ESPON 2.1.5: Territorial Impacts of European Fisheries Policy

ESPON 2.1.5: Territorial Impacts of ESPON 2.1.5: Territorial Impacts of European Fisheries PolicyEuropean Fisheries Policy

Third Interim ReportPrepared for the Salzburg Seminar 13-14 March 2006

Ove Langeland, Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research, (NIBR), Norway

Key findings

• Diagnosis – development of the Fisheries sector– CFP: Main territorial impacts of the conservation policy:

• Capture fisheries sub-sector: Fleet reduction, decreased value of landed catch - employment reduction

• Aquaculture: Increased volume, value + employment• Processing industry: Employment reduction in some countries,

increased landings from non-EU countries (globalisation)– Fisheries sector in Norway and Iceland

• Capture fisheries sub-sector; Resource situation relatively good - reduced employment (technological changes)

• Aquaculture: Increased volume, value + employment• Processing industry: More difficult - factory trawlers, globalisation

effects • Integrated Coastal Zone Management

– Spatial planning systems must cover both the terrestrial part and the marine part of the coastal zone (land and water)

– ICZM demands both horizontal and vertical co-ordination• Example studies for analysing impacts within the fishery sector

1. Mapping on ESPON-space – country level2. National implementation for selected countries – NUTS 33. Example studies on lower geographical level for tracing possible

territorial impacts of the fisheries policy

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Advanced technology and ability to fish anywhere

Severe overcapacity in many of the fleet segments

Further capacity reductions

Increasing competition from third countries beginning to exploit their own resources

High and increasing demand for fish products

Fisheries is increasingly seen as unattractive work

Focussing on branding sustainable fishing when this is possible

Failure to address the issue of overcapacity

Good reputation compared to farmed fish

The bad state of many (demersal) stocks, an increasing resource base has long perspectives

Recovery plans leading to larger more stable catches

Failure to recover stocks

Some fleets (segments) are ageing due to lack of investments

National experiments with transferable quotas

Competition from third countries, increasing due to tariff reductions

Some fishing dependent region far from main markets (ex. Scotland)

Better coordination of supply and demand through the POs

Lack of skilled fishermen due to the perceived unattractiveness of the job

Introducing new species for human consumption

Competition from aquaculture, also on new species such as cod

SWOT analysis of the capture fisheries sub-sector in EU15

SWOT analysis of the aquaculture sub-sector in EU15

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Many good spots for aquaculture on a long EU coastline

Fluctuating prices Diversification and introduction of new species

Competition for space in some areas

High and increasing demand for fish products

Not as good reputation as 'wild fish'

More off-shore farming as technology improves

Competition from third countries and new species, increasing due to tariff reductions

Many producers have high technological level

Reputation in some places damaged due to pollution

Making use of the strong political support for aquaculture in the EU (e.g. through FIFG)

Fish diseases

In some places animal protection organisations target aquaculture

Risk of (periodical) oversupply because of speed of growth

Lack of fish meal (used for carnivorous species)

Aquaculture productions total (in live weight) 1990, 1996 and 2002

Acores

Madeira

Guayane

MartiniqueGuadeloupe Réunion

Canarias

500 km

280 000

1990

1996

2002

ESPON Space

Sources: ESPON Data Base, USGS, Norut FinnmarkMap: Bernt Holst, e-mail: [email protected]

This map does notnecessarily reflect theopinion of the ESPONMonitoring Committee

Aquaculture Production Total in EU27 + EFTA 1990, 1996, 2002

Aquaculture Production Total(Tonnes Live Weight)

SWOT analysis of the processing sub-sector in EU15

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats High and increasing demand for fish products

High labour costs compared to competitors

Increasing ability to source raw materials from wherever the price and/or quality is best

Competition from third countries with lower wages - also intra-EU

Decreasing access to local resources due to the state of the stocks

Concentrating on value-adding rather than primary processing, which can be done cheaper elsewhere

Some plants especially in southern Europe have difficulties living up to new standards

Innovation in terms of new value-added products

Prices for raw material sometimes higher than necessary because of protection of domestic suppliers and processors (ex. salmon)

Integrated Coastal Zone management

• ICZM - coordinate different and competing interests in the coastal zone, a holistic and long run perspective,

• ICZM - a new style of governance - partnership involve all relevant stakeholder interest, integrated solutions - the local and regional level.

• Integration of ICZM and the EU Marine strategy policy• The EU Demonstration programmes (1996-1999): The spatial

planning system alone has some limitations to secure the idea of ICZM:– cover both the terrestrial part and the marine part of the coastal zone – too narrow focus on development control rather than a broader ICZM focus -

necessary to combine economic instruments to the planning system.

• The Interreg IIC project Norcoast (1998-2000): Combine the best elements of the statutory spatial planning system with the best elements of the voluntary partnership approach in order to achieve integrated solutions:

– an open and inclusive decision process does not alone increase the integration capacity of the regional planning

– integration at regional level is only possible if the higher levels of administration provide an integrated legal and institutional context.

Project focus – ESPON Space Project focus – ESPON Space

•Mapping covering ESPON Space - 29 countries (EU25+2+2)•Focus on coastal regions and fisheries dependent areas•Statistical analyses on NUTS 3 level (difficult to trace impacts, lack of data)•Using example studies on lower geographical levels - possible to trace impacts

Example studies – findings related to economic and social cohesion in fisheries dependent areas

• Demography: Depopulation- declining population and unbalanced age-structure (ageing)

• Employment: Decrease in employment in the fisheries sector, particularly in capture and processing industry, tendencies to concentration and urbanisation

• Income: Reduction in relation to national average• Regional development: Remote areas, problems with

accessibility • NB: Difficult to isolate the impacts of fisheries policy on

employment, demography etc. Changes may be part of more general trends in remote/peripheral areas

Share of employees in Norwegian fisheries. NUTS3. 2005

© ESPO N/N IBR

O rig in of the data: S tatistics Norway/Norwegian Institu te of U rban and Regional Research

Buskerud

OsloAkershus

Østfold

Hedm arkOppland

VestfoldTelemark

Aust-Agder

Vest-Agder

Rogaland

Hordaland

Sogn og Fjordane

Møre og Rom sdal

Nord-Trøndelag

Sør-Trøndelag

Nordland

Trom s

Finnmark

Th is m ap does notnecessarily re flect theopin ion o f the E SP O NM onitoring C om m itee

Share of em ployees in fisheries. NUTS3. 2005

1.40 % and over

1.00 % to 1.39 %

0.60 % to 0.99 %

0.20 % to 0.59 %

Under 0.2 %

© ESPO N/N IBR

O rig in o f the data :S tatistics N orw ay/N orw egian Institu te of U rban and Regional R esearch

F innm ark

T h is m ap d o es n otn e ce ss a rily re fle ct theo p in ion o f th e E S P O NM on ito ring C o m m ite e

Share of em ployees in fisheries. 2005

6.00 per cent and over

4.00 to 5.99 per cent



Under 0.50 per cent

Trom s

Share of employees in fisheries at two geographical levels -NUTS 3 and LAU 2. 2005

Share of employees in fisheries at two geographical levels -NUTS 3 and LAU 2. 2005

© ESPO N /N IBR

M øre og Rom sdal

Sogn og F jordane

Share of em ployees in fisheries. 2005





U nder 0.30 per cent

The counties (N U TS3) M øre og R om sdal and Sogn og F jordane,and the m unic ipa ls w ith in those counties.

This m ap does notnecessarily reflect theopin ion o f the ESPO NM onitoring C om m itee

Share of employees in aquaculture. NUTS3. 2005

© ESPO N /N IBR

O rig in o f the data: S tatistics N orway/Norwegian Institu te o f U rban and Regional R esearch

Buskerud

OsloAkershus

Østfold

Hedm arkOppland

VestfoldTelemark

Aust-Agder

Vest-Agder

Rogaland

Hordaland

Sogn og Fjordane

Møre og Rom sdal

Nord-Trøndelag

Sør-Trøndelag

Nordland

Trom s

Finnmark

Th is m ap does notnecessarily re flect theopin ion o f the E SP O NM onitoring C om m itee

Share of em ployees in aquaculture. 2005. N U TS30.60 % and over

0.40 % to 0.59 %

0.20 % to 0.39 %

U nder 0.20 %

Share of employees in aquaculture at two geographical levels – NUTS 3 and LAU 2. 2005

© ESPO N /N IBR

M øre og Rom sdal

Sogn og F jordane

Share of em ployees in aquaculture. 2005





U nder 0.30 per cent

The counties (N U TS3) M øre og R om sdal and Sogn og F jordane,and the m unic ipa ls w ith in those counties.

This m ap does notnecessarily reflect theopin ion o f the ESPO NM onitoring C om m itee

• General policy recommendations– Counteract impacts of CFP which contradict aims of cohesion, territorially

balanced development and polycentrism – different impacts in different regions

– The development in urban-rural relations in the fisheries should be governed by thoughts about polycentric development

• Policy recommendations related to environmental impacts and ICZM

– Better integration of the terrestrial and marine environment in coastal planning and other ICZM activities

– Combine the statutory spatial planning system and the voluntary partnership approach to achieve integrated solutions, and flexible planning approaches.

– Need for a regional approach across the municipalities and other administrative borders regarding the development of the industry

• Policy recommendations related to social cohesion– Better co-coordination of the implementation of economic measures in CFP

(the FIFG) and the fish resource regulation policy– The interplay between fisheries policies implemented on national and

European level should be better integrated – European sector policies of the fisheries should be adjusted in accordance

with the European territorial policies on reduction of social cohesion differences on the European territory

Draft policy recommendations

• Research gaps:– Lack of data on relevant geographical level– Difficult to obtain data– Data for primary industries not separated for fisheries

and agriculture

• Further research (ESPON II)– Common data collection from Eurostat for ESPON-

space– Utilise better the potential of national data for lower

geographical level when such data are available, focus on the micro level

Further research

Documents

ESPON 2.1.5: Territorial Impacts of European Fisheries Policy