In March 2023, Compassion in World

Farming and Eurogroup for Animals

published a joint report - Uncovering the
Horrific Reality of Octopus Farming (1) – in
which plans for the world’s first octopus
factory farm were exposed publicly.
The issues examined in the report
were directly linked to an aquaculture
licensing application submitted to the
Canary Islands Government by Spanish
seafood company Nueva Pescanova.

INTRODUCTION

EXPOSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS OF OCTOPUS FARMING

The report made it clear that the octopus farm Before Nueva Pescanova’s application to build
plans entirely neglected animal welfare. The an industrial octopus farm can be approved, a
proposed slaughter method was with ice slurry, favourable environmental impact assessment
a practice that is currently being phased out (EIA) must first be issued by the Government.
across the aquaculture sector due to the painful These evaluation processes are required by the
and prolonged deaths it causes (2,3). Another European Union’s (EU) EIA Directive to assess
welfare issue uncovered was the proposed direct and indirect environmental impacts of
stocking density of 10-15 octopuses per cubic development projects before they begin (9).
metre of aquaculture tank. As naturally solitary
Typically, aquaculture projects of this size are
beings, these highly crowded conditions are
subject to a simplified type of assessment
known to lead to stress, aggression, and even
procedure. However, the Canary Islands
cannibalism among octopuses (4,5).
Government’s Autonomous Commission for
Several environmental issues were also Environmental Assessments (CAEA) rejected
emphasised in the report, including the use of the simplified procedure for this octopus farm
feed ingredients derived from wild-caught fish, in 2023, as it could have ‘significant’ impacts on
and the extremely high energy requirements the surrounding environment. Nueva Pescanova
associated with the proposed land-based must now undergo a second, more exhaustive
aquaculture system (6–8). In addition to these type of environmental procedure, requiring
clearly defined issues, there were also several considerably more details to be submitted by
gaps identified within the farm plans. In the company. The reasons behind this decision
terms of measurements of potential disease were published in the minutes and agreements
outbreaks among the octopuses in captivity, of the CAEA of the Canary Islands Government
the company falsely claimed that no relevant in early 2024 (10). The minutes exposed the
octopus diseases exist. The composition and serious environmental threats posed by
extent of waste to be discharged from the farm the farm, and the company’s failure to properly
into the marine environment was also absent. address them.

EXPOSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS OF OCTOPUS FARMING

SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL
THREATS
The following list highlights the
environmental risks of the planned
octopus farm, as detailed in the
minutes and agreements published
by the CAEA. These risks relate to
public health, the environment and
wildlife, as follows:

EXPOSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS OF OCTOPUS FARMING

 1 PUBLIC HEALTH
THE CONTAMINATED SEAWATER PLANNED TO BE USED IN THE
AQUACULTURE TANKS FOR PRODUCTION COULD POSE HEALTH RISKS TO
THE END CONSUMERS (11).
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has
highlighted that “access to high quality and fit-for-purpose water from
production to consumption is imperative for ensuring a safe food supply”
(12). For its proposed octopus factory farm, Nueva Pescanova did not submit
any analytical analyses to ensure the water was sufficient for human
consumption, jeopardising food safety. The Directorate of Public Health of
the Canary Islands issued an unfavourable report for the octopus farming
project due to this serious public threat as well as others listed below.

2 ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
POLLUTION FROM THE FARM'S CONSTRUCTION AND Linked to the energy-intensive farming system proposed,
there will also be pollution in the form of greenhouse
OPERATIONS COULD NEGATIVELY ALTER THE LOCAL gas (GHG) emissions. It is estimated that this land-
WATER, AIR AND NOCTURNAL LANDSCAPE. based octopus farm would introduce an additional
4.58 kilotons of CO2 per year. The company neglected to
For example, as the waste from the farm is planned to
propose an effective plan to offset these emissions and
be discharged into the port, it is likely that there will be
properly address their contribution to climate change.
a notable decline in the already poor port water quality.
The extent of solar panels included in the farm plans was
This is expected due to the physical structure and
also negligible. As such, the Canary Islands Government
hydrodynamics observed in the port area, keeping this
is urging the company to reconsider how they could
water sheltered and largely excluded from mixing with
ameliorate their energy efficiency.
the sea body. Without proper water circulation, much
of the discharged waste will remain trapped directly Regarding the effects of light pollution, Nueva Pescanova
within the port area. did not evaluate any aspect related to the exterior
lighting of their aquaculture project. According to the
Another major concern is the absence of information
local legislation to protect the nocturnal landscape,
relating to the chemicals that will be used in the farm
necessary measures must be adopted to diminish any
operations, including their concentrations and disposal.
expected light pollution coming from the farm. This
Nueva Pescanova simply stated that ‘disinfectants’
is especially important for the protection of wildlife as
would need to be used in their aquaculture facility.
artificial light has a significant ecological impact on
Chemical contaminants can pose serious risks to
several species, including bats, birds, and insects (15).
the surrounding environment (13). As noted by the
Government, Nueva Pescanova should have prepared It is also very likely that bad odours may be produced as
an exhaustive assessment of any potential chemicals aquaculture facilities generate organic waste from feed
to be used and introduced into the local environment. and faeces remains. This would negatively impact local
Instead, they irresponsibly provided zero estimates of companies and businesses in the surrounding area, such
their potentially toxic waste. Improper waste disposal as a commercial passenger terminal located very close
causes too many nutrients to accumulate in the seawater to the proposed location for the farm. This issue has not
through a process called eutrophication. Eutrophication been evaluated by the company.
can lead to toxic algal blooms, threatening local marine
ecosystems and human health (14).

EXPOSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS OF OCTOPUS FARMING

 3 USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES
THE PLANNED CONSUMPTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES extraction methods, volume or kilograms of live animals
required to produce the necessary aquaculture feed.
IS UNSUSTAINABLE AND IMPROPERLY ASSESSED. As carnivores, octopuses require a diet rich in protein,
Indirectly, the main source of natural resources to be typically sourced from fishmeal and fish oil (16). The
used is related to the farm’s energy consumption. The demand for these feed ingredients has significant
farm has been classified as a large energy consumer implications for both food security and environmental
due to the extent of fossil hydrocarbons that will need sustainability (7,8). It is estimated that 0.5–1.0 trillion fish
to be burned to meet the electricity requirements of the caught each year are used for reduction to fishmeal and
facility (6). fish oil, estimated to represent nearly 20% of wild-caught
fish landings (17). Approximately 90% of wild-caught fish
The farm is also a big consumer of water. The seawater are suitable for human consumption (8). This, therefore,
necessary for the octopuses’ tanks is estimated at represents an inefficient use of resources. The use of
approximately 150,000 m3/year. This water will be wild-caught fish in aquaculture also creates food security
returned into the sea, but only after circulating through issues in regions such as West Africa, Southeast Asia,
the aquaculture system which will alter its physical- and South America from where fisheries supply much
chemical conditions. These alterations to the water’s of the fish used for feed (18,19). This is highly concerning
composition could negatively impact the surrounding as octopuses are known to have high feed conversion
seawater and aquatic life. ratios in comparison to other animals typically farmed in
The consumption of other natural resources is mainly aquatic environments (5,20). The production of their feed
linked to raw materials for animal feed (3,764 t/year) and ingredients would thus be linked to highly unsustainable
live feed (27 t/year). Nueva Pescanova has not provided practices that exacerbate overfishing and drive inequality
any details relating to the capture origin, species type, in already vulnerable communities (21–23).

EXPOSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS OF OCTOPUS FARMING

 4 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
THERE ARE CONCERNING THREATS TO PROTECTED local benthic communities: organisms that live at the
bottom of the sea. Benthic ecosystems are critical for the
HABITATS AND VULNERABLE SPECIES. provision of ecosystem services such as nutrient cycling,
Located merely 800 metres from the eastern margin of the supporting biodiversity and the sequestration of large
proposed site location is the marine protected area (MPA) amounts of CO2 (25). In the seawater collection area,
called “La Isleta”, which is part of the EU’s Natura 2000 there is a particular type of brown algae called Mujo
network. As an MPA, this site is classified as a special amarillo (Gongolaria abies-marina) that is classified as
zone of conservation due to the specific habitats and vulnerable in the Spanish Catalog of Threatened Species
species living there (European Environment Agency., (CEEA). This species requires special protection, as
Marine Protected Areas). La Isleta consists of protected disruptions to communities of species included within
sandbank, reef and sea cave habitat areas. It also the CEEA are strictly prohibited (26). Nueva Pescanova
supports species of community interest, such as the did not take the necessary precautions to ensure
Bottle-nose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), globally the protection of this algae, such as conducting an
threatened Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) and underwater survey to ensure all protected species and
globally endangered Green turtle (Chelonia mydas) (24). habitats are unaffected.

According to the Government of the Canary Islands, The planned route for the collection of seawater is also
Nueva Pescanova failed to consider the effects its project located in an area where cetaceans are present. These
could have on this area and other surrounding wildlife. cetaceans, such as dolphins, porpoises and whales can
Also, the company has not demonstrated how it will be negatively affected by the noise pollution coming
meet certain required actions or mechanisms to restrict from the installation of the sea water intake tower.
the disturbance of birds present in the nearby terrestrial Cetaceans are very sensitive to changes in soundscapes
environment. The company neglected to include a as they rely on echolocation for navigating their
description of necessary measures for the prevention surrounding environment and finding food (27). These
of any negative alterations to the protected marine mammals also rely on the noises they are emitting and
ecosystem of La Isleta. receiving for communication between one another (28).
The EU has adopted measures to protect these special
Another biodiversity concern relates to the seawater animals from deliberate disturbances under the EU
intake tower for the collection of water to be used Habitats Directive, yet the company did not assess how
and circulated within the aquaculture system. The they may be affected by the project’s construction and
construction of this seawater tower could disturb the operations (29).

5 CULTURE AND 6 PORT

RECREATION DESIGNATION
FROM A CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE, THE PROJECT HAS RECEIVED IT IS UNCLEAR WHETHER AQUACULTURE
A NEGATIVE EVALUATION. ACTIVITY IS PERMISSIBLE AT THE
Within the proposed project area there are remains of a shipwreck PORT LOCATION.
that could be affected. Nueva Pescanova has made no evaluation The approved designation of the port is
of the potential impacts their farm construction and operations shipping and transport. This again raises
could pose to this cultural site, though they are required by law concerns linked to human health as there
to do so (Law 11/2019 of Cultural Heritage of the Canary Islands). are high risks of oil spills and shipping
Additionally, a team of legal experts at Legal Natura who assessed pollution within the water catchment
the farm plans found that there is a protected recreational diving area. Local zoning laws prohibit marine
site in close proximity. The regulations (Decree 102/2018 of July aquaculture in areas less than 1000
9) establish that a perimeter of 250 metres must be respected metres from the port for these reasons.
around these special interest diving areas. However, the planned However, it is unclear how this regulation
seawater collection point is within these restricted boundaries. relates to on-land production. The location
Disregarding the local regulations, Nueva Pescanova has not of the offshore seawater collection point
taken proper measures to ensure the diving site is unaffected by introduces added complexity.
their farm's construction and operations.

EXPOSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS OF OCTOPUS FARMING

EXPOSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS OF OCTOPUS FARMING
CONCLUSIONS
Nueva Pescanova claims that The EU is committed to improving the sustainability of its
aquaculture sector. Aside from the potential impacts to
it is committed to ‘maintaining the local environment, octopus farming fundamentally
goes against this premise. As carnivorous animals,
biodiversity’, ‘protecting the octopuses in farms would require feed composed of
wild caught fish, further exacerbating overfishing,
ecosystem’ and ‘promoting the and damaging marine ecosystems. What’s more, the
small fish used to produce this aquaculture feed could
circular economy’. Yet its own EIA instead provide nutrition directly to communities
in need, which adds to the issues of food inequality
for the farm at the Port of Las among humans.

Octopus farming is inconsistent with the EU’s aquaculture

Palmas, Gran Canaria, was considered policy and commitment to animal welfare. This highly
unsustainable industry should not be introduced nor
insufficient by the Canary Islands promoted in the EU.

Government. Due to the myriad concerns for octopus welfare, human

health and the environment, the proposal to factory farm
In its decision to subject the company to a more exhaustive octopuses is not a model to be replicated elsewhere in the
assessment procedure, the Government highlighted that world either. Heeding these concerns, the US has led the
there could be ‘significant effects on the environment’. The way in opposing the emergence of this industry. The world's
company neglected to consider these serious threats to first legislative ban on octopus farming was enacted in
public health, the environment and wildlife. Washington State in March 2024. Similar laws are being
introduced in California, Hawaii and Oregon, with some
Compassion in World Farming and Eurogroup for Animals
extending to ban farmed octopus imports (30). The EU
believe that, in addition to animal cruelty, the reckless
should follow suit and focus investments on alternatives
EIA report submitted by Nueva Pescanova is extremely
to animal-based foods, not perpetuate destructive farming
concerning on environmental grounds and that permission
practices that cause extreme animal suffering.
to build the farm should be rejected. The seawater proposed
to be used for the cultivation of farmed octopuses is unfit
for human consumption, disregarding food safety. The
construction of the water collection tower could seriously
disrupt the bottom-dwelling marine life, including a
native and threatened species of brown algae. With the
known presence of several dolphin and whale species in
the area, the noise from the construction and operations
of the seawater tower could negatively affect their ability
to navigate, communicate, find food, and avoid dangers.
Introducing this new factory farm so close to the port could
also significantly worsen the quality of the water there and
increase the presence of GHG emissions.

EXPOSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS OF OCTOPUS FARMING

REFERENCES
1 Compassion in World Farming, Eurogroup for Animals. 11. 
Mustafa SA, Al-Rudainy AJ, Salman NM. Effect of
Uncovering the horrific reality of octopus farming. 2023. environmental pollutants on fish health: An overview.
Egyptian Journal of Aquatic Research [Internet]. 2024
2. Lines JA, Spence J. Humane harvesting and slaughter of
Apr 6 [cited 2024 Jul 6]; Available from: https://www.
farmed fish. Rev Sci Tech [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2023 Mar
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1687428524000074
3];33(1):255–64. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/25000798/ 12. Water quality and food safety | Land & Water | Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations | Land &
3. Poli BM. Farmed fish welfare-suffering assessment and
Water | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
impact on product quality. Ital J Anim Sci. 2009;8(1s):139–
Nations [Internet]. [cited 2024 May 31]. Available from:
60.
https://www.fao.org/land-water/overview/onehealth/
4. 
Mather JA, Scheel D. Behaviour. In: Iglesias J, Fuentes qualitysafety/en/
L, Villanueva R, editors. Cephalopod Culture [Internet].
13. European Environment Agency. Hazardous substances in
Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2014 [cited 2020 Oct 7]. p.
Europe’s fresh and marine waters : An overview [Internet].
17–39. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-
LU: Publications Office; 2011 [cited 2024 Jul 6]. Available
94-017-8648-5
from: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2800/78305
5. Jacquet J, Franks B, Godfrey-Smith P, Sánchez-Suárez W.
14. Sanseverino I, Conduto ADS, Pozzoli L, Dobricic S, Lettieri T.
The Case Against Octopus Farming. Issues Sci Technol.
JRC Publications Repository. 2016 [cited 2024 Jul 6]. Algal
2019;37–44.
bloom and its economic impact. Available from: https://
6. Badiola M, Basurko OC, Piedrahita R, Hundley P, Mendiola publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC101253
D. Energy use in Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS):
15. Falcón J, Torriglia A, Attia D, Viénot F, Gronfier C, Behar-
A review. Vol. 81, Aquacultural Engineering. Elsevier; 2018.
Cohen F, et al. Exposure to Artificial Light at Night and
p. 57–70.
the Consequences for Flora, Fauna, and Ecosystems.
7. 
Alder J, Campbell B, Karpouzi V, Kaschner K, Pauly D. Front Neurosci [Internet]. 2020 Nov 16 [cited 2024 Jul
Forage fish: From ecosystems to markets. Annu Rev 5];14. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/
Environ Resour [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2019 Feb 15];33:153– neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2020.602796/full
66. Available from: http://www.fishbase.org.
16. Villanueva R, Sykes A V., Vidal EAG, Rosas C, Nabhitabhata
8. Cashion T, Le Manach F, Zeller D, Pauly D. Most fish J, Fuentes L, et al. Current status and future challenges
destined for fishmeal production are food-grade fish. Fish in cephalopod culture. In: Cephalopod Culture. Springer
Fish. 2017;18(5):837–44. Netherlands; 2014. p. 479–89.

9. 
Environmental impact assessment - European 17. Mood A, Brooke P. Estimating global numbers of fishes
Commission [Internet]. [cited 2024 May 31]. Available from: caught from the wild annually from 2000 to 2019. Anim
https://environment.ec.europa.eu/law-and-governance/ Welf [Internet]. 2024 Feb 8 [cited 2024 Feb 13];33:e6.
environmental-assessments/environmental-impact- Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/
assessment_en animal-welfare/article/estimating-global-numbers-of-
fishes-caught-from-the-wild-annually-from-2000-to-
10. CAEA [Internet]. [cited 2024 May 31]. Available from: https://
2019/83F1B933E8691F3A552636620E8C7A01
www.gobiernodecanarias.org/planificacionterritorial/
materias/evaluacion-ambiental/CAEA/

EXPOSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS OF OCTOPUS FARMING

18. 
Changing Markets and Compassion in World Farming. 27. Kavanagh AS, Nykänen M, Hunt W, Richardson N, Jessopp
Until the seas run dry. 2019;80. Available from: http:// MJ. Seismic surveys reduce cetacean sightings across a
changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/ large marine ecosystem. Sci Rep. 2019 Dec 16;9(1):19164.
REPORT-WEB-UNTILL-THE-SEAS-DRY.pdf
28. NOAA. National Ocean Service website. 2024 [cited 2024
19. 
Changing Markets. Fishing for Catastrophe. Chang Mark Jul 6]. Why do whales make sounds? Available from:
Found. 2019;1–18. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/whalesounds.html

20. Feed efficiency indicators for responsible aquaculture 29. 

Protecting whales, dolphins and porpoises against
- Responsible Seafood Advocate [Internet]. [cited 2024 incidental catch | EUR-Lex [Internet]. [cited 2024 May 31].
May 31]. Available from: https://www.globalseafood.org/ Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/
advocate/feed-efficiency-indicators-for-responsible- summary/protecting-whales-dolphins-and-porpoises-
aquaculture/ against-incidental-catch.html

21. van Riel AJ, Nederlof MAJ, Chary K, Wiegertjes GF, de Boer 30. 
Octopus Farming Ban Introduced in California - Animal
IJM. Feed-food competition in global aquaculture: Current Legal Defense Fund [Internet]. [cited 2024 May 31].
trends and prospects. Rev Aquac [Internet]. 2023 Jun 1 Available from: https://aldf.org/article/octopus-farming-
[cited 2024 May 31];15(3):1142–58. Available from: https:// ban-introduced-in-california/
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/raq.12804

22. 
Naylor RL, Hardy RW, Buschmann AH, Bush SR, Cao L,
Klinger DH, et al. A 20-year retrospective review of global
aquaculture. Vol. 591, Nature. Nature Research; 2021. p. 551–
63.

23. Naylor RL, Goldburg RJ, Primavera JH, Kautsky N, Beveridge

MCM, Clay J, et al. Effect of aquaculture on world fish
supply. Nature. 2000;405:1017–24.

24. EUNIS -Site factsheet for Área marina de La Isleta [Internet].

[cited 2024 May 31]. Available from: https://eunis.eea.
europa.eu/sites/ES7010016

25. Galparsoro I, Borja A, Uyarra MC. Mapping ecosystem

services provided by benthic habitats in the European
North Atlantic Ocean. Front Mar Sci [Internet]. 2014
Jul 18 [cited 2024 Jul 7];1. Available from: https://www.
frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles/10.3389/
fmars.2014.00023/full

26. 
Situación actual del Listado de Especies Silvestres en
Régimen de Protección Especial y Catálogo Español
de Especies Amenazadas [Internet]. [cited 2024 May
31]. Available from: https://www.miteco.gob.es/es/
biodiversidad/temas/conservacion-de-especies/especies-
proteccion-especial/ce-proteccion-listado-situacion.html

EXPOSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS OF OCTOPUS FARMING

Published by: Eurogroup for Animals and
Compassion in World Farming, July 2024

Authors: Keri Tietge, Aquatic Animals

Policy Officer at Eurogroup for Animals
and Dr Elena Lara, Senior Research
and Public Affairs Advisor (Aquatic Animals)
at Compassion in World Farming

Editor: Sarah Bedson, Campaigner at

Eurogroup for Animals

Layout & Design: Blush Design Agency

Eurogroup for Animals Compassion in World Farming

Rue Ducale 29 – 1000 Brussels River Court, Mill Ln, Godalming GU7 1EZ
Tel: +32 (0)2 740 08 20
[email protected]
[email protected] ciwf.org
eurogroupforanimals.org
@ciwf
@Act4AnimalsEU
@farm.animals
@eurogroupforanimals
@compassion-in-world-farming
@eurogroup-for-animals
Compassion in World Farming International is a
registered charity in England and Wales, registered
charity number 1095050.