COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Strategic Guidelines for the sustainable development of EU aquaculture 
Date: 2013-04-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: administrative formalities, aquaculture, area management, competitiveness, environmental protection, food safety, job creation, product quality, simplification of formalities, sustainable development













EUR-Lex - 52013DC0229 - EN











|



52013DC0229

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Strategic Guidelines for the sustainable development of EU aquaculture /* COM/2013/0229 final */









COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
Strategic Guidelines for the sustainable
development of EU aquaculture
1.           Introduction
European aquaculture offers good quality
products, respecting strict environmental sustainability, animal health and
consumer protection standards. The excellent quality of EU seafood[1] should constitute a
major competitive advantage for EU aquaculture; however, the EU aquaculture
production is stagnating, in contrast with strong growth in other regions of
the world.
In 2010, the value of EU aquaculture production
was € 3.1 billion for 1.26 million tonnes of production. The EU seafood market
is currently supplied for 25% from EU fisheries, 65% from imports and 10% from
EU aquaculture.[2]
EU total apparent consumption of fishery and aquaculture products reached some
13.2 million tonnes.[3]

Available data show a growing gap – estimated
at 8 million tonnes – between the level of consumption of seafood in the EU and
the volume of captures from fisheries. The Commission and Member States can help ensuring that this gap is partly filled by environmentally, socially and
economically sustainable EU aquaculture. 
Based on current labour productivity, each
percentage point of current EU consumption produced internally through aquaculture
would help create between 3,000 and 4,000 full-time jobs.[4] This figure confirms
that, although aquaculture represents a relatively small part of the EU economy,
it has the potential to boost growth and jobs in EU coastal and inland areas. A
close cooperation with the processing industry can further improve job creation
and competitiveness in both sectors. Aquaculture is one of the pillars of the
EU's Blue Growth Strategy[5]
and its development can contribute to the Europe 2020 Strategy. 
2.           Aquaculture in the Common
Fisheries Policy Reform
The proposal for the Common Fisheries Policy
(CFP)[6]
reform aims to promote aquaculture through an open method of coordination: a
voluntary process for cooperation based on Strategic Guidelines and Multiannual
national strategic plans identifying, common objectives and, where possible,
indicators to measure progress towards these goals. 
To achieve these aims, all relevant actors
should be engaged: authorities, the industry, retailers, consumer associations
as well as representatives from the civil society. The proposed Aquaculture
Advisory Council is designed to play an important role in this sense.
These Strategic Guidelines aim to assist the
Member States in defining their own national targets taking account of their
relative starting positions, national circumstances and institutional
arrangements. Issues covered by EU legislation are not addressed under the open
method of coordination, but they provide the framework for its activities.
Aquaculture is dependent on clean and healthy
marine and fresh waters. EU environmental legislation – in particular the Water
Framework Directive (WFD)[7],
the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)[8]
and the Regulation concerning use of alien and locally absent species in
aquaculture[9]
– ensures that these preconditions are met. EU legislation also establishes the
high health, consumer protection and environmental sustainability standards that
EU aquaculture activities have to comply with. These have cost implications for
producers, but can be turned into a competitive advantage if the attention of
the consumers is drawn on quality, and can also contribute to local
acceptability of aquaculture. The CFP reform builds upon these high standards.
The Commission intends to help national and
regional administrations to implement EU environmental legislation without
imposing unnecessary burdens on producers. To this end, Guidelines on the
integration of aquaculture in Natura2000 sites have been published,[10] and the Commission intends
to start working on similar Guidelines on aquaculture and the WFD and the MSFD.

3.           Strategic Guidelines for
the sustainable development of EU aquaculture
This Communication is based on the outcome of
consultations with stakeholders, and takes into account the analysis performed
by the Joint Research Centre.[11]
Four priority areas will be addressed in order to unlock the potential of EU
aquaculture: administrative procedures, coordinated spatial planning,
competitiveness and a level playing field.
Aquaculture can contribute to the overall
objective of filling the gap between EU consumption and production of seafood
in a way that is environmentally, socially and economically sustainable. To
this aim, each Member State is encouraged to indicate in the multiannual
national plan its own aquaculture growth objective (volume and value) in the
period covered by the plan. 
3.1.        Simplify administrative
procedures
Administrative costs and lead time play an
important role in determining the overall competitiveness and development of an
economic sector. At the moment, only limited information is available on time
taken and the costs of issuing licenses for a new aquaculture farm, and the Commission
is unaware of any comprehensive mapping exercise of the main bottlenecks. Available
information suggests that in several Member States authorisation procedures
often take around 2-3 years to complete;[12]
examples of substantially longer times have also been reported. For comparison,
data reported in a European Parliament study suggest that the average licencing
time for aquaculture farms in Norway used to be 12 months and has been reduced
to 6 months with the introduction of a "single contact point".[13] 
Licencing time for aquaculture farms in some
 Member States and Norway (months)
= licencing time for
new aquaculture farms
= average licencing
time for offshore wind farms across the EU[14]
= reported licencing
time for agricultural farms in two Member States
= target licencing
time for new SMEs (Entrepreneurship 2020 action plan)
Sources: own elaboration based on data from
SHoCMed, Windbarriers, European Parliament study IP/B/PECH/NT/2008 176 and
information provided by producers associations and public authorities. 
Most aquaculture producers are SMEs, and they
are disproportionately affected by red tape: the relative weight of regulatory
and administrative costs compared to turnover and number of employees can be up
to ten times higher for SMEs than for large companies in the general economy[15]. Reducing unnecessary
regulatory burden remains on the top of the Commission’s political agenda. As a
follow up to the Small Business Act review of April 2011, the Commission has
proposed an Action Plan to support entrepreneurship in Europe. The Action plan
invites the Member States to reduce time for licensing and other authorisations
necessary to start a business activity to one month by the end of 2015[16] provided that requirements
of EU environmental legislation are met. As a first step, a comprehensive
mapping and screening exercise needs to be performed: 
·              
Target for the Member States: With the objective to identify possibilities to improve procedures
and to reduce administrative burdens, Member States are encouraged to collect
information by the end of 2013, on: 
(1)         
Number of new licences granted in the period
2007-2013 (n.)
(2)         
Success rate of applications for licences (%)
(3)         
Number of applications currently being processed
(n.)
(4)         
Average time to complete licencing procedures
(months)
(5)         
Number of public bodies involved in
authorisation procedure (n.)
(6)         
Average costs of licencing procedures for new
business (€)
(7)         
Average duration of a licence (years)
·              
Targets for the Commission: On the basis of the data collected by the Member States, to work
with relevant authorities to identify by summer 2014 best practices and margins
for improvement including through the support of the Commission High Level Group
on Administrative Burdens, whose mandate is to help Member States' public
administrations to implement EU legislation in a way that is more efficient and
responsive to the needs of stakeholders.[17]
To prepare by second quarter 2014 guidance documents addressing the
requirements of the WFD and the MSFD in relation to aquaculture, in order to
assist Member States and the industry in the implementation of EU law and
illustrate how environmental protection can be compatible with sustainable
aquaculture. 
·              
Target for Aquaculture Advisory Council: to perform by April 2014 a screening of administrative procedures
and a mapping exercise of the main administrative burdens in terms of time and
costs in different types of aquaculture in the Member States.
3.2.        Securing sustainable
development and growth of aquaculture through coordinated spatial planning 
Different studies have shown that having
spatial plans in place can help reducing uncertainty, facilitating investment
and speeding up the development of sectors such as aquaculture or offshore
renewable energy[18].
The lack of space often cited as a hindering factor for the expansion of EU
marine aquaculture can be overcome by identifying the most suitable sites
amenable for aquaculture, as the current surface and coastline occupation by
aquaculture activities appears to be limited[19].
Inland planning is usually more advanced
compared to maritime planning, due e.g. to the existence of cadastre or rating
systems making information easily accessible to all relevant institutions. The
identification of the most suitable areas for freshwater aquaculture will help
expanding production while enhancing landscapes, habitats and biodiversity
protection. Spatial plans should take into account the environmental services
provided by extensive pond-based aquaculture. 
In many cases, the needs of aquaculture alone
will not justify carrying out such a complex exercise for the marine
environment. However, this approach was followed in the case of e.g. the Irish
experience with CLAMS,[20]
the Galician regional strategy for aquaculture[21]
and the national aquaculture spatial planning project in Finland.[22] Existing planning
exercises, such as e.g. offshore wind platforms siting plans,[23] can be used as a
starting point. Guidelines on spatial planning in the Mediterranean[24] and in the Baltic[25] have been produced and
can provide inputs to Member States. Furthermore, data collected in the
implementation of existing legislation (e.g. the Renewable Energy Directive, CFP,
MSFD, WFD, Habitats and Birds Directives) can also be used for aquaculture
planning. The Commission has adopted in March 2013 a proposal for a Directive
establishing a framework for Maritime Spatial Planning and Integrated Coastal
Management.[26]
The Member States will remain responsible for designing and determining the
overall objectives and content of such plans. 
Aquaculture may affect significantly the
environment if not properly designed and monitored. Therefore, some
environmental impacts of aquaculture (e.g. nutrient and organic matter
enrichment, contamination by hazardous substances) are specifically addressed
in EU legislation. The overall impacts of individual farms will also include
other kinds of pressure (e.g. sedimentation, physical disturbance) and will be
influenced by other factors, including e.g. the type of cultured organisms, the
location of the farm and the vulnerability of the local environment. According
to a European Parliament study[27],
assessing these environmental aspects in the frame of the spatial planning
process can reduce the administrative burden for private developers and limit
uncertainty in the licencing procedures, thus making investments more
attractive. Several studies and experience in other industrial sectors[28] confirm that
addressing this kind of issues in the early stages of the planning process minimises
environmental impacts, reduces local opposition, prevents unnecessary delays
and increases the chances of success of new projects. This kind of experience
can provide valuable guidance to aquaculture producers and help increasing the
sustainability, social acceptance and competitiveness of EU aquaculture. 
As space and environmental carrying capacity in
both marine and inland waters are limited, an ecosystem based approach should
be applied. Special care should be taken when dealing with vulnerable and
protected areas, through sound planning and assessment procedures; positive
experiences with the integration of aquaculture in Natura2000 sites show the possible
compatibility of a profitable commercial activity with the conservation of biodiversity.
The environmental services provided by extensive pond aquaculture are a
concrete example where an economic activity meets the conservation needs of a
habitat or species. 
·              
Target for the Member States: to put in place coordinated spatial planning, including maritime
spatial planning at sea basin level, to ensure that aquaculture's potential and
needs are taken into account and to secure an adequate allocation of space in
waters and land for sustainable aquaculture development. 
·              
Target for the Commission: to monitor the implementation of coordinated maritime planning, to disseminate
studies and experiences to help Member States in their planning. To organise a
best practice exchange seminar in summer 2014. 
3.3.        Enhancing the
competitiveness of EU aquaculture
EU aquaculture enterprises are faced with
different challenges and opportunities requiring tailored solutions,[29] but will all benefit
from an improved market organisation and structuring of aquaculture producer
organisations. These are a priority for the reform of the Common Market
Organisation (CMO) and for the new European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF).
Production and marketing plans, together with the EU Market Observatory should
help aquaculture producers to identify business opportunities and to adapt
their marketing strategies.
The growing expectations from consumers for
quality and diversity of food products, especially if locally produced, offer
new possibilities to give value to the assets of coastal and inland areas.
Coordinated action at local level between entrepreneurs, public authorities, associations,
research, education and training organisations can help stimulating local
economies and meet the growing demand for locally, sustainably produced seafood.

Business diversification may provide additional
sources of income for farmers. For example, the integration with angling and
tourism, or the internalisation of some upstream or downstream activities, can
provide business opportunities for aquaculture producers.
Business development and diversification can
also be promoted by market-driven research, innovation and knowledge transfer. To
this end, the Member States should foster synergy between national research
programmes and promote the participation of industry in research and innovation
activities – including in particular to implement the European Aquaculture
Technology and Innovation Platform's Strategic Research Agenda and the Blue
Growth strategy.[30]
Extensive fish pond aquaculture supports
biodiversity and is widespread in particular in Central and Eastern Europe,
offers important services and business opportunities besides food production,
which can result in higher competitiveness if adequately valorised. The impacts
of the rules applying to biodiversity-rich areas such as Natura 2000 sites and
income forgone due to protected predators such as cormorant as well as
voluntary commitments to protect biodiversity or water should be recognised by
public authorities. One important factor affecting pond-based aquaculture
production in certain regions is related to predators – in particular cormorants.
The Birds Directive[31]
sets out a derogation system to protect fisheries' and aquacultures' interests.
Member States can make full use of the derogation provisions to prevent serious
damage by cormorants to fisheries or aquaculture. In order to assist the Member
States, the Commission has recently published a guidance document[32] with the aim of
clarifying the key concepts in relation to the implementation of the derogation
system.
·              
Target for the Member States: To make full use of the proposed CMO and EMFF to support business
growth through adequate allocation of funds to aquaculture including for
production and marketing plans and to improve the links between R&D and the
industry (especially SMEs). To support educational & vocational programmes
covering the needs of the aquaculture sector. 
·              
Target for the Commission: To coordinate and support research and innovation for aquaculture
through all the relevant EU programmes and funds. To promote the transfer of
knowledge, best practices and innovation, including EU research project
findings. To deliver a user friendly EU market Observatory to provide market
intelligence.
3.4.        Promoting a level playing
field for EU operators by exploiting their competitive advantages
High environmental, animal health and consumer
protection standards are among the EU aquaculture's main competitive factors
and should be more effectively exploited to compete on the markets. 
Existing sanitary checks of EU and imported
products already ensure a high level of food safety. Societal concerns have also
resulted in demand from consumers, NGOs and retailers for assurances that the
food they purchase has been produced respecting very high environmental and social
sustainability standards. If the level of sustainability of EU aquaculture products
is correctly addressed and communicated to the public, this can improve the
competitiveness and societal acceptance of EU aquaculture and its products. New
labelling provisions as proposed in the CMO Regulation may help better
differentiation of EU aquaculture products; voluntary certification schemes can
also play a role in this context. The development of short food circuits can also
give additional value for proximity to high quality and extra-fresh local
products. 
Experience in the agricultural sector confirms
that there is a growing demand for sustainable, high quality food. For
instance, in the last ten years the growth rate of organic food retail sales in
the four largest EU markets has outpaced the overall demand growth for food
products in the EU, with average yearly growth rates of 7-15% for organic food
against 2-5% for non-organic.[33]
According to FAO, organic aquaculture production in Europe increased by close
to 30% annually between 1998 and 2007. Some retailers play an important role in
bringing certified fish products to the marketplace, and do so as part of their
overall corporate social responsibility commitments; the entry of major
retailers has been one of the decisive factors leading to the rapid growth of
the organic food sector in the last decade.
The EU promotes high environmental, social,
sanitary and phytosanitary standards across the board in the framework of trade
agreements that it negotiates with third countries, including with regard to
aquaculture.
·              
Target for the Member States: To support the development of producer and interbranch
organisations including at transnational level. This would facilitate
collective management and/or self-regulatory initiatives between producers,
processors, retailers, in cooperation with consumer associations and NGOs where
appropriate. To support, implement and control labelling requirements and
provisions.
·              
Target for the Commission: To ensure that labelling rules, in particular as regards freshness,
provenance and commercial name are fully implemented. To improve markets
transparency and disseminate markets information on trends at local, EU and
international levels. To launch by the end of 2013 a Communication campaign on
the strengths of EU aquaculture.
·              
Target for Aquaculture Advisory Council: To support structuring of the aquaculture production and marketing
including certification and labelling. To contribute to improved market
intelligence of the sector. To facilitate self-regulatory initiatives and help
communicating these characteristics to the consumer.
4.           A new governance to
support EU aquaculture
The open method of coordination provides a
framework for national strategy development and for coordinating policies
between EU Member States. This voluntary process aims at giving practical answers
to the challenges identified by the Member States and stakeholders. It involves
concerted action between EU and national policies in full respect of the
principle of subsidiarity. 
In order to facilitate exchanges of know-how
and best practices, each Member State is invited to identify a national contact
point; the Commission will refer to them i.a. when organising peer reviews and
when identifying and disseminating best practices.
4.1.        Multiannual national
strategic plan for the promotion of sustainable aquaculture
In order to better coordinate actions to
promote aquaculture, Member States are required, under Commission proposals
currently discussed with Parliament and Council, to prepare a multiannual
national strategic plan based on the EU Strategic Guidelines presented in this
Communication. The Commission has prepared a draft outline of the structure of
the plan (annex 1) in order to ease Member States' work.
The multiannual national plans should cover the
period 2014-2020. Member States are encouraged to make a mid-term assessment of
the implementation of their plan by the end of 2017.
4.2.        Complementarity with
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 
The proposed EMFF is intended to support the
implementation on the CFP. Each Member State would be asked to draw up an
Operational Programme (OP), identifying actions that it intends to fund through
the EMFF. Where aquaculture is concerned, it would be important for the OP to
be consistent with the above-mentioned multiannual national plan in order to
foster the coherence of the whole policy.
4.3.        Exchange of best practices
The open method of coordination aims also to
develop a mutual learning process across Member States. A key tool in this
respect are peer review seminars where Member States can share and assess the
effectiveness of identified good practices in policies, programmes or
institutional arrangements, including with respect to the assessment assessing
and mitigation of environmental impacts. They provide learning opportunities
throughout the EU about the implementation process or policy approaches. 
Member States are encouraged to submit three
proposals of good practice in their multiannual national plan. The Commission
intends to organise at least on a yearly basis peer review seminars to present
the selected good practices and exchange information between Member States.
4.4.        Aquaculture Advisory
Council
Dialogue with stakeholders has proven essential
for the achievement of the CFP objectives. The creation of the Aquaculture
Advisory Council (AAC) should enable the Commission and Member States to benefit from the knowledge and experience of all stakeholders. 
The role of the AAC will be to provide
recommendations to policy-makers, to help them adopt evidence-based decisions.
The Commission encourages active participation of all relevant stakeholders:
producers, upstream industry (feed suppliers, research organizations,
veterinarians, equipment suppliers) downstream industry (i.a. harvesting, live
transport, processing, exporting, distribution) consumer associations,
environmental NGOs, trade-unions, etc. 
4.5.        Next steps
Member States are invited to send to the
Commission their multiannual national plan at the latest together with the Operational
Programme. By April 2014, the Commission intends to produce a summary report of
all national plans with the objective of sharing information amongst Member
States and for disseminating good practices. 
Member States are encouraged to make a mid-term
assessment of the implementation of their multiannual national plan by the end
of 2017 on the basis of which the Commission intends to consider the
opportunity to revise the strategic guidelines.
ANNEX 
Draft outline for multiannual national plan
for the development of sustainable aquaculture
1.           National context and link
with main national objectives
·              
National situation and strategic approach
towards the EU main objectives 
·              
Quantified national growth objective (2014-2020)
2.           Response to the strategic
guidelines
(a)         
Simplify administrative procedures: 
(1)         
Assessment of the national situation:
(a)          
Qualitative description of the administrative
set-up (main bodies responsible for licencing, distribution of responsibilities
between administrations, etc.)
(b)         
Quantitative data and explanations: see list in
the main text
(2)         
Main elements of the intended policy response:
planned actions to reduce the administrative burden
(3)         
If applicable, corresponding quantified targets
and indicators (e.g. expected reduction in administrative costs and/or time,
etc.)
(b)        
Securing sustainable development and
growth of aquaculture through coordinated spatial planning:
(1)         
Assessment of the national situation: existing
framework for spatial planning (marine and on land), distribution of
competences, spatial plans already in place.
(2)         
Main elements of the intended policy response: how
spatial planning will be promoted taking into account the needs of aquaculture 
(3)         
Where applicable, corresponding quantified targets
and indicators (e.g. number and surface of new designated areas for
aquaculture, number of regional plans adopted) 
(c)         
Enhance the competitiveness of EU
aquaculture:
(1)         
Assessment of the national situation: strengths
and weaknesses of the national aquaculture sector, existing R&D support, areas
where increased competitiveness is most needed
(2)         
Main elements of the intended policy response:
planned activities to support innovation and links between R&D and the
industry; etc.
(3)         
Where applicable, the corresponding quantified
targets and indicators (e.g. n. of partnerships between industry and R&D
actors)
(d)        
Promoting a level playing field for EU
operators by exploiting their competitive advantages:
(1)         
Assessment of the national situation: producers
organisations, existing schemes to recognise sustainability (e.g. voluntary
schemes used by major national retailers), perception of aquaculture by the
general population
(2)         
Main elements of the intended policy response (2014-2020):
actions foreseen to improve the image of EU aquaculture products (e.g.
communication campaigns, support to participation in voluntary schemes, support
to organic aquaculture)
(3)         
Where applicable, corresponding quantified
targets and indicators (e.g. percentage of organic and/or certified
aquaculture, etc.)
3.           Governance and partnership
·              
Key contributions from the main actors involved
(regional and/or local authorities, industry, stakeholders and NGOs)
·              
Link with the EMFF OP priorities and financial
allocations (EMFF and other EU or national funds)
·              
Name and contact details of the National Contact
Point for the promotion of sustainable aquaculture
4.           Best practices
·              
Identification and presentation of 3 national
best practices
[1]               For the purpose of this Communication, the word
"seafood" includes all fisheries and aquaculture products                
[2]               SEC(2011)883     
[3]               DG MARE elaboration from Eurostat data   
[4]               DG MARE elaboration from STECF data (STECF-OWP-12-03)              
[5]               COM(2012) 494  
[6]               COM(2011)
425
[7]               Directive 2000/60/EC         
[8]               Directive 2008/56/EC         
[9]               Regulation (EU) N°304/2011
[10]             http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/Aqua-N2000%20guide.pdf            
[11]             JRC Technical Report "An approach towards European
Aquaculture Performance Indicators"       
[12]             Data from FAO project SHoCMed, integrated with
information from producers associations and public authorities http://www.faosipam.org/?pag=content/_ShowPortal&Portal=SHOCMED           
[13]             http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/studiesdownload.html?languageDocument=EN&file=29819               
[14]             http://www.windbarriers.eu/fileadmin/WB_docs/documents/WindBarriers_report.pdf

[15]             http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/business-environment/administrative-burdens/               
[16]             COM(2012) 795 final         
[17]             For more information on the The High Level Group:
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/admin_burden/ind_stakeholders/ind_stakeholders_en.htm

[18]             http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/documentation/studies/documents/economic_effects_maritime_spatial_planning_en.pdf
; 
                http://www.windbarriers.eu/fileadmin/WB_docs/documents/WindBarriers_report.pdf       
[19]             JRC Technical Report "An approach towards European
Aquaculture Performance Indicators"       
[20]             http://www.bim.ie/media/bim/content/BIM_CLAMS_Explanatory_Handbook.pdf          
[21]             http://www.intecmar.org/esga/         
[22]             http://www.mmm.fi/en/index/frontpage/Fishing,_game_reindeer/Fisheriesindustry/aquaculture.htm

[23]             E.g. "Windspeed" roadmap http://www.windspeed.eu/               
[24]             Res. GFCM/36/2012/1 http://www.faosipam.org/GfcmWebSite/docs/RecRes/RES-GFCM_36_2012_1.pdf               
[25]             http://www.aquabestproject.eu        
[26]             COM(2013) 133 final
[27]             http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/studiesdownload.html?languageDocument=EN&file=29819               
[28]             See e.g. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm
http://www.project-gpwind.eu/ 
[29]             http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/pech/studiesdownload.html?languageDocument=EN&file=29823     
[30]             COM (2012) 494
[31]             Council Directive 79/409/EEC 
[32]             http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/cormorants.htm
[33]             Eurostat data and http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/markets/organic_2010_en.pdf