Introduction
The Baltic MUPPETS project is an investment in a blue bioeconomy that aims to deliver economically and environmentally viable businesses with a positive socio-economic impact. The project sets out to create an entirely new value chain based on small blue mussels, enabling a new circular economy in the Baltic Sea region and supporting mussel farmers throughout Europe to develop, diversify and scale their existing businesses.
The development of sustainable aquaculture is a current political issue and it is considered a future industry with great potential. Production of aquaculture-based products such as mussels is also labor-intensive and can therefore contribute to increased employment rates, especially in sparsely populated areas. A fully developed mussel production could, for example, create complementary jobs for local fishermen, but also facilitate changes of ownership and new recruitment through the expansion, diversification and long-term profitability. In addition, depending on which end product that is developed, a number of other industries/occupational categories can be activated. For instance, within fishing or food tourism.
Through cultivation, harvesting and efficient marketing, the Baltic blue mussel can thus help to return nutrients from sea to land and at the same time transform access nutrients into a sustainable job-creating natural resource. Put in another way, mussel farming could provide a way to integrate environmental objectives with economic and socio-economic goals in order to advance and strengthen the three interdependent pillars of sustainable development.
Using three case studies (ECOPELAG in Sweden, Wittrup Seafood in Denmark and Kieler Meeresfarm in Germany), the business cases are explored, including bottlenecks such as legislative and social acceptance.
Site-selection and technology for social acceptance
When establishing a mussel farm it is important to consider the public view when selecting the site and technology. All farmers in Baltic MUPPETS use submerged farming solutions, meaning the infrastructure is also less visible over the surface. This can increase the acceptance. Similarly, it is important to choose sites that inflict as little as possible with the public, both ecstatically and recreationally, as well as other industries.
Working with the public
It is important to early gain the approval of the public when establishing a mussel farm. Inclusion in planning processes , site-selection, etc. can evoke a feeling of influence and lower negative perception.
The public perception of mussel farms has been a challenge for some mussel farmer s in Denmark. The BONUS Optimus project showed the Danish perception was generally more negative than the German one. This might be due to more experience as mussel farming is not equally established in Germany. Further, there has been much debate about mussel farming and fishing in the media. However, this is recently changing as the political circumstances are promoting mussel farming more whilst banning trawling . In Kiel, Kieler Meeresfarm has worked a lot with public engagement in the farms, and putting a lot of effort into education. Locals can “adopt a line”, giving some ownership and increasing acceptance. Also, working together with leisure boat associations to highlight seasonal opportunities for collaboration highlights the non-competitive nature of the farm and adjacent industries . In eastern Sweden, ECOPELAG is working closely with the municipality to gain approval by the public , e.g. by cooperating with the local “Nature Room”, a public nature education initiative. Here they mainly focus on teaching about the benefits the farm can give to the local environment and biodiversity.
Bottlenecks for social acceptance
A bottleneck for the farming of mussels in the Baltic Sea is the general scepticism of the water quality and product safety. Without approval of the products, the business models are not sustainable as the demand is reduced. For this, it is important to be transparent about quality testing and assurance . This can be difficult depending on the legal testing requirements, and too rigorous or unsuitable processes can hinder quick communication about quality, e.g. if tests need to be done in certain laboratories and waiting times are long.