Economic Importance of Aquaculture in Spain Compared to Other European Countries: European Court of Auditors’ Report on Aquaculture in the EU

Abstract

The Green Agenda is a priority of the European Union. The development of environmentally friendly economic activities is high on the agenda of the EU institutions. Aquaculture is presented as an alternative activity to traditional fishing. For this reason, European funds have been allocated to promote aquaculture in the EU. The Court of Auditors of the EU has carried out the first complete audit on the efficiency of the financial resources received by the countries. This article analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of the aquaculture sector, the conclusions of the European Court of Auditors, and the main changes to be undertaken in the future. The reports conducted thus far are insufficient to establish measurable results. Additionally, these audits should be coordinated more effectively in terms of objectives and work plans to generate relevant data for the design of a European aquaculture policy that adequately addresses the sector’s needs.

1. Introduction

The rapidly growing global demand for marine food products cannot be sustainably met through traditional fisheries alone. As the world’s population continues to increase, there is a pressing need for a significant expansion in food production within the aquaculture sector. To address the anticipated rise in global seafood demand, aquaculture is emerging as a viable alternative to commercial capture fisheries. Data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) “Fishery Statistical Time Series” [1] demonstrate an almost continuous annual increase in aquaculture production since the 1970s.

The European Union (EU) represents the largest market for fish globally. However, only 10% of the seafood consumed in the EU is sourced from EU aquaculture, with 25% coming from EU fisheries and the remaining 65% imported from non-EU countries. The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) emphasizes the critical role of aquaculture in addressing food production needs and ensuring long-term food security, alongside its contributions to environmental, economic, and social sustainability. Furthermore, in alignment with the EU’s Green Deal, which prioritizes sustainable growth, aquaculture is recognized as a sector with significant growth potential that requires further strengthening. To this end, financial resources have been allocated over recent decades to bolster the sector. In addition to its potential for economic growth, aquaculture also plays a key role in supporting rural development and sustaining local communities.

This article will examine the significance of aquaculture activities within the European Union, with particular emphasis on Spain. Additionally, it will analyze the financial support provided by EU institutions to promote the growth of the aquaculture sector. The development of EU aquaculture, as outlined in the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), has led to the creation of several specific financial instruments to support this activity: the European Fisheries Fund (2007–2013), the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (2014–2020), and the European Maritime, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Fund (2021–2027). The overarching goal of these financial resources, in line with the CFP, is to ensure the long-term environmental sustainability of aquaculture activities.

2. The Importance of Aquaculture in the EU

Aquaculture is an economic activity focused on the production and fattening of aquatic organisms, including both animals and plants, within their natural environments. This activity encompasses the rearing of fish, mollusks, algae, and other aquatic species. It can be conducted in marine, brackish, or freshwater environments, as well as in terrestrial facilities equipped with water recirculation systems. The sustainable development of aquaculture—considering environmental, economic, and social aspects—is one of the primary objectives of the European Union’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). As a result, the EU has been allocating financial resources through specific programs to support aquaculture in producer countries.

In 2020, the value of EU aquaculture production reached EUR 3.6 billion, accounting for 0.9% of total global production, which is approximately EUR 40 billion. According to data published by the World Bank, the leading global producers are China, which contributes 57.5% of the world total, followed by Indonesia at 12.1%, and India at 7%. However, the species cultivated in these countries differ significantly from those produced within EU territory. In 2022, total world aquaculture production amounted to 126.9 million tons. The trends in total world production are illustrated in Figure 1, while Figure 2 presents the countries with the highest aquaculture production in 2022 based on information provided by the World Bank.

Regarding the demand for fishery and aquaculture products in the European Union, data from the European Market Observatory for Fisheries and Aquaculture Products (EUMOFA) indicate that consumption reached 12.9 million tons in 2020. Of this total, 25% was supplied by aquaculture products, while the remainder was sourced from fishing activities. The most developed crops are those of edible species, which can be categorized into three main groups: mollusks, crustaceans, and fish. Together with the production of algae for food, these groups constitute the primary products of aquaculture [4].

3. Main Definitions of Aquaculture Activity

Before analyzing the importance of aquaculture in the European Union, it is essential to establish definitions of key concepts within the sector, including types of aquaculture farming, farming density, and primary farming areas in Spain [5]. In the context of aquaculture, the following definitions must be clarified regarding the activities involved [6,7].

3.1. Key Concepts [8]

• Aquaculture Products: Products derived from aquaculture animals, which may include breeding materials such as eggs and gametes or products intended for human consumption.
• Marine Crops: Activities related to the reproduction or growth of one or more species of marine fauna and flora or those associated with them.
• Vivero: A floating device or bottom-fixed frame used for cultivating marine species through ropes, boxes, or similar attachments.
• Cage: A floating structure or bottom installation that retains marine fauna species for cultivation using nets, grids, bars, or other systems.
• Breeder: A facility designed to stimulate spawning and induce laying or any other method aimed at enhancing reproduction to obtain marine species during their early life cycles.
• Seedbed: An establishment for pre-fattening and acclimatization of juveniles obtained from hatcheries; these juveniles are referred to as “seed” when destined for fattening.

3.2. Types of Aquaculture [8]

• Aquaculture can be categorized by type as follows:
• Polloducts: Cultivation of bivalve mollusks.
• Mitiliculture: Mussel cultivation.
• Venericulture: Clam cultivation.
• Ostriculture: Oyster farming.
• Pisciculture: Fish farming.
• Salmoniculture: Salmon and trout farming.
• Cypriniculture: Cultivation of cyprinids (e.g., carps).

Additionally, aquaculture is distinguished between saltwater (marine) crops and freshwater (river) crops. Historically, marine crops have lagged behind freshwater species in development, particularly in countries like Spain, where marine resources are exceptionally abundant. The type of crop can be distinguished [8].

3.3. By Cultural Density

• Intensive Cultivation: A production system that aims for high output in the smallest possible space and within the shortest time frame.
• Extensive Cultivation: A production system characterized by minimal human intervention, primarily involving two functions: the capture of postlarvae and/or fry and the harvesting of adults once they reach commercial size.
• Semi-Intensive Cultivation: A system that combines controlled feeding with the addition of fry and water renewal.

3.4. By Type Crops

The type of aquaculture practiced in each area has developed according to biogeographical characteristics. The distribution of marine aquaculture by geographical area in Spain is as follows:

• Cantabrian Coast and Northwest Region: Mussel farming on rafts and turbot farming on land farms predominate. Other notable species include oysters cultivated on rafts or other floating structures, as well as clams and cockles grown in crop parks. Pectenids, salmon, and emerging octopus farming (with experimental crops) are of secondary importance. Additionally, red seabream is identified as a species with potential for future development. Galicia is the Autonomous Community that focuses predominantly on these crops.
• Warmer Mediterranean and South-Atlantic Areas: Gilt-head bream and sea bass are primarily cultivated on land farms and in floating cages alongside other species, such as oysters, clams, mussels, and prawns, which are of secondary importance. Bluefin tuna, octopus, dentex, and sole are species expected to develop further in the coming years. Notably, Andalusia produces gilt-head bream and sea bass in estuaries and ancient salt flats dedicated to fish breeding due to their exceptional biogeographical conditions.
• Canary Islands: Gilt-head bream and sea bass are produced in floating cages. The temperate waters throughout the year provide favorable conditions for these crops.

Regarding the cultivation of freshwater species, the primary species is rainbow trout, which is raised in tanks under intensive farming conditions. The breeding of rainbow trout is concentrated in several regions, including Galicia, Castilla-La Mancha, Castilla y León, Navarra, Asturias, Catalonia, Andalusia, and La Rioja. Other species include tench, which is cultivated in lagoons and reservoirs primarily in Extremadura and Castilla y León, although its presence in the latter region is minimal. Additionally, crabs and carp are produced on a small scale in the Balearic Islands, while sturgeon farming occurs in the Guadalquivir basin.

4. Theoretical Framework

While the expansion of aquaculture production can yield significant positive economic outcomes, it may also result in negative environmental consequences under certain conditions. Therefore, it is essential to assess both the beneficial aspects of aquaculture development and the potential negative externalities associated with such activities. The economic impact of aquaculture has been examined by the scientific community from various perspectives, highlighting the complexity of its effects on economic activity:

• Material Flow Cost Accounting Model [9]
• Life Cycle Assessment Model [10,11]
• Input–Output Model [12,13,14,15]
• Cost–Benefit Analysis Approach [16]
• Business Development Models Based on Research, Development, and Innovation (R&D&I) [17].

Notable contributions utilizing input–output analysis have included the estimation of multipliers and the calculation of inter-sectoral carry-over effects to assess the economic impact of aquaculture activities. Studies conducted at national or regional levels aimed at estimating the economic and social effects of maritime sectors serve as examples [18,19,20,21,22,23]. These studies have also been employed to evaluate the introduction of new measures or regulations, such as longline fishing regulations [12] and the implementation of Marine Spatial Planning [24], as well as to analyze the socio-economic drivers underlying resource exploitation [25].

Other notable studies have employed various approaches related to the national accounting of marine economic activity in different countries, including the United States [26], Ireland [27], China [28,29], Brazil [30], Spain [18,31,32,33], and South Korea [14]. A particularly noteworthy contribution is the study by Grealis et al. [19], which examines the economic impact of the Irish aquaculture industry by disaggregating the aquaculture sector from Ireland’s 2010 input–output table and estimating a series of economic multipliers to assess the potential indirect effects of sectoral expansion. However, this analysis focuses exclusively on positive economic impacts, neglecting to consider potential negative environmental consequences and spillover effects that could affect other sectors of the economy. Similarly, Raffray et al. analyze the fisheries, aquaculture, and seafood processing sectors in relation to the European Union’s Green Deal, emphasizing their significance at the European level. This study employs a European multiregional input–output model for seafood products to explore their potential [34].

This research adopts a different perspective from previous scientific studies. Given the anticipated rise in global seafood demand, the European Union has consistently regarded aquaculture as a viable alternative to commercial capture fisheries, allocating financial resources to support its development. However, there has been a lack of comprehensive analysis regarding the effectiveness of these financial allocations. National Courts of Auditors have not conducted specific audits on the outcomes in countries that have received such funding. This article seeks to assess whether the European funds allocated to aquaculture have achieved the anticipated results. By identifying existing weaknesses, the article aims to propose recommendations that could enhance the aquaculture sector’s potential for expansion and productivity within the European context.

The recommendation is accepted. In fact, the Reports of the Court of Auditors of the European Union serve as “compliance audits”, aimed at determining whether the public resources provided to the sector—resources that are quantitatively significant—have achieved their intended results. Based on an analysis of the Report’s recommendations, it appears that agreements established between European governments and companies in relevant aquaculture production sectors are a key reason why these public resources have not fully met their intended objectives.

The theoretical framework of this article clarifies that the causes underlying the failure to achieve the objectives set by the European Commission for the sector will be analyzed where appropriate. This recommendation is informed by observations made in the previous section, which noted that the Reports of the European Court of Auditors are primarily compliance audits; however, an operational audit would be more relevant. As stated earlier, this recommendation will be included in the conclusions of our report. The reliance on compliance audits reinforces a descriptive nature, in contrast to other reports from the European Court of Auditors that adopt a more quantitative approach. This article does not aim to assess what an operational audit report might have entailed, as has been performed by the European Court of Auditors (ECA) in other reports, such as those addressing gender issues.

5. Production and Demand for Aquaculture Products in the EU and Spain

In this section, we will analyze in detail the significance of the aquaculture sector in terms of production and demand within the EU, with a particular focus on Spain, which holds the largest quantitative share in this sector. EU aquaculture production is highly concentrated both in terms of the species cultivated and the Member States involved. This production is illustrated in

Table 1. Main aquaculture species produced in the EU in 2020 (% of total production).

Mussels	37%
Rainbow trout	17%
Oysters	9%
Golden	9%
European seabass	7%
Tent	7%
Algae	<0.05%

[35].

The main aquaculture producers in the EU in terms of volume and production value are shown in

Table 2. Main EU aquaculture producers in 2020 (as a percentage of total and in millions of tons).

Total Production (in Volume)	Total Production (in Value)	Total Production (Million Tons)
Spain	25%	20%
France	18%	20%
Greece	12%	15%
Italy	11%	11%
Others (Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Portugal, Ireland, Finland, Denmark)	33%	39%
TOTAL	100%	100%

[35].

Based on the data provided by EUMOFA, it can be concluded that while Spain is the EU country with the highest total aquaculture production, its value constitutes a reduction of five percentage points as a proportion of the total, a trend not observed in any other member state. However, in 2021 and 2022, there was an increase in both the value of production and the quantity produced by the sector in Spain, thereby reversing the trend of previous years [36]. This evolution of Spanish production can be analyzed in greater detail in Figure 3.

In 2022, the volume of feed supplied by aquaculture in Spain highlights the significance of extruded inert feed for fish, which amounted to 136 million kg, as well as live mollusks, which exceeded 13 million kg, as illustrated in Figure 4.

The main species produced by aquaculture in Spain are as follows: (1) Turbot: 261,969 kg; (2) Gilt-head bream and sea bass: 30,000 kg; (3) Trout: 7345 kg; (4) Mussel: 2849 kg; (5) Oyster: 5659 kg; (6) Tuna: 5905 kg; (7) Clams: 3346 kg; (8) Others: 4070 kg.

To analyze employment in the aquaculture sector in Spain, we will utilize data provided by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food of Spain. This evolution from 2019 to 2022 can be observed in Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8.

In 2022, the aquaculture sector in Spain employed a total of 10,253 individuals, generating 5878 Annual Work Units (AWUs). The majority of these positions were full-time, accounting for 96.94% of AWUs. Employment in this sector is characterized by a higher representation of men, who comprised 69.99% of employees and occupied 77.71% of AWUs. Marine aquaculture generated the majority of employment, representing 91.23% of the workforce and 87.00% of AWUs.

There is also a significant geographical concentration of employment, with the Autonomous Community of Galicia leading in this regard, accounting for 71.97% of employed individuals and 57.34% of AWUs, primarily due to mussel cultivation. According to the “Survey of Aquaculture Establishments” conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food, a total of 10,253 people were employed in this sector in Spain in 2022 [37]. However, the number of Annual Work Units—equivalent to an average annual full-time workload of 1760 h—was 5878, indicating a substantial level of temporary employment within the sector.

Full-time work was predominant, with 9428 individuals employed full-time compared to 825 employed part-time. In terms of employment type, non-salaried positions predominated (53.11% of employed persons), followed by specialized workers (19.43%) and non-specialized workers (17.91%). Regarding gender distribution, women constituted 30.01% of all aquaculture workers, while men represented 69.99%. In terms of AWUs, women occupied 22.31%, compared to men at 77.69%. This suggests that women experience greater employment temporality within the aquaculture sector. In 2021, the percentage of employed women was recorded at 26.51%, indicating a four-point decline in women’s employment in 2022.

An analysis of the distribution by sex according to the type of employment reveals that the administrative category was the only one with a higher representation of women than men, accounting for 71.61% and 70.88%, respectively. In terms of female representation, non-wage earners followed in significance, comprising 39.77% of employed individuals, while senior and middle technicians represented 33.09%.

In 2022, marine aquaculture generated the most employment, providing jobs for 9354 individuals, whereas inland aquaculture created positions for 899 people.

Table 3. Number of establishments in Spain with culture and production by origin of water and type of establishment. Period 2018–2022.

Origin of Water	Type of Establishment	2018		2019		2020		2021		2022
		Stab. with Culture	Stab. with Production	Stab. with Culture	Stab. with Production	Stab. with Culture	Stab. with Production	Stab. with Culture	Stab. with Production	Stab. with Culture	Stab. with Production
By sea	On dry land	37	32	36	32	37	31	38	29	37	27
	In natural enclaves	1	1	1	1
	For horizontal cultivation	50	44	50	44	46	42	40	36	39	37
	For vertical cultivation	3.737	3.663	3.737	3.634	3.718	3.627	3.721	3.627	3.729	3.631
	Growing in cages	45	43	46	42	44	43	40	38	40	40
	Sum	3.870	3.783	3.870	3.753	3.845	3.743	3.839	3.730	3.845	3.735
Of brackish intertidal zone	On dry land	8	6	8	6	6	4	5	3	5	3
	In natural enclaves	44	34	42	33	38	32	43	41	38	36
	For horizontal cultivation	1.096	1.085	1.305	1.302	1.182	1.173	1.282	1.265	1.157	1.134
	For vertical cultivation	1	1
	Growing in cages
	Sum	1.149	1.126	1.355	1.341	1.226	1.209	1.330	1.309	1.200	1.173
TOTAL MARINA		5.019	4.909	5.225	5.094	5.071	4.952	5.169	5.039	5.045	4.908
Of continental zone	On dry land	147	126	144	126	142	126	150	126	153	131
	In natural enclaves	51	40	52	42	25	24	24	17	24	18
	For horizontal cultivation
	For vertical cultivation
	Growing in cages
TOTAL CONTINENTAL		198	166	196	168	167	150	174	143	177	149
Total	On dry land	192	164	188	164	185	161	193	158	195	161
	In natural enclaves	96	75	95	76	63	56	67	58	62	54
	For horizontal cultivation	1.146	1.129	1.355	1.346	1.228	1.215	1.322	1.301	1.196	1.171
	For vertical cultivation	3.738	3.664	3.737	3.634	3.718	3.627	3.721	3.627	3.729	3.631
	Growing in cages	45	43	46	42	44	43	40	38	40	40
TOTAL AQUACULTURE		5.217	5.075	5.421	5.262	5.238	5.102	5.343	5.182	5.222	5.057

Source: own elaboration based on data from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food of Spain (2024) [37].

illustrates the evolution of the number of aquaculture establishments in Spain by water origin and type of establishment from 2018 to 2022.

Regarding the type of establishment, vertically grown marine aquaculture (primarily represented by mussel rafts) generated the highest level of employment, with 3947 individuals and 2654 AWUs. This was followed by horizontal cultivation (mainly represented by clam farms), which employed 3114 individuals and accounted for 280 AWUs. Additionally, land-based marine aquaculture surpassed land-based inland aquaculture in terms of employment, with 971 individuals compared to 869.

In 2022, Galicia once again led in employment generation within the aquaculture sector, with a total of 7379 individuals representing 71.97% of all those employed in aquaculture. A significant portion of this workforce was engaged in unpaid work, totaling 5289 individuals. Although their figures were considerably lower than those in Galicia, Andalusia (625 individuals), Catalonia (521 individuals), and Valencia (395 individuals) followed in importance. In these autonomous communities, salaried employment predominated with rates exceeding 90%, in contrast to Galicia, where non-salaried employment constituted over 61% of the total workforce.

To address the stagnation of aquaculture production, the European Commission published a Communication in 2002 titled “A Strategy for the Sustainable Development of European Aquaculture” [COM(2002)0511] [38]. The objectives of this strategy were as follows:

(1)

To create long-term secure jobs, particularly in fishery-dependent areas, and to increase employment in aquaculture by generating between 8000 and 10,000 full-time equivalent positions during the period from 2003 to 2008 [38].

(2)

To ensure that consumers have access to healthy, safe, and high-quality products while promoting high standards of animal health and welfare.

(3)

To foster an environmentally friendly industry.

However, the strategy did not achieve its objectives, particularly regarding increases in production and employment; it failed to meet both the target growth rate of 4% and the goal of creating between 8000 and 10,000 jobs as shown in

Table 4. European employment in the primary fisheries and aquaculture sector. Period 1995–2022.

	1995	2000s	2010s	2020	2022
AQUACULTURE	106	110	106	102	102
INLAND FISHERIES	46	40	36	37	32
MARINE FISHING	322	241	197	180	175
UNSPECIFIED	82	85	62	66	69
TOTAL FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE	554	477	401	385	379

Source: own elaboration based on FAO, 2024 [8].

.

6. The Policy of Financial Support for EU Aquaculture

Until the early 2000s, aquaculture policy at the EU level was not differentiated from that of the fisheries sector. In the first decade of this century, several Community financial instruments were implemented to promote activities within this productive sector. This section will analyze in greater detail the approved financial instruments and their primary objectives.

The development of the EU aquaculture sector is governed by the Regulation on the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), which includes dedicated financial resources to support this activity: the European Fisheries Fund for the period 2007–2013 [39], the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) for 2014–2020 [40], and the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund for 2021–2027 [41]. The objective of the CFP, supported by these funds, is to ensure the long-term environmental sustainability of aquaculture activities. The budget allocations for each period were as follows: EUR 1.2 billion for the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (2014–2020) and EUR 1 billion for the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (2021–2027).

The main goal of the Common Fisheries Policy was to enhance the significance of aquaculture sustainably while generating economic, social, and employment benefits. As previously mentioned, funding allocated to aquaculture during the 2014–2020 period was more than triple that spent in the 2007–2013 period. The European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) [40], now succeeded by the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) for 2021–2027 [42], served as the primary EU support program for aquaculture producers. The EMFF had six main priorities, referred to as ‘Union priorities’. Priority 2 emphasized the need to “promote environmentally sustainable, resource-efficient, innovative, competitive, and knowledge-based aquaculture”, which directly pertains to aquaculture. The EU initially allocated EUR 1.2 billion under this priority for the 2014–2020 period [40].

In its 2023 report on EU Aquaculture Policy, the European Court of Auditors concluded that the substantial increase in the allocated budget was not adequately justified [43]. The absorption rates of aquaculture funding by Member States were low compared to other priorities despite some additional absorption following the implementation of measures to alleviate the economic consequences of COVID-19. Given these low absorption rates, Member States often reallocated financial resources to measures that attracted greater interest from the aquaculture sector, financing nearly all eligible projects regardless of whether they achieved the intended objectives of EU financial support.

Despite the significant increase in EU financial support since 2014, aquaculture production within the EU has stagnated in terms of volume, and employment in the sector has decreased, although the value of production has increased (with the exception of Spain). As noted, the EU allocated EUR 1 billion to aquaculture production for the period 2021–2027 under the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF). The EMFAF has four priorities, with Specific Objective 2.1 of Priority 2 explicitly stating the need to “Promote sustainable aquaculture activities, notably by strengthening the competitiveness of aquaculture production while ensuring long-term environmental sustainability” [43]. This underscores the continued and reinforced importance that the EU places on aquaculture in its policy for the coming years, providing financial support for research, market organization, and the processing and marketing of fishery and aquaculture products.

These funds are complementary to others, such as the LIFE program for the environment, Horizon 2020, Horizon Europe research programs, and the INTERREG program for territorial cooperation, which can also support EU aquaculture, although they are not specifically earmarked for this purpose. Since 2013, Article 34(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) has required EU Member States to access financial resources to support aquaculture by drafting multi-annual national strategic plans for the sector [39]. The Commission has established a voluntary support mechanism through the so-called “open method of coordination” [44]. However, it is the Member States that receive both European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) and European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) resources that set their priorities and plans for aquaculture through project selection and monitoring.

7. Financial Plans to Promote Aquaculture in the EU: Guidelines Adopted by the Commission

The financial instruments approved by the EU for aquaculture development will now be reviewed in more detail [45].

7.1. Period 2014–2020: The European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)

Until 2011, EU aquaculture faced numerous constraints that significantly hindered its development, including competition for space and access to water, a lack of a level playing field between EU and non-EU companies, and high administrative burdens within Europe. In 2013, the Commission conducted a mid-term evaluation of the European Fisheries Fund (EFF), which, while focusing almost exclusively on fishing activities, already incorporated strategic guidelines for the sustainable development of aquaculture. These guidelines included a list of concrete actions that the Commission implemented through an open method, which encompassed.

• The simplification of administrative procedures.
• Ensuring sustainable development and growth of aquaculture through coordinated space management.
• Strengthening the competitiveness of EU aquaculture.
• Promoting a level playing field for EU economic operators by leveraging their competitive advantages.

These guidelines were incorporated into the proposal included in the EMFF Regulation for the 2014–2020 period, with the aim of addressing deficiencies identified by the Commission in EU aquaculture policy and providing funding for programs designed to achieve these objectives. There were two specific goals:

• “Protection and restoration of aquatic biodiversity, enhancement of aquaculture-related ecosystems, and promotion of resource-efficient aquaculture.”
• “Promotion of aquaculture with a high level of environmental protection, as well as the promotion of animal health and welfare, public health, and safety.”

In 2018, the Commission’s mid-term evaluation of the open method regarding marketing standards for aquaculture products identified shortcomings and obstacles to the sustainable development of EU aquaculture that were nearly identical to those identified in 2011. Similarly, the 2021 Strategic Guidelines highlighted negative aspects that hindered the development of EU aquaculture, which closely resembled those identified in the 2013 Strategic Guidelines.

7.2. Period 2021–2027: The European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF)

The strategic guidelines proposed by the Commission in the field of aquaculture should focus on significantly increasing organic aquaculture production by 2030. It also should promote algae production as an important source of alternative proteins for a sustainable food system and global food security. The Commission aims to enhance the blue economy by emphasizing the potential of algae as a source of chemicals and biofuels.

Accordingly, the Commission is to ensure sustainable animal feeding systems that contribute to reducing the carbon and environmental footprints of aquaculture products. The 2021 Strategic Guidelines recognize the importance of limiting producers’ dependence on fishmeal and fish oil sourced from wild populations. Member States should develop aquaculture development plans in accordance with the Commission’s guidelines. Additionally, other measures impacting aquaculture—related to environmental protection, marine strategies, river basin management plans, and action plans for the introduction of invasive alien species—should align with these guidelines.

Additionally, Member States should analyze the potential negative impacts of aquaculture on achieving good environmental status, even if it does not pose a significant risk. For example, aquaculture production in Spain, Italy, and France is notable for its mollusk farming, which does not require food inputs and helps reduce nutrient concentrations due to its water-filtering capacity. Therefore, river basin management plans should protect shellfish waters from pollution. Plans have been approved for Galician waters (Spain), the Seine River basin and coastal rivers of Normandy (France), and the Po River (Italy), recognizing these areas as protected waters for mollusk farming. This protection is important for both health and economic reasons, as insufficient water quality can limit aquaculture growth.

8. The European Court of Auditors’ Report on EU Aquaculture Policy: Main Results

With respect to the use of the funds received by the aquaculture sector in the different EU Member States, a detailed analysis by the external control bodies of each country on the effectiveness of these resources for the development of aquaculture has been lacking. The European Court of Auditors, in view of this deficiency shown by the national control mechanisms, decided to undertake a specific audit on aquaculture to highlight the weaknesses and strengths of the financial support mechanisms approved by the Commission and their main results. This special report, adopted by the European Court of Auditors in 2023, reaches several conclusions essential for the development of aquaculture in the EU [43]. The main conclusions are as follows:

• Member States’ spatial planning and licensing procedures continue to hinder the growth of aquaculture. The lengthy procedures for obtaining the necessary licenses to start an aquaculture activity have been repeatedly recognized since 2011 as an obstacle to the development of the aquaculture sector and one of the reasons for the low absorption of EU funds. In the 2014–2020 period, for example, no new permits were granted for marine aquaculture in Galicia, Italy, and Poland.
• There has been a significant increase in financial funds for aquaculture in the EU, but absorption rates and project selection standards have been low. The amounts allocated through the EMFF and EMFAF are much higher than those spent up to 2014, both in absolute terms and relative to the total funding available for each instrument.
• The EU spent around EUR 300 million in the aquaculture sector from 2000 to 2006 and around EUR 350 million from 2007 to 2013. These amounts represent between 9% and 1% of total expenditure under the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) and the EFF, respectively. In the 2014–2020 period, based on the operational programs initially approved by the Commission, the allocation to Union Priority 2 was EUR 1200 million, around 22% of the total EMFF allocation. The initial allocation to aquaculture for the 2014–2020 period was more than three times the total spent in the 2007–2013 period [46].
• Neither the Commission’s impact assessment accompanying the EMFF proposal nor the operational programs of the Member States have sufficiently demonstrated the need for such a substantial increase in funds available to the sector. The overall allocation to aquaculture in the EU decreased by approximately EUR 158 million by the end of 2022, representing 13% of the initial allocation. Four of the six Member States audited by the European Court of Auditors reduced their allocations to aquaculture, particularly Italy (33%) and Poland (32%). Conversely, allocations increased in France (by 44%) and Romania (by 8%). The initial allocation of the EMFAF (2021–2027) has decreased compared to that of the EMFF (2014–2020) but remains significantly higher than the amounts spent from 2000 to 2013.
• The absorption rate of financial resources was low compared to other priorities despite the increase resulting from COVID-19 mitigation measures. According to the Commission, the aquaculture sector was particularly affected by market disturbances due to a significant drop in demand caused by the COVID-19 outbreak. In April 2020, the Commission proposed a set of EU fisheries and aquaculture support measures to address the impact of the outbreak, including increased flexibility for Member States to reallocate existing financial resources to new specific measures aimed at compensating aquaculture farmers for the suspension of production and covering additional costs.
• Almost all eligible projects were financed by Member States, as the selection criteria were not very demanding. The most common allocations in the audited countries included “productive investments in aquaculture”, such as investments in modernization or the development of closed-loop recirculation systems. Other popular measures included the ‘provision of environmental services by the aquaculture sector,’ which primarily concerns the conservation and improvement of the environment and biodiversity (Poland and Romania), ‘innovation’ (Spain, Greece, and France), ‘public health measures’ (Greece), and ‘increasing the potential of aquaculture production areas’ (Italy). However, the selection criteria were not rigorous, as no overall minimum score was applied when selecting the submitted projects.
• Despite the aforementioned points, the Commission has established greater flexibility for countries to determine their own eligibility criteria for projects during the 2021–2027 period (EMFAF) [42].
• EU aquaculture production is stagnating, and there is insufficient reliable data to evaluate whether the sector is developing in a more sustainable manner. Between 2014 and 2020, EU aquaculture production volumes exhibited minimal growth.
• The performance of the EMFF during the 2014–2020 period cannot be assessed due to a lack of adequate monitoring data. The European Court of Auditors raised concerns regarding the reliability of the original data provided by the audited Member States, as well as the associated information systems.

9. Discussion and Conclusions

According to the 2021 EU Blue Economy Report, the biological resources sector generated EUR 19.1 billion in added value and supported 538,355 jobs in 2018 [1,47]. The quantitative significance of these data justifies the European Commission’s continued financial policy across various programs supporting the aquaculture sector. This financial support policy has also been validated by its contribution to the “blue transformation” of the European economy within the objectives of the 2030 Agenda.

The EU Strategic Guidelines for the Sustainable Development of Aquaculture have identified several structural and institutional weaknesses that hinder the growth of the sector. These weaknesses include the need to simplify administrative procedures, improve coordinated spatial planning, foster innovation, and encourage Member States to leverage their competitive advantages. However, the ability of national governments with limited resources to implement these measures is partly contingent upon the broader benefits associated with sectoral expansion. To support these efforts, the EU has allocated substantial financial resources, the effectiveness of which has been evaluated in a report by the European Court of Auditors. This report highlights various shortcomings that must be addressed, including the inefficacy of certain aspects of the environmental strategy pursued by the European Commission. As previously mentioned in Section 5, the European Commission published a Communication titled “A Strategy for the Sustainable Development of European Aquaculture” [38], with the aim of enhancing employment in the sector, ensuring the production of healthy products for consumers, and achieving sustainability through an environmentally friendly production model. This non-binding document acknowledges the Commission’s awareness of the structural weaknesses inherent in EU aquaculture policy.

In light of the EU’s broader policy objectives—such as prioritizing comprehensive marine spatial planning—it is crucial to assess the full spectrum of economic benefits associated with expanding aquaculture. Accordingly, based on the results obtained by the European Court of Auditors in its audit, the following conclusions can be drawn:

• Support Member States in Overcoming Barriers to the Sustainable Development of EU Aquaculture.

This recommendation emphasizes the need for the European Commission to assist Member States in addressing obstacles to the sustainable growth of aquaculture, particularly through the promotion of best practices in environmental strategies, licensing procedures, and maritime spatial planning. The Commission should implement deregulatory measures to reduce bureaucracy and administrative burdens, which often arise from interventionist policies at the national level. These policies, influenced by domestic lobbying groups, have created significant challenges for the development of the primary sector across Europe.

2.

Enhance the Effective Allocation of EU Funds as a Tool to Achieve EU Aquaculture Policy Objectives.

It is somewhat paradoxical that while the European Court of Auditors calls for greater efficiency in the use of EU funds, the Commission has simultaneously granted Member States increased autonomy in their application. To ensure that the objectives of EU aquaculture policy and the multi-annual national strategic plans are met, mechanisms must be established to guarantee that Member States fully implement the recommendations of the European Court of Auditors. This may require imposing penalties on those countries that fail to comply, particularly concerning the disbursement of funds.

3.

Enhance Monitoring of EU Funding Performance and Environmental Sustainability

National Courts of Auditors should contribute to this process by producing specific reports within their respective jurisdictions on the implementation of recommendations issued by the EU Supreme Audit Institution. This would strengthen oversight of the effectiveness of EU financial allocations and ensure compliance with environmental sustainability goals.

• Support Member States in addressing obstacles to the sustainable development of EU aquaculture, particularly by promoting best practices related to environmental strategies, licensing procedures, and maritime spatial planning. This recommendation accurately reflects the European Court of Auditors’ call for the Commission to implement deregulatory measures aimed at eliminating bureaucracy and administrative barriers arising from interventionist policies in the Member States. These policies, which are supported by certain lobbying groups, present significant challenges to the development of the primary sector in Europe.
• Improve the targeting of EU funds as a tool to achieve the objectives of EU aquaculture policy and multi-annual national strategic plans for aquaculture. It appears somewhat inconsistent that while the Court of Auditors advocates for greater efficiency in the allocation of European funds, the Commission has simultaneously granted Member States increased autonomy in their application.
• Enhance the monitoring of EU funding performance and its alignment with environmental sustainability objectives.

The conclusions reached by the European Court of Auditors should be understood as a call for the European Commission to assume a more prominent role in the management of this sector. Specifically, these conclusions advocate for the implementation of policies aimed at liberalizing the sector, given the limited effectiveness of the proposed actions intended to establish restrictive regulations that are impractical for the productive sectors in each Member State. The failure of these regulatory frameworks for financial support has been mitigated by European policies that prioritize the exercise of each Member State’s autonomy in this area.

To prevent conflicts arising from the requirements outlined in the various multi-annual plans, countries have maintained structural rigidities that hinder the true liberalization of aquaculture production, often disregarding the requirements set by the European Union. Based on the audit results from the European Court of Auditors and the discussion presented in this paper, national legislation and agreements between individual governments and companies in the sector suggest that the objectives set by the European Commission for the sector have not been fully realized.

The European Court of Auditors, in collaboration with the various national Courts of Auditors, should prioritize the planning and execution of operational audits to assess the actual state of the aquaculture sector for the period 2022–2027. These audits must thoroughly examine whether public resources allocated to aquaculture are fulfilling the intended objectives. Furthermore, they should clarify whether policy monitoring goals in the Member States or objectives related to employment and sustainability are being prioritized in spending decisions. Current reporting is insufficient for determining both spending priorities and measurable outcomes.

The European Union should establish more transparent policies regarding the promotion by Member States of the development of locations dedicated to aquaculture, with a particular emphasis on marine species and their potential. Additionally, it would be beneficial for the EU to implement significant fiscal incentives for the establishment of aquaculture companies that enhance production in the marine environment while respecting biological diversity and environmental sustainability.

Although the conclusions reached by the European Court of Auditors in its audit of the sector are valuable, it is important to note that the report aligns with the characteristics of a compliance audit, whereas an operational audit would have been more pertinent. By focusing solely on a compliance audit, the report takes on a descriptive nature. This paper does not aim to assess what an operational audit report might have entailed, as has been performed in other reports by the European Court of Auditors.

In light of this critique, it can be concluded that both the European Court of Auditors and the various national Courts of Auditors should plan to conduct operational audits to assess the true state of the sector for the period 2022–2027 and determine whether the public resources allocated to aquaculture are achieving the proposed objectives. The reports conducted thus far are insufficient to establish measurable results. Additionally, these audits should be coordinated more effectively in terms of objectives and work plans to generate relevant data for the design of a European aquaculture policy that adequately addresses the sector’s needs.

10. Further Research

The studies conducted indicate that they primarily focus on scientific publications from the perspectives of biology, marine sciences, veterinary science, and related fields. However, there is a notable lack of research demonstrating the economic, legal, social, demographic, and political significance of addressing this subject within the public institutions of the EU.

Existing scientific literature also analyzes the financial impact of specific actions on aquaculture enterprises and the quantitative significance of aquaculture. However, studies focusing on the design and implementation of aquaculture policies within a broad spatial and temporal scope, as attempted by the EU, have yet to be developed in scientific literature. In this regard, the work of the European Court of Auditors, which for the first time highlights the shortcomings of the financial support measures implemented by the European Commission, is worthy of commendation.

Consequently, this research opens new avenues for study in the social sciences that have not yet been explored. Therefore, this work represents a novel contribution that highlights the importance of examining the phenomenon of aquaculture from a multidisciplinary perspective.

11. Limitations

This article does not include a detailed analysis of the specific aquaculture policies of each EU Member State, which would support the conclusions reached by the European Court of Auditors in its report regarding the limited effectiveness of the European Commission’s multi-annual action programs for the sector. Such an analysis would have required a thorough examination of the specific regulatory frameworks in each country and their contradictions with the strategy proposed by the European Commission for the sector.

Furthermore, a more in-depth analysis of the effectiveness of financial support provided by Financial Institutions to aquaculture is needed. For instance, while low fund absorption rates are mentioned, the underlying causes and their potential impacts on production and employment are not analyzed in detail. The failure to achieve the objectives proposed by the European Commission has been emphasized, particularly due to the low absorption rates, a conclusion also reached by the European Court of Auditors. A specific analysis of the financial impact should be considered as a future line of research.