Suitable areas for the development of marine aquaculture are usually close to shore to ensure servicing costs are kept to a minimum, while sheltered inshore locations also represent valuable points of interest for coastal tourism. Direct competition can subsequently arise as both sectors compete for space by requiring similar areas and can affect each other on account of environmental impacts. Both sectors also represent important economic yields, although coastal tourism largely surpasses aquaculture [1] [2]. Coastal tourism generates the largest share of employment and GVA in the EU Blue Economy [3], while aquaculture is one of the blue growth sectors predicted to continue growing in the future and is already an important employer in some coastal communities [4] [5].
The challenge for MSP authorities is to adequately allocate space to ensure that the sectors coexist and possibly generate mutual and reciprocal benefits for each other. With respect to aquaculture and maritime tourism, there are synergies that could effectively benefit both sectors. Aquaculture and its products can increase the touristic attractivity and enhance the culinary offer of the region while tourism can help promote aquaculture sites as a valuable part of heritage. This fiche sets out the key elements of the challenges to address in the interactions between aquaculture and tourism and what Maritime Spatial Planners can do to prevent or resolve these challenges.
This fiche sets out the range of interactions to be considered between aquaculture and tourism, what MSP can do to avoid and mitigate possible negative interactions.
Aquaculture
Aquaculture is defined as “the rearing or cultivation of aquatic organisms using techniques designed to increase the production of the organisms in question beyond the natural capacity of the environment” [6]. The EU aquaculture sector is slowly but steadily growing and is ranked the eleventh largest worldwide with a 0.9 % share of the volume of global output in 2021 [7]. At EU level, the activity is framed by the guidelines for sustainable and competitive EU aquaculture. It is a hugely diverse industry [8]: fish farming refers to the growth of fish in controlled aquatic enclosures, farming of shellfish is the cultivation and harvest of molluscs and crustaceans, and algaculture focuses on the farming of algae species. The EU Algae Initiative aims at making a wider use of that resource, that is not sufficiently developed [9].
Physical factors (water temperature and quality, currents, nutrient availability, etc.) have a direct effect on the growth of aquaculture species. Companies are therefore looking for the most suitable locations for their farms, also considering the associated costs of operations such as depth or distance from port that modify transport possibilities as well as construction, and maintenance costs [10]. This makes distant offshore farming more expensive and more exposed to extreme weather hazards. One of the main challenges is therefore the limited availability of inshore sheltered areas.
Maritime and coastal tourism
Maritime and coastal tourism is a hugely diverse sector. It is key for some European sea basins, such as the Mediterranean, where it generates significant direct and indirect employment and income.
All forms of coastal and marine tourism rely on attractive surroundings, and global environmental quality is an important factor as tourists expect clean, clear water and limited pollution.
Tourism is a fragmented governance sector, with many local and regional stakeholders. The sector is expected to continue growing in the coming years[11], notably by diversifying its offer, as exemplified by the increasing trend towards more nature-based and sustainable coastal and marine tourism [12].
For more European statistics and data you can also visit the Eurostat website
Related challenges
A significant part of the challenges between the two sectors arises on account of the use of space. For operating reasons, aquaculture requires a mono-allocation of space: it falls to the public decision-maker to set clear usage rules in order to avoid negative or even hazardous interactions.
Direct challenges associated with the use of space
- Spatial restrictions for recreational fishing and boating
The presence of aquaculture facilities often requires restrictions to recreational activities taking place within a certain distance from the fish farms or cages. Such restrictions aim at minimizing the risk of accidents for boaters and fishers. Fishing and boating too close to a fish farm can also contribute to an increased risk of the spread of bacteria [13] and increase stress to the fish [14]. In Norway for example, every farm has a buffer zone of 20 meters where traffic is prohibited as well as a zone of 100m where fishing is prohibited [15].
- Risk of collision and accidental damage to boats and aquaculture installations
Some components of aquaculture infrastructure such as ropes between mussel buoys, or floating pipes that transport fish feed to the cages represent a hazard to boats. Collisions are more likely in areas that are already hazardous, such as areas with strong currents or tides [16]. A collision not only affects the boaters but can also damage the fish farm.
- Decreased access to safe anchorage areas
Recreational boaters need to have easy and quick access to sheltered harbours and anchorage areas in case of adverse weather at sea. However, aquaculture facilities are often located in such sheltered inshore waters which also, by their nature, represent refuges for recreational craft in poor weather conditions [17]. The boating community fears a loss of these protected areas through intensive aquaculture development. Moreover, some anchorages are not formally designated as such on nautical charts although they are commonly used in the local boating community.
Indirect challenges
- Visual impact of aquaculture sites
Some aquaculture installations such as sea-cage fish farms or mussel rafts have large surface structures that impact the aesthetics of seascapes viewed from the shore. Facilities on land, for example maintenance ports and fish production facilities, may also have an effect on the coastal landscape, especially if they are close to resorts or tourist beaches. Stakeholders related to beach and coastal tourism as well as residents are often concerned that the visibility of aquaculture sites from the coast reduces the attractiveness of the place [18].
- Impact of aquaculture on water quality
Fish rearing requires the introduction of several components within the farm that might be harmful to the environment. First, feeding caged fish necessitates to use a large source of nutrients. Algae feed on the nutrients and grow. When the algae eventually die, they are decomposed by bacteria. This process consumes the oxygen dissolved in the water, potentially leaving fish (and other maritime organisms) with an insufficient level of oxygen. Secondly, fish production often requires the use of antibiotics / antimicrobials to inhibit the growth of pathogens that could affect fish. This trend appears to be rising significantly [19]. The accumulation of such products in coastal waters is concerning as they can have toxic effects on coastal biota and on human health [20]. Additionally, the overuse of antibiotics can create antibiotic-resistant bacteria. More generally, fish production can also generate waste feed, faeces, heavy metals and organic pollutants which can pollute the local marine environment, affect biodiversity and make the water look less attractive. Shellfish farming can also generate plastic waste (anti-predator netting, plastics trays, etc.).
- Impact of waste and human activities on aquaculture.
Urban development and human pressure in coastal areas resulting from tourism can also affect aquaculture. Nutrients from wastewater run into the sea and can cause eutrophication. When sewage treatment in coastal cities is inadequate, it can have significant negative effects. The same applies to insufficiently regulated boating sector and the waste disposal regulations related to it: higher faecal coliform levels have been found in coastal waters where recreational boating activity is high [21]. This also concerns cruise ships with respect to sewage and greywater, as well as commercial ships lying at anchor. This type of pollution has particularly negative impacts on nearby shellfish beds.
Related enablers
- Setting up development plans for Aquaculture at regional and national scale and including them in the MSP processes
To ensure a smooth implementation and development of the sector at all levels, master plans can be implemented within the MSP process in an integrated manner [22] to frame the activity and reduce the possibilities for negative interactions with other sectors such as tourism. As an example, in Spain, the Galician coastal aquaculture master plan (Plan director de acuicultura litoral de Galicia in Spanish) guides planning and management for aquaculture until 2030 [23]. The Master Plan sets criteria for compatibility of aquaculture installations with traditional coastal activities such as fisheries and tourism. Several other examples include the French “Plan Aquacultures d'Avenir“ (Aquacultures of the future plan) [24], or the Zadar Spatial Plan in Croatia [25], that all consider interactions with tourism in the master planning. This can also be seen from the other perspective with a development plan for tourism, taking into account the aquaculture sector.
- Zoning for aquaculture and tourism
Zoning allows the allocation of dedicated areas to either tourism or aquaculture (single use), or combinations (multi use) when possible. Zones can be defined through processes of assignation (determining zones that are suitable for one of the activities), by elimination (determining zones that are unsuitable for one of the activities), or by assigning political priority to one sector over the other. In Croatia, the Zadar County Spatial Plan’s zoning scheme either prioritises aquaculture over other maritime uses, or defines it as supplementary, in other words secondary to other uses including tourism. The Plan defines four types of zones for aquaculture: Zone Z1 - areas designated for aquaculture (any other activity carried out there should not be detrimental to the conditions required for fish and shellfish farming), Zone Z2 - areas where aquaculture has high priority, but other activities are also allowed, Zone Z3 - areas where limited forms of aquaculture can be allowed under certain conditions but where it is secondary to other dominant activities, Zone Z4 - areas not suitable for aquaculture. Ideally, any zoning schemes would be developed in a participatory manner involving the respective sectors and local communities.
- Specifying a minimum distance from the shore for aquaculture installations
It is possible to set a minimum distance for fish or shellfish farming operations from the coast to avoid negative interactions with the tourism sector. In Turkey, the aforementioned NMADP contains guidelines on distances, with a specific set of criteria for tourism and recreation. For example, shellfish culture should be placed at least 1 km from tourist hotels and holiday homes and tourist centres [26].Feasible minimum distances, however, depend on the type of organism being cultivated. A general rule would be that larger farms are placed away from those parts of the coast that are most intensively used by tourists. Cages with larger fish can be placed in more open, exposed seas as these cages tend to be larger, more robust and more resistant to waves. Species that require more continuous monitoring and intervention, on the other hand, need to be placed closer to the coast as constant care in the open ocean is not feasible.
- Move aquaculture operations further offshore
This is linked to the previous enabler: a good solution to avoid potential visual impact of aquaculture sites would be to locate them further offshore rather than close to the coast. For example, in Norway, the trend of moving salmon farms further offshore is partly due to the aesthetic impacts of installations; where possible, aquaculture sites are being located to avoid interference with hotels. A good example of this can also be found within the European project “UNITED”, and more specifically the German pilot site. A wind farm facility (FINO 3) has been installed 80 km away from the coast, and the site allows to grow blue mussels and seaweed within the facility [27].
Tourism can help promote aquaculture sites as a valuable part of heritage. In the same model as “Pescatourism” (merging tourism with fisheries), the two sectors can work hand in hand to host tourists in aquaculture sites for recreational, educational and cultural activities. This promotes synergistic development, sustains both sectors and increases the revenue for their operators. A relevant example is the Cavallino-Jesolo mussel plant in the northern Veneto region in Italy, where recreational fishing and guided tours take place within an area used for aquaculture [28]. We can also look at the Spanish case, in the Catalunia and Murcia regions where bluefin tuna caught around the Balearic Islands are moved to an aquaculture operation, that is also being used as a tourist attraction to offer the opportunity to swim with the tuna in the open ocean cages [29]. In Greece, the H2020 project UNITED (Multi-Use offshore platforms demoNstrators for boostIng cost-effecTive and Eco-friendly proDuction in sustainable marine activities) [30] works to enhance the acceptance of the Skironis aquaculture farm among locals and tourism professionals. For this, the aquaculture farm was included in local scuba diving tours, strengthening the synergies among the two activities, transforming the fish farm into a touristic asset for the area and proving that multi-use can benefit the community by bringing more tourists to the area and an increased monitoring of the marine environment as some scuba divers were involved in monitoring activities.
Aquaculture and its products can increase the touristic attractiveness and enhance the culinary offer of the region. This is the case for example in the Bassin d’Arcachon (France), a region very famous for its oysters. The culinary experience of the area is undoubtably a key factor for its touristic attractiveness and is promoted as such by tourism stakeholders [31].
The design and construction phase of the project are especially relevant for stakeholder's dialogue and mutual dissemination of knowledge to prevent negative interactions. Choices for the most suitable implementation locations need to be defined upstream when defining the project, in order to reduce conflicts and increase compatibility with touristic activities. The early dialogue between parties is the prerequisite for the operating phase to go smoothly. Informing tourists, residents and all coastal stakeholders is key to ensure the positive integration of an aquaculture activity on coastal touristic areas[32]. Aquaculture can have a negative image because of its visual, spatial and environmental impacts. Targeted information on the functioning and purpose of aquaculture sites could reduce distrust and increase the acceptance of aquaculture by tourists and residents, notably by showing the contribution of aquaculture to local development (creating jobs, boosting the local economy, attracting public investment, etc.). Moreover, concerning the worries related to visual impacts, it is important to develop high-quality and reliable visualisations to inform the population on the anticipated visual impact of the project. Such visualisations can support a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) that can be part of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The goal is to "identify and assess the likely significance of the effects of change resulting from development on both the landscape as an environmental resource in its own right and on people’s views and visual amenity” [33].
As mentioned above, the aesthetic of surface cages impacts coastal seascapes and can be the source of conflict with coastal populations and tourism stakeholders. Surface-based cages are the dominant technology for the marine finfish aquaculture industry, but these can generate conflicts with other coastal users. The use of submersible sea-cages may reduce this problem. There are still some technological and operational obstacles to overcome for submerged cage technology to succeed, as proof is needed for the aquaculture industry that these new cages are as functional and efficient as current surface systems [34].
An obvious solution to prevent accidents with boaters is to ensure that any potential impediments to navigation are clearly marked. This particularly applies to underwater cages and associated installations which are not visible from the surface or are submerged at high tide. This can be done using simple buoys. Ideally, this would be supported by information provided to tourists and residents, such as leaflets or information panels. This can be improved from pre-existing installations: in Whitstable (England), the height of navigation markers has been increased, and buoyage layout modified to better mark the relative location of aquaculture sites [35].
As seen previously, both aquaculture and tourism are highly dependent on the quality of water and the environment and sometimes negatively impact each other on the account of their respective pollution. However, we could also consider that both sectors engage in a synergetic relationship by ensuring that the quality of water is kept to an optimal level for all uses. Local stakeholders have a vested interest in maintaining a high level of water quality not only for their own activity but also for all activities taking place within a close proximity. A good example of that kind of synergetic relation between tourism and aquaculture can be found within the context of an EU project aiming at improving Northern Adriatic Sea water quality for aquaculture and tourism sectors (Cadeau project) [36]. This project takes place in the Italian Municipality of Chioggia, where both tourism and aquaculture are key sectors for the local economy. The project aimed at developing a model that traces the plumes released by the urban wastewater treatment plant, allowing local authorities to measure the quality of waters, to identify each source of bacterial pollution, and in the end to better qualify bathing waters and suitable places for aquaculture farms in the area.
In order to reduce the use of antibiotics and antimicrobials, it is important that fish farmers are properly informed on the issues related to the overuse of such products and the possibilities of restricting their use [37]. Information on such issues can be disseminated through key documents such as the EU’ ”Strategic guidelines for a more sustainable and competitive EU aquaculture”[38], that aims at increasing knowledge and innovation notably in aquaculture’ interactions with the environment and health [39].
- References
DISCLAIMER: This page is based on the previous existing section “MSP Sectors and Conflicts” presented on the European MSP Platform, and where you can find the related fiche here.
Other references:
[5] https://emodnet.ec.europa.eu/en/map-week-%E2%80%93-employment-fisheries-and-aquaculture-sectors
[14] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4581866/ and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969721064457
[15] https://sjomatnorge.no/fishing-and-traffic-near-fish-farms/+
[16] https://eba.eu.com/site-documents/eba-position-statements/eba-position-aquaculture.pdf
[17] https://eba.eu.com/site-documents/eba-position-statements/eba-position-aquaculture.pdf
[18] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264837713000318
[20] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0025326X23000760
[30] https://www.h2020united.eu/about/39-aquaculture-and-tourism-in-greece
[31] https://bassin-arcachon.com/en/make-a-meal-100-pool/ and https://aquitainetravelguide.com/oysters-in-the-bassin-arcachon-ostreiculture/
[32] https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/cms/farnet2/sites/default/files/publication/en_farnetguide14.pdf
Existing co-existence and multi-use initiatives
CONTRIBUTE TO THE COMPENDIUM AND SUBMIT YOUR CASE STUDY HERE