Demands for distributive justice usually underline the need for an equitable distribution of environmental risks, burdens and benefits among different groups of society. In our study, this argument emerged in various forms linked to the uneven allocation GPCR Compound Library mouse of resources in terms of access to fish and marine space, and distribution

of risks, burdens and benefits of fish farms. Demands include the restoration of marine environment, contribution to local economy and social development, and compensation for environmental damage or for income loss. In cases where small-scale fishermen are important actors, the demand for distributive justice was present. For instance, in Inousses Island, Greece, fishermen and local people expect a greater contribution from fish farms to local

development since, according to them, the amount paid by the company to the municipality for the use of the marine area is very low, and the export-oriented production does not benefit local people (I12). The same complaint exists learn more in some cases in Norway, where NGOs and researchers claim that local municipalities collect a very small amount of tax from fish farms, leading to an unjust distribution of benefits (I15, I19). Another common concern is that the aquaculture producers do not compensate the wild capture fishermen for the negative external costs imposed on them [35]. NGOs in Norway, for instance, mention that especially in the beginning of 1990s there was a drastic sea lice problem, because of which all angling and professional netting activities of wild salmon had GABA Receptor to be stopped in Hardanger region (I15, I19). This put an uneven social and economic burden on fishermen, recreational users and local people,

while it did not affect fish farmers at the same amount. Consequently, many actors began to call for distributive justice in terms of compensation for the environmental damage the fish farms have done. After the pressure of angler societies, river owners and environmental organizations, Mattilsynet (The Norwegian Food Safety Authority) forced the sector to take measures in order to recover the damaged fish stocks by realizing sea lice treatment in the existing fish farms. However, compensation was insufficient, and was furthermore not distributed among all actors, but mainly paid to river owners (I15). The distributive justice aspect covers several NGOs׳ and local people׳s claims about the unequal distribution of risks as well [36] and [37]. Opposing groups, especially in salmon producing regions (see Norway, Scotland, UK and Ireland), use arguments about negative health effects of eating farmed salmon due to the poor quality feed, and the intensive use of chemicals and antibiotics that are transmitted into human body by eating farmed salmon [27] (I15, I20, I27) .