 

[Table 13]: Example genetic gain from selective breeding programmes 

Species 

Channel catfish 

Pacific salmon 

Atlantic salmon 

Rainbow trout 

Tilapia 

% gain per generation 

12-20 

10 

11-14 

13 

14-23 

Source: Akvaforsk (quoted in Mortensen et. al. 2005) 

The main challenge for traditional breeding programmes 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 heritability. This is often linked with the number of genes (usually 
unknown)  that  influence  the  trait.  For  traits  with  relatively  low  heritability,  discerning  the 
genetic  effect  from  environmental  influences  is  more  difficult.  QTL  and  genome  mapping 
approaches should ultimately provide much greater levels of information and hence control.  

There have been substantial productivity gains in the Atlantic salmon industry over the past 
twenty five years, partly due to strain and family selection processes. According to Scottish 
industry records83, in 1980 the average weight of a two sea-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 smolt rose from 1.67 kg for 1990 year class smolts 
to  3.43  kg  for  2003  year  class  smolts.  Again,  this  also  reflects  both  genetic  and  other 
management  gains.  Studies  on  the  genetic  gain  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 surveys – most recent at http://www.marlab.ac.uk/ 

EN 

131 

   EN 

 
                                                 
10% per generation for growth rate, age at maturity 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 rate 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 entry 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 genetic 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  performance  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  production  inputs  and  therefore  of  great 
importance  with  respect  to  determining  production  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,  and  include  nutrient  enrichment  of  live  feeds 
(expecially  rotifers  and  artemia),  development  of  microalgae  and  copepod  production 
techniques, progress towards reducing labour requirements through the use of commercially 
available  algal  paste,  manufactured  artemia  systems  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  and  life  stage  requirements,  or  achieve  lower 
environmental  impacts.  Further  improvements  are  often  constrained  by  cost  considerations, 
but  current  issues  include  the  potential  for  reducing  the  fishmeal  and  fish  oil  components 
derived  from  capture  fisheries  and  their  substitution  with  vegetable  proteins  and  oils  to 
enhance  sustainability.  However,  this  raises  concerns  about  welfare,  especially  for 
carnivorous fish species, and doubts have also been expressed about the acceptability of using 
supplementary  industrially  produced  amino  acids.  For  the  immediate  future,  modest 
improvements  to  utilisation  efficiency  will  allow  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 

132 

   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 recent years has focused on anti-parasitics and anti-fungal agents. Due 
to  environmental  and  residue  concerns,  prevention  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  research,  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  least  favoured  but  currently  most  effective.  The 
duration of immunity is limited, and booster vaccinations 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 specific immune system. For these groups, and for 
providing additional protection for larger fish, immunostimulants 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  biotechnology  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 revolutionary, 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 disease diagnostics is also important, with increasing use being 
made  of  molecular  (e.g.  PCR,  RT-PCR)  and  immunological  (immunohistochemistry, 
immunofluorescence, immunochromatography etc.) techniques for health screening at critical 
points (e.g. broodstock selection, or seedstock prior to purchase). 

Product  handling,  packaging  and  distribution  –  Overall  trends  in  Europe  have  been  for 
processed  fish  products  that  require  little  or  no  preparation  and  are  easy  to  store  and  cook, 
preferably  skinless  and  boneless  (fish).  Freshness  is  one  of  the  most  important  product 
qualities, so minimising the time and temperature control between harvest and final sale has 
proved important, as have advances in packaging 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  and  distribution  costs  (Dempster,  2007),  so 
efficiency  gains  in  processing  or  distribution  can  potentially  have  a  greater  impact  than 
efficiency gains in the farming phase. As consumers become more accepting of added value 
products this margin on non-raw material costs can be expected to increase further still. For 
the foreseeable future, a key issue will be the cost 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 coastal zone planning, in some cases 
with  proposed  or  actual  development  of  aquaculture  zones,  where  existing  operations  are 
afforded  greater  protection,  or  new  developments  encouraged.  Examples  of  similar 

EN 

133 

   EN 

 
approaches may be found inland, such as the protection of aquaculture activities 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  investments,  such  that  the  key  issue  for  any 
emerging system, technology or practice will be whether it improves sales prices or volumes, 
or  reduces  production  costs.  [Table  14]  summarises  cost  of  production  data  from  the  Part  2 
report with some comparison of market prices. 

EN 

134 

   EN 

 
[Table 14]: Comparative operating cost profiles of different aquaculture systems (percent of total operating cost) 

Breakdown of operating costs  

Offshore 
salmon 

Organic 
salmon 

Sea  bream 
cages 

Tuna 
cages 

Turbot 
circulated 

re-

Turbot  flow 
through 

Eel 
circulated 

re-

45.6 

7.1 

13.5 

10 

0.4 

7.1 

9.3 

2.5 

4.6 

Feed 

Selling costs/Packing 

Seed stock (fry or smolts) 

Wages/salaries 

46 

17 

8 

7 

Misc./other  operating 
consumables & contingency 

costs  – 

inc. 

6 

Depreciation 

Maintenance 

Vet/medicines 

Administration/Overhead costs 

Transport 

Harvest expenses 

Stock & general Insurance 

Legal & professional fees 

Licensing/lease/discharge costs 

Power and fuel 

5 

3 

3 

3 

2 

EN 

18 

11 

8 

10 

33 

1 

2 

4 

2 

1 

9 

29 

29 

9 

1 

20 

1 

2 

1 

9 

54 

27 

15 

20 

9 

13 

1 

0 

2 

48 

6 

14 

2 

10 

7 

10 

35 

4 

2 

4 

2 

1 

11 

135 

Octopus 
on-
growing 

Arctic 
charr 
cages 

African 
catfish 

13 

43 

58.7 

21 

19 

12 

42 

11 

11 

3 

15 

2 

7.9 

7.2 

9.6 

5 

2.2 

1.1 

2.2 

2.2 

0.7 

1 

3 

2 

3.3 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Loan servicing 

Total  

Cost €/kg 

NB excludes finance costs 

Comparison  –  average  unit  value  at  first 
sale, 2005 - €/kg  

3 

100 

2.33 

100 

4.15 

100 

4.04 

100 

100 

10.50 

4.58 

100 

3.98 

100 

4.88 

100 

5.53 

100 

100 

2.54 

3.61 

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 illustrate the diversity of cost structures and are not directly comparable 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/euproduction/pricespecieseu_en.asp except 
values indicated (*) which were calculated from FAO Fishstat commodity trade database. 

EN 

136 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
As  illustrated  by  [Table  14],  there  are  wide  variations  in  the  cost  of  production  of  different 
species,  depending  on  system  type  and  other  inherent  characteristics.  Estimated  costs  range 
from  €2.33  to  $10.50  per  kg  for  the  systems  presented  in  [Table  14].  Assuming  moderate 
substitution effects, particularly within seafood 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,  labour,  and  in  the  case  of  recirculated  systems,  power.  The 
proportion spent on seed is highest for those systems relying on wild sources, especially tuna, 
eel and currently octopus. Feed is a higher component 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 examples). Depreciation is not a cash cost, but is 
usually  included  in  comparative  operating  costs  to  indicate  the  financial  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  will  affect  cage  salmon  farms  proportionately  more 
than recirculated turbot farms with respect to impact on overall production cost. On the other 
hand, recirculated systems are more sensitive to power and capital (depreciation) 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, aquaculture will not develop 
substantially, and that the balance of trade will meet the remaining demand. Overall demand 
estimates  are  based  on  apparent  per  capita  supply  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-sectors previously identified. These are summarised 
in  [Table  15],  and  discussed  in  greater  detail  following  presentation  of  the  production 
projections.  Overall,  the  projections  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  financially  viable.  Growth  generally  remains 
within historical limits and no brand new technology developments are assumed (e.g. closing 
of the tuna life cycle). 

EN 

137 

   EN 

 
[Table 15]: Baseline scenario for aquaculture development - summary assumptions:  

Salmon, trout & other salmonids  Negative  growth  until  2010  due 

increasing  regulatory 
constraints  and  moderate  markets.  Expanding  slightly  after  2015 
with rising demand. 

to 

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  growth  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  

Mussels 

Assumes  no development  of  hatcheries  so production  limited  by 
declining wild stocks 

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 small increase associated with integrated 
projects from 2015. 

EN 

138 

   EN 

 
 
[Table 16]: Baseline scenario – EU-25 aquaculture production projections to 2025 

Group growth rate 

Production (tonnes) 

Group name 

5 
rate 

year 

10 year rate  Projected 

2005 

2010 

2015 

2025 

rates* 

Salmon, 
other salmonids 

trout  & 

Sea  bass,  bream  & 
similar 

-1.97% 

0.63% 

1--2% 

350,019 

315,017 

315,017 

347,306 

3.47% 

22.47% 

3-0% 

124,046 

142,653 

149,786 

149,786 

Halibut, 
sole etc 

Cod, 
hake etc 

Carp, 
catfish 

turbot, 

9.57% 

13.64% 

10% 

7,111 

10,667 

16,000 

35,999 

haddock, 

250-10% 

69 

932 

5,589 

75,452 

tilapia, 

-1.08% 

0.06% 

2-0% 

74,086 

74,086 

81,495 

98,608 

Eels, 
perch, zander etc. 

sturgeon, 

-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 
aquaculture sp. 

non-fish 

-15.43% 

-8.27% 

10--10% 

273 

137 

137 

256 

Aquatic plants 

-19.70% 

-9.91% 

10--15 % 

45 

11 

8 

11 

Total 

EU Target 

0.88% 

1,260,597 

1,174,635 

1,199,733 

1,482,645 

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  projected  in  5-year  intervals  with  the  highest  and  lowest  rates  used 
indicated in the table. 

EN 

139 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
[Figure 63]: Scenario 1 aquaculture projections – minimal aquaculture development 
(EU-25) 

4,000,000

3,500,000

3,000,000

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

0

Aquatic plants

New non-fish aquaculture sp.

Clams, cockles etc.

Oysters & scallops

Mussels

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

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

[Figure 64]: Scenario 1 aquaculture projections – development of major aquaculture 
species 

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

0

Salmon, trout & other salmonids

Sea bass, bream & similar

Cod, haddock, hake etc

Carp, tilapia, catfish

Mussels

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

These  projections  take  account  of  commercial  developments  already  in  progress,  such  as 
further investment in cod farming and some recirculated systems. However, it is assumed that 
increasing  constraints  through  environmental  regulation  will  lead  to  decreased  production 

EN 

140 

   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 year time horizon at a rate of 2% per year, aquaculture will 
develop  to  meet  the  output  required  by  assuming  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 determined 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-sectors previously identified. These are summarised 
in  [Table  17],  and  discussed  in  greater  detail  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 

Increasing  move  offshore,  triggered  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 salmon – levelling off again as supply equilibrates 

Halibut, turbot, sole etc 

Reasonable growth facilitated by improving recycle systems etc. 

Cod, haddock, hake etc 

Assumes  cod  farming  in  particular  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  

Mussels 

Assumes hatchery/nursery technology is developed in next 10 years and 
continued high market demand  

Assumes  some  further  growth  as  greater  industrialisation  and  offshore 
culture iis introduced 

Oysters & scallops 

Small modest growth perhaps 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 successful projects to help enhance diversity but not a 
major  contributor  to  volume  (developments  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 

141 

   EN 

 
[Table 18]: Scenario 2 – EU-25 aquaculture production projections to 2025 

Group growth rate 

Production (tonnes) 

Group name 

5 
rate 

year 

10 year rate  Projected 

2005 

2010 

2015 

2025 

rates* 

Salmon, 
other salmonids 

trout  & 

Sea  bass,  bream  & 
similar 

-1.97% 

0.63% 

20-2% 

350,019 

700,038 

770,042 

868,222 

3.47% 

22.47% 

10-0.5 % 

124,046 

186,069 

279,104 

314,689 

Halibut, 
sole etc 

Cod, 
hake etc 

Carp, 
catfish 

turbot, 

9.57% 

13.64% 

20-5% 

7,111 

8,889 

17,778 

46,666 

haddock, 

1000-5% 

69 

3,519 

91,494 

471,106 

tilapia, 

-1.08% 

0.06% 

30-2% 

74,086 

92,608 

231,519 

465,931 

Eels, 
perch, zander etc. 

sturgeon, 

-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 
aquaculture sp. 

non-fish 

-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 

EU Target 

8.37% 

1,260,597 

1,842,341 

2,443,747 

3,370,306 

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  projected  in  5-year  intervals  with  the  highest  and  lowest  rates  used 
indicated in the table. 

EN 

142 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
[Figure 65]: Scenario 2 aquaculture projections –based on output derived from EU target of 
4% per annum growth to 2025 

4,000,000

3,500,000

3,000,000

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

0

Aquatic plants

New non-fish aquaculture sp.

Clams, cockles etc.

Oysters & scallops

Mussels

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

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

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  predicted  by  a  4%  growth  rate  commencing  in  2000. 
The  scenario  assumes  an  overall  growth  rate  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  are  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  placed  for  rapid  expansion.  Further  use  of  large 
cages in more offshore locations would be technically 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  that  the  internal  market  for  salmonids  will 
double over that period without a significant 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 Mediterranean 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 the development of Northern 
European  markets  through  the  provision  of  more  added  value  products  (most  likely  chilled 
MAP fillets based on a wider range of fish sizes), although declining capture fisheries supply 
might also drive market growth. 

EN 

143 

   EN 

 
 
Early  expansion  of  production  should  also  be  possible  through  shellfish  aquaculture,  most 
notably  mussel  farming,  where  technologies  are  developing  for  larger-scale  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 most likely through prepared products of more 
consistent quality for home consumption. 

[Figure 66]: Scenario 2 – EU target production- Projections for highest volume 
aquaculture sub-sectors 

1,000,000

900,000

800,000

700,000

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

0

Salmon, trout & other salmonids

Sea bass, bream & similar

Cod, haddock, hake etc

Carp, tilapia, catfish

Mussels

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

[Figure 67]: Scenario 2 – EU target production - Projections for medium volume 
aquaculture sectors 

160,000

140,000

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

0

Halibut, turbot, sole etc

Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander etc.

Tuna 

Oysters & scallops

Clams, cockles etc.

New non-fish aquaculture sp.

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

EN 

144 

   EN 

 
 
 
[Figure 68]: Scenario 2 – EU target production – Projections for low volume 
aquaculture sub-sectors 

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0

Halibut, turbot, sole etc

New non-fish aquaculture sp.

Aquatic plants

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

For  most  other  species  groups,  it  is  assumed  that  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 (especially marine fin fish species), or through the time 
required for markets to respond substantially to projected falling capture fisheries supplies. It 
is  also  assumed  that  investment  costs  for  recirculated  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  systems  are  increasingly 
developed. 

Some growth in the freshwater sector may be facilitated through increased linkages between 
conservation,  recreation  and  fish  production  providing  continued  access  to  freshwaters  for 
aquaculture. This could be supported by greater emphasis on local 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 and 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 calculated under assumptions of an early “catch-up” high growth 
rate. 

[6.3.3] Scenario 3: Aquaculture develops to fill 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  value  species,  with  rising  exports  of  these  and  increasing  imports  of  lower 
value species. 

EN 

145 

   EN 

 
 
[Table 19]: Scenario 3 - summary assumptions for aquaculture development (EU-25): 

Salmon, trout & other salmonids 

Increasing  move  offshore,  triggered  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 salmon – 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 particular takes off and probably utilises smaller 
salmon sites initially, but perhaps move offshore with salmon industry in 
due course 

Carp, tilapia, catfish 

Modest  development  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  

Mussels 

Assumes hatchery/nursery technology is developed in next 10 years and 
continued high market demand 

Assumes  some  further  growth  as  greater  industrialisation  (and  perhaps 
offshore production) is introduced 

Oysters & scallops 

Small modest growth perhaps 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 successful projects to help enhance diversity but not a 
major contributor to volume 

Aquatic plants 

Small increase associated with integrated projects 

EN 

146 

   EN 

 
[Table 20]: Scenario 3 – EU-25 aquaculture production projections to 2025 

Group growth rate 

Production (tonnes) 

Group name 

5 
rate 

year 

10 year rate  Projected 

2005 

2010 

2015 

2025 

rates* 

Salmon, 
other salmonids 

trout  & 

Sea  bass,  bream  & 
similar 

-1.97% 

0.63% 

20-0.5% 

350,019 

437,524 

525,029 

756,041 

3.47% 

22.47% 

10-0.5% 

124,046 

155,058 

193,822 

302,847 

Halibut, 
sole etc 

Cod, 
hake etc 

Carp, 
catfish 

turbot, 

9.57% 

13.64% 

20-5% 

7,111 

16,000 

35,999 

78,749 

haddock, 

1000-5% 

69 

3,519 

38,709 

203,222 

tilapia, 

-1.08% 

0.06% 

30-2% 

74,086 

81,495 

89,644 

108,469 

Eels, 
perch, zander etc. 

sturgeon, 

-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 
aquaculture sp. 

non-fish 

-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 

EU Target 

6.12% 

1,260,597 

1,566,175 

1,936,231 

2,803,763 

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  projected  in  5-year  intervals  with  the  highest  and  lowest  rates  used 
indicated in the table. 

EN 

147 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
[Figure 69]: Scenario 3 – aquaculture fills fisheries gap - aquaculture development by 
species group (t) 

4,000,000

3,500,000

3,000,000

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

0

Aquatic plants

New non-fish aquaculture sp.

Clams, cockles etc.

Oysters & scallops

Mussels

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

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

[Figure 70]: Scenario 3 – aquaculture fills fisheries gap - aquaculture development of 
highest volume species (t) 

800,000

700,000

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

0

Salmon, trout & other salmonids

Sea bass, bream & similar

Cod, haddock, hake etc

Carp, tilapia, catfish

Mussels

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

[6.3.4] Scenario 4: Aquaculture expands to fill the supply gap between capture fisheries and 

static demand 

EN 

148 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
In this scenario it is assumed that aquaculture grows at a rate needed to meet all of the gap 
between  declining  capture  fisheries  and  static  projected  demand.  It  assumes  that  growth 
occurs in both low-value and higher value species, although the greatest volume growths are 
likely to be in lower-value species. 

[Table 21]: Scenario 4 - Aquaculture grows to fill the static-demand supply gap -
summary assumptions for aquaculture development: 

Salmon, trout & other salmonids 

Increasing  move  offshore,  triggered  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 salmon – 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 particular takes off and probably utilises smaller 
salmon sites initially, but perhaps move offshore with salmon industry in 
due course 

Carp, tilapia, catfish 

Strong  growth  due  to  introduction  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  

Mussels 

Assumes hatchery/nursery technology is developed in next 10 years and 
continued high market demand 

Assumes some further growth as greater industrialisation is introduced 

Oysters & scallops 

Small modest growth perhaps 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 

149 

   EN 

 
 
[Table 22]: Scenario 4 – Aquaculture grows to fill the static-demand supply gap -
aquaculture production projections to 2025 

Group growth rate 

Production (tonnes) 

Group name 

5 
rate 

year 

10 year rate  Projected 

2005 

2010 

2015 

2025 

rates* 

Salmon, 
other salmonids 

trout  & 

Sea  bass,  bream  & 
similar 

-1.97% 

0.63% 

10-2% 

350,019 

455,025 

682,537 

1,535,708 

3.47% 

22.47% 

15-2 % 

124,046 

173,664 

303,913 

717,994 

Halibut, 
sole etc 

Cod, 
hake etc 

Carp, 
catfish 

turbot, 

9.57% 

13.64% 

100-10% 

7,111 

42,666 

85,332 

191,997 

haddock, 

1000-2% 

69 

3,519 

91,494 

1,166,549 

tilapia, 

-1.08% 

0.06% 

25-2% 

74,086 

111,129 

250,040 

656,356 

Eels, 
perch, zander etc. 

sturgeon, 

-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 
aquaculture sp. 

non-fish 

-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 

EU Target 

22.31% 

1,260,597 

1.878.098 

2.952.592 

6.884.684 

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  projected  in  5-year  intervals  with  the  highest  and  lowest  rates  used 
indicated in the table. 

EN 

150 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
[Figure 71]: Scenario 4 – Aquaculture grows to fill the static-demand supply gap -
aquaculture production projections to 2025 (t) 

8,000,000

7,000,000

6,000,000

5,000,000

4,000,000

3,000,000

2,000,000

1,000,000

0

Aquatic plants

New non-fish aquaculture sp.

Clams, cockles etc.

Oysters & scallops

Mussels

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

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

[Figure 72]: Scenario 4 – Aquaculture grows to fill the static-demand supply gap -
highest volume aquaculture products (t) 

1,800,000

1,600,000

1,400,000

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

600,000

400,000

200,000

0

Salmon, trout & other salmonids

Sea bass, bream & similar

Cod, haddock, hake etc

Carp, tilapia, catfish

Mussels

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

EN 

151 

   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,  are  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  includes  Ireland,  Spain,  Italy  and  Malta,  where  farming  in  higher 
energy  sites  is  already  common.  Subsequent  development  however  could  involve  most 
countries with substantial coastlines. 

The decoupling of recirculated aquaculture system from the environment creates opportunities 
for  these  systems  to  be  located  in  areas  not  previously  considered  for  aquaculture.  If  these 
develop  for  fish  production  as  assumed  in  later  scenarios,  proximity,  or  accessibility,  to 
market may be their key advantage. Locations close to major cities, or distribution hubs could 
be favoured, with peripheral regions at a competitive disadvantage. 

[Table 23]: Regional considerations by species group 

Salmon, trout & other salmonids 

North Atlantic for salmon and most European countries for trout 

Sea bass, bream & similar 

Mediterranean coast 

Halibut, turbot, sole etc 

Halibut and turbot in Atlantic coasts, Sole and Turbot in Mediterranean 

Cod, haddock, hake etc 

North Atlantic countries, such as UK 

Carp, tilapia, catfish 

East  and  Central  European  countries  with  some  development  of 
recirculated systems in other countries 

Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander etc. 

East  and  Central  European  countries  with  some  development  of 
recirculated systems in other countries 

Tuna  

Mussels 

Mediterranean basin countries  

Blue  mussels 
Mediterranean Mussels further south 

in  North  Atlantic  and  North  Sea  countries  and 

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 potential advantage in lower labour costs, which in 
some cases is taking both production and processing from higher cost countries (e.g. the trout 
industry and associated processing has increased in Poland whilst contracting in Germany and 
France).  On  the  other  hand,  fish  consumption  in  Central  and  Eastern  European  countries  is 

EN 

152 

   EN 

 
well  below  that  of  Western  Europe,  and  is  expected  to  increase  with  expanded  market 
opportunities for all producers.  

[6.5] Impact of defined scenarios 

Sustainability is an increasingly important criteria for guiding policy, as well as an emerging 
driver for consumer food retailing. It is usually considered in relation to social, economic and 
environmental goals. Indicators are typically used to measure performance and these can be 
aggregated at a high level (i.e. to compare performance 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 indicator of economic sustainability, giving a direct 
measure of the scale of economic activity. Similarly, an estimate of the number 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 tonnages. 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  indicator,  as  prices  are  not  static,  particularly 
when volumes change substantially within a relatively short period of time. However robust 
data on demand elasticity does not exist, particularly 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 therefore used this, both as the most widely available 
indicator,  but  also  because  it  is  a  better  indicator  of  social  sustainability  than  full  time 
equivalent  (FTE)  jobs,  which  is  a  better  indicator  of  productivity.  Trends  such  as 
industrialisation  and  consolidation  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 the output is processed. 

Due  to  the  aggregation  used  in  this  analysis,  some  of  the  species  groups  combine  several 
different types of production systems with different employment characteristics. For instance 
salmonids includes large companies with outputs 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  small-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 economic activity elsewhere within the region. 

EN 

153 

   EN 

 
[Table 24]: Multipliers used for calculation of economic and social sustainability 
indicators 

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 plants 

Turnover 

Labour 

Euro/kg 

t/person 

2.78 

4.65 

6.26 

4.82 

1.92 

4.44 

89.5 

20 

40 

50 

12 

40 

11.94 

120 

0.83 

2.29 

3.34 

11.68 

0.29 

15 

11 

5 

10 

3 

Source: Unit values calculated from FAO Fishstat data, 2007. Labour per tonne is Stirling Aquaculture Estimates 
using various literature sources for guidance 

EN 

154 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
[Figure 73]: Comparative economic impact – EU-25 all scenarios 

Minimum aquaculture development

Aquaculture grows at 4% p.a.

Aquaculture fills fisheries supply gap

Aquaculture fills static demand

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

)
n
o

i
l
l
i

B

(

o
r
u
E

2005

2010

2015

2025

[Figure 74]: Scenario 1 - Baseline – Minimal aquaculture development - Projected value 
of aquaculture production 

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 plants

)
n
o

i
l
l
i

B

(

o
r
u
E

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

2005

2010

2015

2025

EN 

155 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
[Figure 75]: Scenario 2 - Projected value of aquaculture production to meet output 
derived from EU target of 4% per annum growth to 2025 

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 plants

)
n
o

i
l
l
i

B

(

o
r
u
E

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

2005

2010

2015

2025

[Figure 76]: Scenario 3: Aquaculture fills capture fisheries gap - Projected value of 
aquaculture production 

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 plants

)
n
o

i
l
l
i

B

(

o
r
u
E

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

2005

2010

2015

2025

EN 

156 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
[Figure 77]: Scenario 4: Aquaculture fills static demand gap - Projected value of 
aquaculture production 

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 plants

)
n
o

i
l
l
i

B

(

o
r
u
E

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

2005

2010

2015

2025

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 slightly lower than the 
2005  value.  In  the  second  scenario  (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 bass/sea bream, whilst the greater volume is in 
mussels. The baseline projections indicate the average value of aquaculture produce in 2005 
was  €2.16/kg,  rising  to  a  projected  €2.32/kg  in  2025.  If  growth  in  fish  production  were 
dominated  with  higher  value  fish,  then  the  average  value  would  rise  to  around  €3.06/kg  in 
2025, which would increase total value to €4.54b (baseline scenario), an increase of 24.5%. 
Conversely  if  the  growth  in  lower  value  species  is  stronger  at  the  expense  of  higher  value 
species  and  average  price  remained  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 

157 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
[Figure 78]: Comparative social impact – all scenarios 

Minimum aquaculture development

Aquaculture grows at 4% p.a.

Aquaculture fills fisheries supply gap

Aquaculture fills static demand

)
s
d
n
a
s
u
o
h
T
(

s
b
o
J

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

2005

2010

2015

2025

[Figure 79]: Baseline scenario – Estimated number of jobs with minimal aquaculture 
development 

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 plants

)
d
n
a
s
u
o
h
T
(

t
n
e
m
y
o

l

p
m
E

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

2005

2010

2015

2025

EN 

158 

   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 

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 plants

)
d
n
a
s
u
o
h
T
(

t
n
e
m
y
o

l

p
m
E

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

2005

2010

2015

2025

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  affected  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 promoting employment opportunities should encourage the 
development of less efficient and more labour-intensive aquaculture systems. However, these 
simple figures do not take into account the jobs generated upstream – in the manufacture and 
servicing  of  equipment  for  more  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  health  from  improving  availability  of  cheaper 
seafood.  Nevertheless,  whilst  increased  employment  would  appear  to  be  best  served  by 
promoting  a  larger  number  of  smaller  enterprises  that  use  more  labour  intensive  production 
methods, this would not be an option in practice unless market protection measures were in 
place.  European  producers  would  be  unable  to  compete  with  more  efficient  production 
systems elsewhere, making enterprises unsustainable.  

The total number of jobs in the aquaculture production sector is therefore highly dependent on 
the species and productivity of the systems employed. If all the fish production systems were 
to  operate  at  the  higher  average  of  120  tonnes  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 

159 

   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  triple  the  value  of  the  primary 
product with consequent benefits for the European 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  via  shops  (retail)  or  restaurants  and  catering 
(food  service).  The  value  of  the  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 

Imports 

Imports 

Capture 
fisheries 

Aquaculture 
production 

Primary 
processing 

Secondary 
processing 

Exports 

Wholesale 

Retail 

Food 
service 

C
O
N
S
U
M
E
R
S 

The block arrows in the above diagram are shown unconnected as there are many routes that 
can be taken to connect the different elements within the system. Some fish farms for instance 
sell  directly  to  the  public  (retail)  from  the  pond-side,  with  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 normally bypass the wholesale 
stage and buy directly from secondary processors. Products may be exported after primary or 
secondary processing. 

It is beyond the scope of this report to examine all the linkages and product flows in detail, 
not  least  because  much  of  this  detail  is  not  readily  available  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 usually results in a reduction in total volume (by weight) of a 

EN 

160 

   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 between 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 such 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  would  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) + (food service vol. x avg. price) + (export vol. x avg. price)  

The contribution of the production sector is included in these figures. The value added to the 
raw product can therefore be calculated as total market chain value minus primary production 
value. The value of waste generated during processing is not included in the present models. 
The value added to imports is not included in this 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, 
salmonids 

trout  & 

other 

60% 

55% 

20% 

25% 

4.3 

Sea bass, bream & similar 

Halibut, turbot, sole etc 

Cod, haddock, hake etc 

Carp, tilapia, catfish 

Eels,  sturgeon,  perch,  zander 
etc. 

80% 

77% 

44% 

35% 

40% 

40% 

50% 

10% 

40% 

55% 

53% 

38% 

65% 

30% 

40% 

55% 

5% 

9% 

5% 

5% 

Tuna  

Mussels 

Oysters & scallops 

Clams, cockles etc. 

100% 

0% 

0% 

100% 

70% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

65% 

30% 

65% 

65% 

30% 

5% 

5% 

5% 

5% 

New non-fish aquaculture sp. 

40% 

40% 

55% 

Aquatic plants 

20% 

5% 

5% 

90% 

Source: STAQ estimates based on Gudmundsson et al (2006), 

8 

8 

8 

4 

2 

2 

4 

4 

4.4 

13.6 

1.6 

4 

4 

4 

4 

3.5 

3.5 

3.5 

5 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8.4 

8.4 

8.4 

10 

2 

2 

1 

2 

2.2 

2.2 

2.2 

10 

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  proportion  of  sales  through  food  service  (e.g.  sea 
bass, sea bream, halibut and sole etc.), have the highest proportion of value addition overall 

EN 

161 

   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 

Production Retail

Food service Export

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Carp, tilapia, catfish
Halibut, turbot, sole etc
Salmon, trout & other salmonids
Sea bass, bream & similar
Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander etc.
Cod, haddock, hake etc

Tuna 
New non-fish aquaculture sp.
Aquatic plants
Mussels
Oysters & scallops
Clams, cockles etc.

[Figure 83]: Total value addition – baseline scenario - minimal aquaculture development 

Primary value Added (retail chain) Added (food service chain) Added (export)

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

€)
n
o

i
l
l
i

B

(

e
u
l
a
V

2005

2010

2015

2025

EN 

162 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
The second scenario (aquaculture increases to meet 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 

Primary value Added (retail chain) Added (food service chain) Added (export)

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

€)
n
o

i
l
l
i

B

(

l

e
u
a
V

2005

2010

2015

2025

[Figure 85]: Change in value contribution – Scenario 2 - Aquaculture expands at EU 
target of 4% per annum, 2005 (top) and 2025 (below) 

New non-fish 
aquaculture sp.
0.1%

Aquatic plants
0.0%

Clams, cockles etc.
5.3%

Oysters & scallops
10.4%

Salmon, trout & 
other salmonids
30.2%

Mussels
18.4%

Tuna 
0.5%

Eels, sturgeon, 
perch, zander etc.
2.5%

Carp, tilapia, catfish
2.6%

Cod, haddock, hake 
etc
0.0%

Halibut, turbot, sole 
etc
2.2%

Sea bass, bream & 
similar
27.9%

EN 

163 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
New non-fish 
aquaculture sp.
4.9%

Clams, cockles etc.
1.7%

Oysters & scallops
3.5%

Mussels
8.1%

Tuna 
4.4%

Eels, sturgeon, 
perch, zander etc.
2.7%

Carp, tilapia, catfish
4.8%

Cod, haddock, hake 
etc
23.2%

Aquatic plants
0.0%

Salmon, trout & 
other salmonids
21.9%

Sea bass, bream & 
similar
20.7%

Halibut, turbot, sole 
etc
4.2%

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 

Production Retail

Food service Export

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Carp, tilapia, catfish
Halibut, turbot, sole etc
Salmon, trout & other salmonids
Sea bass, bream & similar
Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander etc.
Cod, haddock, hake etc

Tuna 
New non-fish aquaculture sp.
Aquatic plants
Mussels
Oysters & scallops
Clams, cockles etc.

Most  imported  fish  and  seafood  products  have  already  undergone  primary  and  often 
secondary  processing.  However,  there  may  well  be  further  processing  and  then  distribution 

EN 

164 

   EN 

 
 
 
through retail, food service and exports 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  fisheries  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 respectively, 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 therefore, [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 raw 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 scenarios, 2005) to €52.6 billion (scenario 4 in 
2025).  The  contribution  of  EU  aquaculture  production  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 imported fish and seafood within the EU – all 
4 scenarios using static consumption projections  

Minimal aquaculture - Value added to imports

EC Aquaculture target - Value added to imports

Fisheries gap - Value added to imports

Fulfilling demand - Value added to imports

o
r
u
E
n
o

i
l
l
i

B

25

20

15

10

5

0

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

Note: These projections assume an average value addition of 60% within the EU. 

EN 

165 

   EN 

 
 
 
[Figure 88]: Approximate value added to all fish and seafood within the EU – all 4 
scenarios using static consumption projections 

Value 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

60,000.00

50,000.00

40,000.00

€M
e
u
l
a
V

30,000.00

20,000.00

10,000.00

0.00

S1 S2 S3 S4
2005

S1 S2 S3 S4
2010

S1 S2 S3 S4
2015

S1 S2 S3 S4
2025

Scenario Numbers and Years

Note: The estimated value addition to capture fisheries assumes an average post-harvest value 
of €2.48 and value addition of 70%. The average value addition to imports is assumed to be 
60%, whilst value addition to aquaculture varies 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  indicators  of  resource  use  and  indicators  of  waste 
output  impact  (only  the  primary  production  phase  is  discussed  here).  On  the  input  side,  we 
examine land or water area utilised, water throughput, and industrial 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.  Water  throughput  is  more  complex.  Intensive 
farming operations, including cage farming but excluding recirculating systems, will have a 
high water throughput per tonne of production. The main significance is that the quality of the 
water  will  be  changed  during  its  passage  through  the  aquaculture  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,  electricity)  per  tonne  of  production  is  calculated 
through  reference  to  available  data  on  industrial  energy  input  per  unit  of  protein  energy 
output. 

EN 

166 

   EN 

 
 
 
[Table 26]: Multipliers used for calculation of input environmental 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 salmonids 

1,750 

2,260,000 

Sea bass, bream & similar 

1,125 

2,500,000 

Halibut, turbot, sole etc 

2,676 

2,000,000 

Cod, haddock, hake etc 

1200 

2,500,000 

Carp, tilapia, catfish 

2 

5,000 

Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander etc. 

190 

100 

Tuna  

Mussels 

Oysters & scallops 

Clams, cockles etc. 

New non-fish aquaculture sp. 

Aquatic plants 

300 

3,000,000 

76 

25 

0.5 

150 

1 

3,000,000 

2,000,000 

2,000,000 

200 

2,000,000 

1 

50 

40 

45 

45 

30 

35 

50 

10 

5 

5 

20 

4,727,920 

4,727,920 

4,727,920 

4,727,920 

4,727,920 

4,727,920 

4,727,920 

4,727,920 

4,727920 

4,727,920 

4,727,920 

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 required for production, shellfish cultivation on beds 
or trays tends to be least efficient, and therefore dominates the space requirement calculations. 

EN 

167 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
[Figure 89]: All scenarios – Land/water area requirements 

Minimum aquaculture development

Aquaculture grow s at 4% p.a.

Aquaculture fills fisheries supply gap

Aquaculture fills static demand

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

)
a
h

n
o

i
l
l
i

m

(

a
e
r
a

r
e
t
a
w

r
o

d
n
a
L

2005

2010

2015

2025

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  shellfish  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 

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 plants

)
a
h

n
o

i
l
l
i

m

(

a
e
r
A

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.0

2005

2010

2015

2025

EN 

168 

   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  

Minimum aquaculture development

Aquaculture grow s at 4% p.a.

Aquaculture fills fisheries supply gap

Aquaculture fills static demand

)
3
m
n
o

i
l
l
i

b
(

e
s
u

r
e
t
a
W

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0

)
3
m
n
o

i
l
l
i

b
(
e
m
u
o
V

l

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

2005

2010

2015

2025

[Figure 92]: Baseline scenario – Water usage  

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 plants

2005

2010

2015

2025

EN 

169 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  expansion  of  aquaculture  would  most  likely  require  increased  use  of  coastal  resources. 
Currently 8 t of fish from aquaculture are produced per km of coastline in the EFTA countries 
(which include Norway) (European Environment Agency, 2005a). 

The  use  of  recirculated  aquaculture  systems  can  substantially  reduce  the  actual  water 
requirements, but often at the cost of additional 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  processing  and  distribution  also  add 
substantially but is not included herein. Otherwise, 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 

Minimum aquaculture development

Aquaculture grow s at 4% p.a.

Aquaculture fills fisheries supply gap

Aquaculture fills static demand

)
J
M
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

(

e
s
u
y
g
r
e
n
e

l
a
i
r
t
s
u
d
n

I

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

2005

2010

2015

2025

EN 

170 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
[Figure 94]: Baseline scenario – Industrial energy use 

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 plants

)
J
M
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

(

y
g
r
e
n
e

l

a
i
r
t
s
u
d
n
I

200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

2005

2010

2015

2025

[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 being the most relevant in a broad scale and most amenable to 
this analysis, although other environmental issues related to aquaculture exist. These elements 
are released in both solid and dissolved compounds with the prime concern being those that 
are discharged directly to the aquatic environment. For fish and crustaceans, these figures will 
be influenced by a range of factors, including nutritional 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  net  carbon  output  due  to  the  discharge  of 
pseudofaeces.  Aquatic  plants,  once  harvested,  remove  nitrogen  and  phosphorus,  but  also 
organic  carbon,  albeit  sourced  from  the  fixation  of  carbon  dioxide.  The  figures  used  in  the 
model are shown below. Values presented in the 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  the  diets,  and  any  treatment  processes  conducted  within  the 
system. 

EN 

171 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
[Table 27]: Multipliers used for calculation of output environmental sustainability 
indicators 

Nitrogen output 

Phosphorus output 

Carbon output 

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 plants 

kg/t 

40 

105.4 

75 

67 

90 

67 

101 

-3 

-3.33 

-3 

67 

-47 

kg/t 

6.7 

13 

55 

15.6 

13 

15.6 

32 

-1 

-1 

-1 

15.6 

-6.67 

kg/t 

200 

170 

200 

200 

200 

200 

200 

100 

100 

100 

200 

-300 

Note  –  No  adjustment  is  made  for  recirculated  systems  as  most  of  these  still  produce 
discharges,  although  they  may  not  be  discharged  immediately  back  into  the  environment. 
Sources:  Musango  et.  al.  (2007),  Papatryphon  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 

172 

   EN 

 
 
 
[Figure 95]: All scenarios – Nitrogen output 

Minimum aquaculture development

Aquaculture grow s at 4% p.a.

Aquaculture fills fisheries supply gap

Aquaculture fills static demand

2005

2010

2015

2025

[Figure 96]: Baseline scenario – Nitrogen output 

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 plants

2005

2010

2015

2025

)
0
0
0

'

t
(

t
u
p
t
u
o

n
e
g
o
r
t
i

N

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

)
0
0
0

'

t
(

t

u
p
t
u
o
n
e
g
o
r
t
i

N

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

-10

EN 

173 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
[Figure 97]: All scenarios – Phosphorus output 

Minimum aquaculture development

Aquaculture grow s at 4% p.a.

Aquaculture fills fisheries supply gap

Aquaculture fills static demand

2005

2010

2015

2025

[Figure 98]: Baseline scenario – Phosphorus output 

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 plants

2005

2010

2015

2025

)
0
0
0

'

t
(

t
u
p
t
u
o
s
u
r
o
h
p
s
o
h
P

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

)
0
0
0

'

t
(

t

t

u
p
u
o
s
u
r
o
h
p
s
o
h
P

10

8

6

4

2

0

-2

EN 

174 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
[Figure 99]: All scenarios – Carbon output 

Minimum aquaculture development

Aquaculture grow s at 4% p.a.

Aquaculture fills fisheries supply gap

Aquaculture fills static demand

2005

2010

2015

2025

[Figure 100]: Baseline scenario – Carbon output. 

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 plants

2005

2010

2015

2025

)
0
0
0

'

t
(

t
u
p
t
u
o

n
o
b
r
a
C

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

)
0
0
0

'

t
(

t
u
p
t
u
o
n
o
b
r
a
C

250

200

150

100

50

0

-50

The baseline scenarios suggest a 2.7 fold increase in production between 2005 and 2025, but a 
4.1 fold increase in nitrogen, 6.3 fold increase in phosphorus and 3.2 fold 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  appears  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  produced  in  recirculated  aquaculture  systems 

EN 

175 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
where  the  waste  streams  can  be  captured  and  treated  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  through  better  systems 
management or genetic improvements. These for instance might be reflected in improved feed 
conversion efficiencies. Alterations could also occur in waste nutrient profiles if fish meal is 
replaced to considerable extent with plant ingredients. 

[6.6] Summary of scenario model results and implications for emerging systems 

[6.6.1] Model development 

The models presented above explore the potential for increased aquaculture production in EU 
Member States. They firstly identify potential market demand for fish and seafood products 
and compare this with supply from the capture fisheries sector. The shortfall in supply is then 
expected to be met through aquaculture and net imports from third countries. The implications 
of only part of the shortfall being met through aquaculture, or virtually all the shortfall being 
met through aquaculture are explored. The models are not intended to be predictive, but rather 
to indicate the development needed and associated implications of different options. 

[Table 28]: Summary of main assumption 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. 

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. 

Capture fisheries supply 

EN 

176 

   EN 

 
 
Balance of trade  

The second scenario is used for most of the models presented in the 
main report. 

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  production  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  attention  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 

177 

   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 
demand) 

all 

Salmon, trout & other salmonids 

Sea bass, bream & similar 

0.0% 

1.0% 

7.4% 

7.7% 

5.8% 

7.2% 

16.9% 

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 

Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander etc. 

1.7% 

0.3% 

26.4% 

2.3% 

14.0% 

43.1% 

39.3% 

87.8% 

Tuna  

Mussels 

Oysters & scallops 

Clams, cockles etc. 

New non-fish aquaculture sp. 

Aquatic plants 

TOTAL 

-5.0% 

150.9% 

132.2% 

132.2% 

0.4% 

0.4% 

1.7% 

-0.3% 

-3.8% 

0.9% 

2.5% 

0.7% 

0.5% 

2.6% 

0.7% 

0.0% 

7.4% 

4.5% 

2.3% 

1,018.8% 

1,727.5% 

10,525.0% 

231.3% 

231.3% 

146.9% 

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 high, but this growth rate was achieved by the 
salmon  industry  in  Chile,  and  both  the  Norwegian  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  historically  formed  the  largest  share  of  the  fish  market,  so 
demand is high, but capture fisheries supply is declining. This should create opportunities for 
aquaculture,  providing  it  can  supply  economically.  Offshore  aquaculture  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 exposed locations serviced by larger vessels etc. Newer marine 
species  will  borrow  heavily  from  existing  growout  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 forces would then ensure rapid adoption, assuming appropriate 
regulatory measures are in place. The main centres of investment in offshore cage design at 

EN 

178 

   EN 

 
 
 
present are Norway and the USA, which suggests transformational development, if it occurs, 
is more likely to start outside the EU. 

Good  growth  rates  for  (bluefin)  tuna  culture  are  also  assumed  in  most  scenarios  if  the  life 
cycle can be closed and juveniles supplied from hatcheries. The grow-out sector is already in 
place,  but  is  expected  to  be  increasingly  contrained  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  for  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 production if the market were better developed. Several companies are 
also producing tilapia in freshwater recirculated systems, suggesting there is some optimism 
that economic production can be achieved 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 Europe. Salmon has the best prospects if offshore 
farming is developed, but potential exists for freshwater trout and in some cases charr. This 
may  be  through  greater  industrialisation  and  use  of  recirculated  water  systems,  or  may  be 
through  functional  diversification  of  fish  farms  and  local  product  and  label  development. 
Elsewhere  however,  further  contraction  of  traditional  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 create?” The key figures generated 
by the model are shown below. 

EN 

179 

   EN 

 
[Table 30]: Summary of key indicators 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 

Aquaculture value (€ billion) 

3.64 

3.37 

11.01 

2.80 

9.69 

6.88 

27.40 

Direct jobs  

89,890 

162,030 

131,690 

327,830 

Land or water area required (M ha) 

0.270 

Water use (billion m3) 

Industrial energy used (M MJ) 

3,429 

181 

0.420 

6,975 

527 

0.230 

6,048 

419 

0.590 

13,108 

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  area  required.  However,  overall  area  usage  would  remain 
very small compared with agriculture (less than 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 nutrients (a 3.8  fold increase in nitrogen output 
for  instance).  However,  this  should  be  judged  in  the  wider  context.  In  comparison  with  the 
livestock  sector  for  example,  the  additional  nitrogen  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  aquaculture  would  have  very  high  waste  dispersion 
characteristics, whilst recirculated systems provide 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 targets over the minimal development 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  generation  it  equates  to  a  wind  farm  of  about  15  turbines  of  2.5 

85 
86 

87 

Eurostat press release 80/2007 (12 June 2007) 
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/) 
Calculations  based  on  energy  use  per  dwelling  of  1.75  to  1.8  t  oil  equivalent  per  annum 
(http://themes.eea.europa.eu/Sectors_and_activities/households/indicators/energy/hh06households.pdf) 
converted to MJ using 1 toe = 42 GJ (42,000 MJ) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ton_of_oil_equivalent). 

EN 

180 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
MW  capacity  each88.  However,  full  lifecycle  analysis  (LCA)  is  needed  to  understand  total 
energy consumption, as Grőnroos 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 rate of 4% per annum for aquaculture development. However, it is likely 
that  price  competition  and  market  demand  will  result  in  the  major  increases  in  production 
volume  through  new  marine  fish  production,  especially  in  offshore  systems  that  have  much 
higher efficiencies. 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.  

The  scenarios  outlined  present  a  range  of  alternative  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 following concluding section. 

[6.6.3] Non-food aquaculture species 

The models presented in this section have focused on fish as food. Aquaculture activities may 
also be carried out to produce fish for angling, ornamental purposes, or for the production of 
other  biotechnology  products  including  pharmaceuticals,  fine chemicals and functional  food 
components.  These  are  not  major  activities  within  Europe,  but  can  have  considerable  local 
significance. 

The  global  trade  in  ornamental  fish  was  worth  US$  0.9  billion  (€0.68  billion)  at  wholesale 
values  in  2000.  This  equates  to  at  least  US$3  billion  (€2.28  billion)  at  retail  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  200589.  Ornamental  fish  are 
produced to some degree in many European countries, however, by far the largest producer in 
the Czech Republic, with an export value of US$7.76 million (€6 million) in 200590. Further 
expansion  of  this  industry  is  anticipated,  but  unless  there  are  major  changes  in  the  cost  of 
transporting live fish, EU producers will continue to face substantial competition from third 
countries with lower cost base. Successful ornamental production within the EU has focused 
on quality, or the production of higher value marine species. 

Aquaculture  is  also  providing  stock  for  angling  lakes  throughout  Europe.  The  European 
Anglers Alliance estimates the European leisure fishing sector to be worth at least €25 billion, 
of  which  €5  billion  is  in  tackle  sales91.  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  Europe,  or  the  valliculture  areas  in  Italy,  where 
larger  water  bodies  are  forming  the  centre  pieces  for  a  variety  of  nature-based  activities, 

88 

89 
90 
91 

EN 

is 

output 

turbine 

2,628  MWhours/year 

Typical 
capacity 
(http://www.westmill.coop/windfarmsites.php). Typical turbines are 2.5 MW capacity and 1 MWhour is 
equivalent to 3600 MJ. 
UN Comtrade data for classification HS2002/030110 Live ornamental fish (www.comtrade.un.org).  
Op cite. 
http://www.eaa-europe.eu/docs/DEFINITION-EAA_Angling_Def_long_FINAL_EN.pdf 

per  MW 

installed 

of 

181 

   EN 

 
                                                 
include  nature  trails,  angling  and  camping.  In  Scotland,  14.7  %  of  trout  production  is  for 
restocking  to  “put-and-take”  angling  lakes,  of  which  there  were  287  in  200292.  Although 
unlikely  to  significantly  increase  total  fish  production,  these  initiatives  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 potential 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 identified, a compound can be synthesized 
using  chemical  processes,  or  produced  via  bacterial  fermentation  (e.g.  using  genetic 
engineering  approaches).  In  other  cases,  aquaculture  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 aquaculture 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  within  Europe  contribute  to  measured  turnover 
from European aquaculture production. There is little data available on the additional value of 
exports, but these may include for instance: 

•  Aquaculture equipment such as cages, nets moorings, tanks and water treatment equipment 

•  Aquaculture feeds, ingredients, pharmaceuticals, vaccines and diagnostic kits 

•  Information systems, software, monitoring and control equipment 

•  Analytical, consultancy, management and advisory services  

•  Contract research services 

•  Financial and insurance 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 
93 

Walker, 2002. 
European Science Foundation Marine Board, 2001. 

EN 

182 

   EN