SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund

8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 1/114

European Maritimeand Fisheries Fund(EMFF) 2014 - 2020United Kingdom SWOTand Needs AssessmentAnalysis

July 2013



EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT

2

The report has been prepared by Epsilon Resource Management Limited.

Annex A details were provided by Sasha Maguire and Arif Al-Mahmood, with reformatting by EpsilonResource Management.

SponsorsThis report has been sponsored by the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra), MarineScotland and the Marine Management Organisation (MMO), and supported by the European FisheriesFund.

DisclaimerThe opinions expressed in this report are entirely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflectthe view of the sponsor organisations, and the sponsor organisations are not liable for the accuracyof the information provided or responsible for any use of the content.

The contents of this report are offered in good faith and after due consideration. The authors asindividuals or as Epsilon Resource Management, cannot be held responsible for any consequencesarising from the use of this report. Opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors andconsultees.

Acknowledgments

Epsilon Resource Management would like to thank the following for their guidance and invaluablecontributions to this project:

· Matt Sowrey, Arif Al-Mahmood & colleagues – Defra· Mark Nicoll, Sasha Maguire & colleagues – Marine Scotland· Martin Smith & colleagues – MMO· The Welsh Assembly Government· The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Northern Ireland· All stakeholders who participated in workshops and / or in written submissions

Bibliographic Policy

The Client has agreed that references in this document may be cited as web links as appropriate.

Authors

Slaski, R.J,1 Maguire, S, and Al-Mahmood, A (2013).

1 Epsilon Resource Management Limited, Briarlea Holmhead, Auldgirth, Dumfries DG2 0XL, Tel: 01387 740098, Email:[email protected]




3

CONTENTS

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... 4

1 Background .............................................................................................................................. 6

1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 61.2 Objectives of the EMFF ....................................................................................................... 81.3 EMFF Title V Chapter Headings ........................................................................................... 81.4 Measures under Direct Management................................................................................ 101.5 Links between the CSF and the EMFF Programme ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ... 101.6 Other Strategies and Directives......................................................................................... 131.7 Linking with Other Activities and Processes ...... ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... 131.8 Key Principles of SWOT Analysis........................................................................................ 14

2. EMFF Baseline and SWOT Methodology ................................................................................. 162.1 Baseline Review and UK Fisheries Sector Overview ...... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ... 162.2 SWOT Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................ 18

3. Overarching SWOT for the UK ’ s EMFF Programme................................................................ 21

4. SWOT Analysis for Sustainable Development of Fisheries ....................................................... 26

5. SWOT Analysis for Sustainable Development of Aquaculture ................................................. 31

6. SWOT Analysis for Sustainable Development of Fisheries Areas ............................................. 36

7. SWOT Analysis for Marketing and Processing Related Measures ............................................ 40

8. SWOT Analysis for Accompanying Measures for the Common Fisheries Policy under SharedManagement ......................................................................................................................... 43

Annex A: EMFF UK Baseline Review 2013 .. ...................................................................................... 46A1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 46A2. Objectives of EMFF ........................................................................................................... 46A3. Priorities of EMFF (Danish Presidency compromise text) ..... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ... 46A4. Sustainable Development of Fisheries............................................................................... 48A5. Sustainable Development of Aquaculture ......................................................................... 67

A5.2 Production volume and values .................................................................................. 69A6. Sustainable Development of Fisheries Areas ..... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 76A7. Marketing and Processing Related Measures ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ... 79A8. Accompanying Measures for the Common Fisheries Policy under Shared Management ... 82A9. Other Marine Industry Sectors .......................................................................................... 94

Annex B: Devolved Administration SWOT Analyses .......................................................................... 95B1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 95B2. England ............................................................................................................................ 97B3. Scotland ........................................................................................................................... 99B4. Wales ............................................................................................................................. 107B5. Northern Ireland ............................................................................................................. 110B6. UK FLAGS ........................................................................................................................ 113




4

Executive Summary

This Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis and Needs Assessment

report has been prepared as a contribution to the programming work for the new European

Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) in the United Kingdom (UK).

The policy context for the EMFF is described in some detail, from the perspective of its use as a

mechanism to support the European Union ’s (EU) Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and Integrated

Maritime Policy (IMP), and also from the perspective of where the EMFF fits into the European

Commission ’s (the Commission) expectations for all the European Structural and Investment Funds

(ESI).

The programming process for EMFF is described in some detail, and shows how and where this

SWOT Analysis and Needs Assessment contributes. Ultimately, subject to ex ante evaluation and

amendment, it will be incorporated into the final UK Operational Programme for the EMFF.

Following the Commission ’s guidance, this SWOT Analysis and Needs Assessment report has been

prepared through a detailed baseline analysis of relevant sectoral statistics and trends (see Annex A),

and a comprehensive programme of engagement and consultation with a range of experts, officials

and other stakeholders. This has taken into account the circumstances for fisheries within the

devolved administrations of the UK (see Annex B).

There are many details contained within the report, but the overarching SWOT elements and

Statement of Needs for the UK as a whole are summarised in Section 3 . Key points to highlight

include:

· Fisheries (including commercial fisheries, aquaculture, fisheries areas and processing) are an

important sector for the UK, which as a maritime nation has a coastline that is longer than

any other EU Member State – comprising 34% of the entire coastline length of EU28

· UK commercial fisheries and aquaculture have consistently contributed 11% and 14% of the

EU’s total production, respectively, since the mid 2000 ’s

· As with all EU Member States, CFP reform and regional management are key initiatives that

EMFF will support, as the UK ’s commercial fisheries sector transitions to a sustainable future

· Aquaculture continues to offer good prospects for increasing seafood sustainability in the

future, and EMFF can be instrumental in helping to deliver that vision.




5






7

The ex-ante guidance provides an illustrative diagram of the entire programming / ex-ante /

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) 8 activity, reproduced here as Figure 1.

Figure 1. EMFF Programming Flow Diagram. Note that the red box has been added to the diagram

to illustrate the phase covered by the current document.

Figure 1 illustrates where, in the programming flow, the SWOT analysis and needs assessment fits.

This document sets out a baseline and SWOT analysis for the UK with reference to the EMFF for

2014 - 2020. It also shows how these fit within the overarching thematic objectives of the

Commission ’s CSF.

The document has three main structural components:

1. The core SWOT analysis and needs assessment for the UK EMFF programme

2. Annex A: the baseline statistical information and trend analysis that provides the evidence to

support the individual SWOT elements

8 See for example http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/sea-legalcontext.htm




8

3. Annex B: individual SWOT analysis summaries for the four devolved administrations of the UK:

England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland

The Commission wishes to see the SWOT and baseline analysis brigaded around the key Chapters of

the (draft) EMFF Regulation.

The main bulk of this document outlines the methodology taken to address this task and summarises

the SWOT.

1.2 Objectives of the EMFF

Article 5 of the draft Regulation indicates that EMFF shall contribute to the following objectives:

1. Promoting fisheries and aquaculture which are competitive, economically viable, socially and

environmentally sustainable

2. Fostering the implementation of the CFP

3. Promoting a balanced and inclusive territorial development of fisheries areas

4. Fostering the development and implementation of the Union's IMP in a complementary manner

to cohesion policy and to the CFP.

1.3 EMFF Title V Chapter Headings

The relevant section of the draft Regulation is Title V: Measures Financed under Shared

Management. The Chapter headings and the key relevant Articles which relate to each are shown in

Table 1 below.

Table 1. EMFF Title V Chapter Headings and Related Articles.

CHAPTER I Sustainable development of fisheries

Article 28. Innovation

1. In order to stimulate innovation in fisheries, the EMFF may support projects aiming at

developing or introducing new or substantially improved products compared to the state of art,

new or improved processes, new or improved management and organisation systems.

2. Operations financed under this Article must be carried out in collaboration with a scientific or

technical body recognised by the Member State which shall validate the results of such operations

Article 29. Advisory services




9

(a) feasibility studies

(b) the provision of professional advice on business and marketing strategies

Article 30. Partnerships between scientists and fishermen

Article 31. Promoting human capital and social dialogue

Article 32. Facilitating diversification and job creationArticle 33. Health and safety on board

Article 34. Support to systems of transferable fishing concessions of the CFP

Article 35. Support to the implementation of conservation measures under the CFP

Article 36. Limiting the impact of fishing on the marine environment:

• improving size selectivity or species selectivity of fishing gear;

• reducing unwanted catches of commercial stocks or other by-catches;

• limiting the physical and biological impacts of fishing on the ecosystem or the sea bed

Article 37. Innovation linked to the conservation of marine biological resourcesArticle 38. Protection and restoration of marine biodiversity and ecosystems in the framework of

sustainable fishing activities

Article 39. Mitigation of climate change

Article 40. Product quality and use of unwanted catches

Article 41. Fishing ports, landing sites and shelters

CHAPTER II Sustainable development of aquaculture

Article 45. Innovation

Article 46. Investments in off-shore and non-food aquaculture

Article 47. New forms of income and added value: Supply chain integration; new species;

complementary business (angling tourism, education, etc.)

Article 48. Management, relief and advisory services for aquaculture farms

Article 49. Promoting human capital and networking

Article 50. Increasing the potential of aquacultures sites

Article 51. Encouraging new aquaculture farmers

Article 52. Promotion of aquaculture with high level of environmental protection

Article 53. Conversion to eco-management and audit schemes and organic aquaculture

Article 54. Aquaculture providing environmental services

Article 55. Public health measures

Article 56. Animal health and welfare measures

Article 57. Aquaculture stock insurance




10

CHAPTER III Sustainable development of fisheries areas

Article 61. Integrated local development strategies

Article 62. Fisheries local action groups

Article 63. Support from the EMFF for integrated local developmentArticle 64. Preparatory support

Article 65. Implementation of local development strategies

Article 67. Running costs and animation

CHAPTER IV Marketing and processing related measures

Article 69. Production and Marketing Plans

Article 70. Storage aid

Article 71. Marketing measuresArticle 72. Processing of fisheries and aquaculture products

CHAPTER VI Accompanying measures for the Common Fisheries Policy under shared

management

Article 78. Control and Enforcement

Article 79. Data Collection

The inclusion of the individual Articles in Table 1 is important, since these represent the fine-tuning

details that must be taken into consideration in a SWOT analysis for each Chapter.

1.4 Measures under Direct Management

Some elements of the draft EMFF Regulations relate to issues under ‘Direct Management ’ – see

Article 7 of the draft Regulation. This UK SWOT has not addressed these measures in any detail, but

notes that issues such as science (Article 85) and compliance (Article 86) are fundamental to the UK ’s

approach to the fisheries sector, and are likely to be key to our delivery of CFP reform.

1.5 Links between the CSF and the EMFF Programme

As indicated in Section 1.1, EMFF programming must be undertaken with full regard to the

opportunities for collaboration with the other CSF fund programmes. All the CSF funds relate back to

one or other core ‘policies ’ of the Union. In the case of EMFF, for example, it is intended to support

two core policies: the CFP and the IMP. Figure 2 provides a diagrammatic representation of the




11

considerations that should be addressed when programming EMFF – and specifically when

undertaking the initial SWOT Analysis and Needs Assessment.

The eleven thematic objectives for all CSF funds are:

1. Strengthening research, technological development and innovation2. Enhancing access to and use and quality of information and communication technologies

3. Enhancing the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises, the agricultural sector

(for the EAFRD) and fisheries and aquaculture sector (for the EMFF)

4. Supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors

5. Promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management

6. Protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency

7. Promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures

8. Promoting employment and supporting labour mobility9. Promoting social inclusion and combating poverty

10. Investing in education, skills and lifelong learning

11. Enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration.

It should be noted that whilst EMFF is specifically mentioned in thematic objective 3, there is read-

across to many of the other objectives from a modern and innovative fisheries and aquaculture

sector.




12

Figure 2. Considerations when undertaking the EMFF SWOT analysis.

In the first instance, all of the CSF programmes must take account of the eleven overarching

thematic objectives that underpin the Europe 2020 strategy. Individual CSF programmes do not

necessarily operate at such a scope that they are immediately relevant to all of the eleven thematic

objectives, but due consideration should be given.




13

Whilst organising the UK EMFF SWOT analyses under Chapter headings, it is important to focus the

details of the analyses at MS (and also devolved administration) level: each MS will have its own

unique circumstances for its fisheries and aquaculture sectors, and its own unique MS policy drivers.

In addition, in order to maximise the effective utilisation of all CSF funds available to at a UK and

regional level, it is essential to look for collaborative opportunities with the other funds: EAFRD; ESF;

ERDF; and CF.

1.6 Other Strategies and Directives

In addition to assisting with the implementation of CFP reform and meeting the needs of the IMP, the

EMFF programme in the UK should be aiming to assist with – i.e. act as a tool for - the delivery of

objectives set by other EU-wide strategies and directives. These include:

· The Water Framework Directive 9

· The Marine Strategy Framework Directive 10

· The Habitats Directive 11

· Horizon 2020 – and specifically the Adaptation Strategy package related to climate change 12

It is anticipated that the SEA process will address all of these strategies and directives in some detail,

as they pertain to the fisheries sector.

1.7 Linking with Other Activities and Processes

Figure 1 indicated a number of programme development activities or stages:

Stage 1: the SWOT analysis and the needs assessment;

Stage 2: the construction of the programme´s intervention logic including the budgetary

allocations, establishment of targets and the performance framework;

Stage 3: defining governance, management and delivery systems, finalisation of the programme

document, integrating the ex-ante evaluation report.

The stages are described in more detail below, because they ‘set the scene ’ for where this SWOT and

baseline document lies within the process, i.e. it is at an early stage. Linking the consultations with

socio-economic partners, the SEA requirements and the development of the Partnership Agreement,

together with the design of the EMFF Programme, is seen to be complex task. Iteration and

9 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/10 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/marine/directive_en.htm11 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/12 http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/adaptation/what/docs/com_2013_216_en.pdf




14

communication are vital, and the Commissions ex-ante guidance suggests how this might occur with

respect to the SWOT analysis stage:

· The Managing Authority in collaboration with other Ministry departments, agencies, institutes,

etc. prepares the SWOT analysis and the needs assessment ( the current paper ) for the EMFF

Operational Programme· The ex-ante evaluator gives feedback on these analyses. The evaluator should look at the

baseline values of context and result indicators, assess the coherence and completeness of the

SWOT analysis and of the needs to be addressed by EMFF interventions. Any gaps identified

should be highlighted, and recommendations made for completing / improving the description

and analysis

· The SEA experts at this stage give their point of view on the analysis of the environmental issues,

the depth of their assessment, indicators, data and information requirements which need to be

taken into account for the SEA. The partners in the consultation process such as competentregional, local, and other public authorities economic and social partners, bodies representing

the civil society, including environmental partners and non-governmental organisations, should

be informed and consulted on the SWOT analysis discussed and validated by the ex-ante

evaluator and the SEA experts. They should have the opportunity to give their views on the

description of challenges and needs of the maritime and fisheries sectors as well as areas

dependent on fisheries, and recommendations provided by ex-ante evaluators. All relevant

points raised by partners should be taken into account

·

Having received the feedback, validations, and proposals for adjustments mentioned above, theManaging Authority should revise the SWOT analysis and needs assessment to take account of

the recommendations made. The recommendations of the ex-ante evaluator/SEA experts and

the way they were addressed should also be recorded.

1.8 Key Principles of SWOT Analysis

SWOT analysis is a method for analysing a ‘business ’, its resources, and its environment 13 . SWOT is

commonly used as part of strategic planning and looks at:

· Internal strengths

· Internal weaknesses

· Opportunities in the external environment

· Threats in the external environment

13 See for example: http://www.tutor2u.net/business/strategy/SWOT_analysis.htm




15

The result of the analysis is a matrix of positive and negative factors for policy decision-makers to

address: Table 2.

Table 2. SWOT Matrix.

Positive Factors Negative Factors

Internal Factors Strengths Weaknesses

External Factors Opportunities Threats

Additional key features of SWOT are:

· As an analytical process, it is best suited to a team-based approach

· Each identified element should be based on evidence, which would normally be presented in

textual and graphic form – the ‘baseline ’

· SWOT analysis serves little purpose unless every identified element is ‘actionable ’ – and

subsequently acted upon.

Differences of opinion between the perceptions of different stakeholders are rare but unavoidable in

a fully consultative SWOT process, and whilst in theory the published facts (see Annex A) should

resolve such differences, this is not always possible, perhaps because there is outstanding

uncertainty within the available knowledge base. Where there is doubt, the SWOT element should

still be recorded, but caveated appropriately. Whether a particular perception can be substantiated

or not, if its prevalence is sufficient to, for example, discourage investment in a particular sub-sector,

then it is a material consideration when deciding on future policies.




16

2. EMFF Baseline and SWOT Methodology

2.1 Baseline Review and UK Fisheries Sector Overview

Initial EMFF work focused on developing a baseline review of evidence on how the UK and its

component devolved administrations perform in relation to:

· The four EMFF Article 5 priority objectives

· The Title V Chapter Headings of the draft EMFF Regulation – a sub-sector approach.

This information is provided in Annex A. Where possible, existing information held within the UK

Government and the devolved administrations was used in order to assess the overall UK

performance against the priorities and chapter (sectoral) headings. The subsequent SWOT analysis

has been able to draw upon the baseline review, brigading the analysis under Chapter Headings.

The UK has the longest coastline in Europe, representing some 34% of the total – Figure 3.

Figure 3. Coastline lengths in Europe.




17

According to the most recent FAO database, the UK contributes some 12% of the EU total of

combined fisheries and aquaculture production: 9% as commercial fisheries and 3% as aquaculture –

Figure 4.

Figure 4. Fisheries and Aquaculture Production in Europe - Quantity.

Considered by production method, the UK has consistently produced around 11% of the total of EU

commercial fisheries, and around 14% of EU aquaculture, since 2004. Employment in the fisheries

and aquaculture sectors is 15,505 in 2011, and together with import and export trade, they support

a significant processing sector and provide employment and economic activity in many coastal and

rural fisheries areas. Seafood is ultimately consumed through the retail and foodservice sectors, and

total UK purchases of seafood were worth £5.6 billion in 2011 14 .

Within the UK ’s four devolved administrations, commercial fisheries and aquaculture production is

quite varied, as shown in Figures 5 and 6.

14 http://www.seafish.org/about-seafish/seafood-industry-overview-




18

Figure 5. UK Commercial fisheries landings by UK vessels . Source: MMO

Figure 6. UK aquaculture production. Source: CEFAS

2.2 SWOT Analysis Methodology

The process leading up to the current SWOT analysis is described below.

· Work on the SWOT analysis and needs assessment began in 2012




19

· A Stakeholder Group was established by Marine Scotland, and initially met on 18 th July 2012

· In parallel to the baseline review, additional research was undertaken:

o Stakeholder views as to what was required from EMFF were assessed and reported –

summer 2012

o Opportunities for EMFF projects to collaborate with other CSF programmes – summer

2012

o Opportunities for the aquaculture and fisheries sector to collaborate with other sectors

of the marine economy – and specifically areas where EMFF might encourage or support

such activity – summer 2012

o A review of previous UK SWOT analyses undertaken before the EFF programme

commenced, and an initial discussion paper approach to SWOT for EMFF – winter 2012

o A Stakeholder Group Workshop to consider both the emerging baseline review and the

initial approaches to formulating the EMFF SWOT analysis – 18 th January 2013

o Written consultation with the Stakeholder Group in relation to EMFF SWOT – February

2013

o Background UK baseline statistics and devolved administration policies / issue analysis –

May 2013

o Consultation with UK FLAG organisations – May 2013

o Stakeholder workshops in Wales, England and Northern Ireland – May and June 2013

o Consultation on draft UK SWOT and Needs Assessment with devolved administrations

and heads of all teams relevant to the fisheries sector – June / July 2013

o Stakeholder consultation in Scotland – July 2013

o Completion of UK SWOT Analysis and Needs Assessment – July 2013.

All evidence gathered through research, baseline review and consultation has been combined to

produce a single overarching consolidated UK Fisheries Sector SWOT , which is presented first in this

document – see Section 3.

The EMFF Chapter headings covered by individual SWOT analyses were presented in Table 1, and are

summarised again below:

1. CHAPTER I Sustainable development of fisheries




20

2. CHAPTER II Sustainable development of aquaculture

3. CHAPTER III Sustainable development of fisheries areas

4. CHAPTER IV Marketing and processing related measures

5. CHAPTER VI Accompanying measures for the Common Fisheries Policy under shared

management

Section 1.3 identified that each of the 5 EMFF Chapters has a number of relevant Articles, and the

SWOT analyses presented below take these into account. All of the SWOT elements are supported

by evidence from the baseline review, details of which can be found in Annex A.




21

3. Overarching SWOT for the UK ’s EMFF Programme

The SWOT below (Table 3) presents the overarching SWOT for the UK EMFF. It provides a summary

and distillation of the five EMFF chapter SWOTs (which are presented below this section) and

creates a clear link between the EMFF and the CSF. It also takes account of the individual devolved

administration SWOT analyses – presented in Annex B.

Links to CSF Thematic Objectives :1 Strengthening research, technological development and innovation3 Enhancing the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises, the agricultural

sector (for the EAFRD) and fisheries and aquaculture sector (for the EMFF)4 Supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors5 Promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management6 Protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency7 Promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures

8 Promoting employment and supporting labour mobility9 Promoting social inclusion and combating poverty10 Investing in education, skills and lifelong learning

Table 3. SWOT Analysis for the Overall Fisheries Sector in the UK – Not Ranked.

Strengths

1. The UK has the longest coastline in Europe,and produces a consistently (over time)significant percentage of EU28 ’scommercial fisheries (11%) and aquaculture

(14%) output2. UK purchases of seafood were worth £5.6

billion in 20113. Diversity of commercial species, many of

which are being fished at sustainable levels – with strong industry commitment torecovery, and good profitability in somesectors, although not in others

4. Experienced, flexible and adaptableworkforce in fishing, with young entrantsstarting come through in the last 2-3 yearsin some areas

5. There is capacity for capital investment /growth in parts of the fishing andaquaculture sectors

6. Willingness to consider diversificationwithin and out-with the fishing sector

7. Aquaculture delivers continuity of quality,specification and price of supplies - theability to plan predictable production

Weaknesses

1. Mixed fisheries make MSY managementdifficult or impossible (a view from someindustry stakeholders)

2. Economic difficulties are being faced by

some parts of the fleet3. There is a perception of overcapacity in

some sections of the fleet, although thismay be largely incorrect / doubtful overdifferent years, as fisheries stocks vary

4. The UK has an aging fleet, with fuelinefficiencies

5. High costs in fisheries – primarily fuel, butalso vessel costs and quota leasing costs

6. There are limitations on aquaculture sites;offshore technology is not yet proven;require input to marine spatial planning

and technical innovations to identify newproduction opportunities and sites

7. A perception of poor support from /understanding by some public sector policyand regulatory bodies with respect toaquaculture – variable regionally in the UK

8. Aquaculture is vulnerable to health /disease / water quality challenges, as withother animal protein production sectors




22

8. Good profitability and increasingproductivity in some aquaculture sectors

9. Global image and expectations: aquacultureis widely seen as the main future source ofseafood security, as long as it can continueto develop sustainably

10. Aquaculture has technically innovative, welltrained staff11. Fisheries areas are located along a rich and

varied coastline, with many havingattractive towns and harbours, and rich andvaried natural coastline with excellentwildlife and scenery / quality marinewildlife, bio-diversity and environments

12. Strong entrepreneurship and self-reliance isinherent in coastline communities

13. There is a strong international reputation insome UK processing companies, and they

are increasingly providing high quality,certified and traceable products to the UKseafood market

14. The processing companies are technicallyinnovative, and there is further capacity forthe sector to modernise and consolidate.

9. Economic challenges for some parts of theaquaculture sector, therefore difficult toobtain funding (e.g. match funding forEMFF), including working capital

10. Fisheries areas face a decline of traditionalfishing industries and skills retention, an

ageing population, and residents tending toout-migrate for work11. Fisheries areas tend to be (but not always)

quite distant from markets and otheropportunities, and costs are high

12. There are challenges finding match-fundingfor fisheries grants

13. The processing sector continues to includea small number of large multi-unitbusinesses, and a larger number of small,single unit businesses

14. Costs are high in processing, especially

energy15. The processing sector is dependent onaffordable and (locally / regionally)available raw materials

16. The supply chain and transport logistics canbe difficult for some parts of the processingsector, and transport costs can besignificant in some regions.

Opportunities

1. There is a growing demand / need forseafood in EU28 and in other key marketssuch as Russia, India and China – which can

take production from UK fisheries and UKaquaculture

2. The vision for commercial fisheries is that itcan transition into a sector that cansustainably supply the market, making useof improved management through CFPreform and other measures, based upongood science, good regulations and uponthe inherent capacity of the marineecosystem to recover

3. Innovation and support, via EMFF, canassist that transition – including technical,

cost-reduction, value-adding and supplychain efficiency developments

4. Diversification opportunities, both withinthe fisheries industries and out-with theindustry, are seen as important

5. There may be more capacity to furtherdevelop sustainable and well-managedinshore fisheries

Threats

1. Stock declines are only a feature in somesectors of commercial fisheries, but inoverall terms the UK ’s commercial fisherieshave declined 2.6% per annum on averagesince 2004 (based on FAO statistics androlling 5-year averages). The threat is thatdespite CFP reform and many othermeasures, overall catches continue todecline: the impact will be felt somewherewithin the sector

2. Costs could continue to increase faster thanprices increase, leading to decreasedprofitability in the commercial fisheriessector – and equally applicable toaquaculture

3. MSY targets and discard bans could proveto be overly costly for parts of the UKcommercial fisheries, affecting profitabilityand therefore economic sustainability

4. In the medium and longer terms,competition for space in the marineenvironment and climate change effectscould impair fishing opportunities for UKvessels




23

6. The primary route for aquaculturedevelopment in the UK relates to newproduction opportunities and technologies – especially more exposed sites in themarine environment. This requires co-ordinated support from regulatory

organisations7. Working capital is a serious issue for SMEaquaculture businesses (compared withfisheries), and the prospect of support viaEMFF financial engineering would helpunblock this constraint, i.e. is anopportunity

8. Co-location with (or diversification into)other marine industries is a potential routeforward for UK aquaculture businesses

9. High quality research can help unblockconstraints for UK aquaculture and in the

general development of a marine agronomy10. Fisheries areas will benefit from stability /profitability / growth in the commercialfisheries (and to a degree aquaculture)sectors

11. Beyond that, fisheries areas will benefitfrom investment in other sectordevelopment, including tourism

12. Fisheries areas can also be proactive in re-skilling of workforces, and in investment infacilities to support fisheries and non-fisheries developments.

5. The economic climate in market nationscould reduce sales prices for UK fisheries,aquaculture and processed products

6. Beyond cost increases and price declines(see above), the greatest immediate threatto all parts of UK aquaculture is from

diseases, parasites, invasive non-nativespecies, and human health issues such asnorovirus

7. Growth in UK aquaculture production isthreatened by a) lack of technicalinnovations allowing new profitablebusiness opportunities to be developed /exploited, b) lack of policy and regulatorysupport for (and understanding of) thesector and its requirements, and c) lack ofinvestment capacity, especially for loancapital

8. Fisheries areas, because of their verynature, are subject to the threats that applyto the fisheries and aquaculture sectors

9. Fisheries areas are geographicallywidespread and some of them arerelatively isolated: increasing costs fortransport would be a threat

10. Processing is also challenged by threatsrelevant to UK commercial fisheries andaquaculture, but in addition is subject toadditional external threats such as cheaperimports of processed seafood – andcheaper alternative proteins

11. Additional regulatory burdens may add tocosts.

Statement of Needs:

The importance of the marine economy to the UK is well-recognised – ‘blue growth ’. Ministers

have been pro-active in encouraging its development – whilst maintaining a close focus on

biodiversity and sustainability, and obligations under various national and international legal

instruments. Fisheries is one of the traditional industries in terms of the marine economy,

although the aquaculture sector is somewhat more recent. The newer sectors include offshore

wind energy and wave and tidal energy.

Maintenance of a significant and truly sustainable fisheries sector (including aquaculture,

processing and the communities which support them) is the long term goal, one which faces




24

challenges relating to the health of wild fish stocks. Meeting the challenges of reduced / zero

discards and achieving MSY will be key to moving forward, but there are also challenges in

relation to specific aspects of aquaculture and processing. It is possible that the scale of

commercial fisheries, or at least the number of vessels within it, will decline a little further in

coming years, before CFP reform and improved management and inherent ecosystem resiliencebegin to have positive effects. There may be fewer units (fishing vessels) but they will hopefully be

more efficient, and maintain or increase output, through a sustainable long term approach to

management. The commercial fisheries sector will take the brunt of this transition, but so too

might areas of the country traditionally dependent on the commercial fisheries industry.

EMFF support could be used to ensure that:

· There is a smooth transition of the fleet (and onshore support) to sustainably managed

discard-free fisheries.

·

A critical mass of skills, expertise, equipment and infrastructure is maintained, so that theindustry is able to adapt efficiently and effectively to the changes that take place

· Technical aspects of meeting CFP reform obligations are assisted by way of innovation and

incentives

· Regionalisation of fisheries management is well supported

· Investments in technologies that help minimise environmental impacts (applies also to

aquaculture)

· Safety aspects for the sector are investigated and improved

· All sectors of commercial fisheries are supported, including ‘small scale ’ and ‘inshore ’ · Improved efficiency in the supply chain is encouraged, reducing costs and increasing

profitability

· Adaptation to climate and other environmental change is supported

· Effort is put into any additional measure that reduce costs and improve sales prices – and

therefore profitability – so that the industry that remains is an economically healthy one,

attractive as a career path for future generations

Aquaculture could use EMFF support in key areas such as investment in innovation, pilot scale andcollaborative projects to:

· Identify additional sustainable production capacity and new sites (including those in more

exposed areas)

· Increase the sustainability of raw material supplies

· Address issues of fish health and environmental / stakeholder interactions




25

· Secure high quality waters

· Interact with regulators to foster a better understand of, and support for, the sector

Aquaculture measures should also be able to support ports involved in the industry and assist

SME companies with investment challenges that are more akin to agriculture or industry than to

‘fisheries ’ – i.e. through the use of financial engineering.

Fisheries areas provide the social and physical infrastructure required to support many aspects of

commercial fisheries, aquaculture and processing. EMFF support for projects that allow these

communities to flourish is essential, but in addition it is the communities sector (and to a degree

the ports sector) that could potentially utilise other CSF (or ESI) funds, particularly for projects

involving infrastructure and training. Ultimately fisheries areas will depend to a high degree on

the success of the measures taken to support commercial fisheries and (to some extent)

aquaculture in the UK.

The processing sector, in part, depends upon the financial health of commercial fisheries and

aquaculture, and therefore could benefit to some degree from any EMFF interventions in those

sectors that achieve positive impact. Individually, the processing sector has its own challenges in

terms of efficiency, infrastructure and profitability, and there are some aspects of this –

particularly relating to innovation and new product opportunities – that EMFF could assist.

In addition to the overarching statement of needs for the sector as a whole, attention should also

be given to the more detailed points noted in the sub-sector analyses in Sections 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8, and

also to the specific needs identified for devolved administrations within the UK – Annex B. If a need

is identified and justified as a strategic priority, the corresponding measures (Articles in the draft

Regulation) will have to be adopted and taken into consideration in the UK Operational

Programme.

Key words for the UK ’ s EMFF: Transition and diversification; innovation; collaboration;

knowledge-based decision making; energy efficiency; environmental sustainability; profitability;

long term career prospects; vibrant coastal communities; increasing professionalisation; and food

security for the future.




26

4. SWOT Analysis for Sustainable Development of Fisheries

The SWOT analysis for sustainable development of fisheries in the UK is shown in Table 4. It has

been drawn up in consultation with stakeholders and others as described in Section 2, and also takes

into account the relevant Articles of the draft Regulation:

· Article 28. Innovation

o In order to stimulate innovation in fisheries, the EMFF may support projects aiming at

developing or introducing new or substantially improved products compared to the

state of art, new or improved processes, new or improved management and

organisation systems.

o Operations financed under this Article must be carried out in collaboration with a

scientific or technical body recognised by the Member State which shall validate the

results of such operations

· Article 29. Advisory services

§ feasibility studies

§ the provision of professional advice on business and marketing strategies

· Article 30. Partnerships between scientists and fishermen

· Article 31. Promoting human capital and social dialogue

· Article 32. Facilitating diversification and job creation

· Article 33. Health and safety on board

· Article 34. Support to systems of transferable fishing concessions of the CFP

· Article 35. Support to the implementation of conservation measures under the CFP

· Article 36. Limiting the impact of fishing on the marine environment:

o improving size selectivity or species selectivity of fishing gear;

o reducing unwanted catches of commercial stocks or other by-catches;

o limiting the physical and biological impacts of fishing on the ecosystem or the sea bed

· Article 37. Innovation linked to the conservation of marine biological resources

· Article 38. Protection and restoration of marine biodiversity and ecosystems in the framework of

sustainable fishing activities

· Article 39. Mitigation of climate change

· Article 40. Product quality and use of unwanted catches

· Article 41. Fishing ports, landing sites and shelters

As with the other EMFF sectoral SWOTS (Sections 6 to 9), the relevant Articles are listed before the

SWOT for two main reasons:




27

1. The Commission wishes to see that the full breadth of the measures provisioned in the draft

Regulation have been taken into account when analysing the SWOT (and therefore

identifying need)

2. SWOT elements require to be capable of being addressed by some sort of intervention, and

the Articles illustrates the types of areas where interventions will be permitted under EMFF.

There are many issues facing the commercial fisheries sector, or parts of the sector to varying

degrees. Most of these are covered in the SWOT analysis in Table 4, but it is important to note the

sector ’s interaction with the wider marine environment, and UK obligations under the Marine and

Coastal Access Act 2009, the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive,

the Integrated Maritime Plan and other Directives and Strategies. Some of these topics were

introduced in Section 1.5, but they are also stressed here because of the degree to which

stakeholders perceive them as being a vital component of our approach to EMFF and the

commercial fisheries sector.

Support for the UK ’s fishing-associated ports has been significant during the current EFF programme

– approximately 26% of the total UK EFF budget so far. For EMFF it should be noted that (current

draft) Article 41, relating to ports, focuses on environmental protection, safety and working

conditions, waste and marine litter collection, shelters and use of unwanted catches. Support for

new ports, landing sites and auction halls are not included in the current draft.

Links to CSF Thematic Objectives : 1, 3, 6 and 10.

Table 4. SWOT Analysis for Sustainable Development of Fisheries in the UK – Not Ranked

Strengths

1. There is good fisheries science available tothe UK

2. There is a diversity of species, many ofwhich are being fished at sustainable levels – with strong industry commitment torecovery

3. The UK has an experienced, flexible and

adaptable workforce, with young entrantsstarting come through in the last 2-3 yearsin some areas

4. Good heritage and good image5. There is capacity to fully exploit available

resources6. Some sectors are profitable – pelagic,

scallop, some creelers

Weaknesses

1. Economic difficulties faced by some parts ofthe fleet

2. Diversity of species may itself be aweakness, as under present managementrules, quota may not exist or equal theopportunity

3. Data gaps exist, with science and resource

limitations and therefore potentialmanagement challenges

4. By-catch and discards are improving but arestill a challenge

5. Mixed fisheries make MSY managementdifficult or impossible (a view from someindustry stakeholders)

6. Some stocks are fished above fMSY or arein decline or under threat




28

7. Some regional fisheries are quite targeted – not a real problem with by-catch

8. Strong fishermen ’s organisations exist9. An ability to collaborate for funding10. Some capacity for capital investment

remains

11. A willingness to consider diversificationwithin and out-with the fishing sector.

7. A perception of overcapacity in somesections of the fleet, although this may bechallenged in different sectors and overdifferent years, as fisheries stocks vary

8. Aging fleet, fuel inefficiencies9. High costs – primarily fuel , but also vessel

costs, days at sea, quota leasing costs10. Aging crews and therefore crew retentionconcerns

11. Under-resourced inshore fisheriesmanagement and enforcement

12. A fragmented sector in some areas13. Poor record on health and safety14. Lack of confidence for industry to invest15. Poor co-ordination and ability to build on

image, heritage and new opportunities.

Opportunities1. Innovation, pilot trials and incentives to

adopt new gear (linked to discard reductionand MSY)

2. Transition to sustainable fisheries and thedelivery of CFP targets on MSY and thediscarding of fish

3. Stocks have an inherent capacity to recoverand flourish, and good fisheriesmanagement can assist this

4. Growing demand / need for seafood inEU28 and more widely, especially Russia,

India, China etc.5. Encourage improvements to marketing

organisations in the fisheries sector to drivecompetitiveness, value adding and co-operation

6. Support opportunities which useestablished and emerging marineknowledge to diversify into emergingsectors

7. More opportunities for inshore fisheries – for some segments of the industry

8. Marketing / processing locally

9. Broader engagement in data collection andcollaboration with scientists: CFP research,MPA management, and the generalrestoration of marine biodiversity andecosystems

10. Good marine science base in some regions – underutilised by the fisheries sectorcurrently

Threats 1. Critical mass to maintain local

infrastructure – linked to rising costs, lowerprofitability and failure to retain personnel

2. Continued stock declines, despite CFPreforms – only a problem in some segmentsor areas

3. Difficulty for new entrants to obtain quota,track record, etc.

4. Costs increase: fuel, but also leasing, bothof days and quota. New costs associatedwith discard reduction

5. Long term impact of climate change6. Negative publicity: impact on markets,

additional pressure on regulators for moreaction

7. Market prices are declining (impact of largemultiple or continental buyers is cited)

8. Perception of competition for resources,lack of sufficient involvement in marineplanning (MPAs, renewables, macroalgae,leisure)

9. Vulnerable business model in some areas – reliance on few species and few market

niches10. Regulation: MSY and discards ban are

challenging and possibly more costly. Mixedfisheries will encounter large problems inthe search for MSY

11. Too much diversification risks loss ofexperience from the workforce

12. Austerity measures affect ability to match-fund EMFF (whether public or private)




29

11. Knowledge transfer / exchange within theindustry

12. Investing in renewable resources; self-management; closed areas; seasons, etc.

13. Use of IT linked to improved marketingcollaboration and value-adding: better

supply chain communications14. Opportunities to maintain quality byimproved handling / systems

15. Diversification into other species, but alsoother business sectors.

13. Poor management of change (e.g. discardban)

14. Sloping playing field compared to other EUMS, e.g. on fuel subsidies

15. Continued overfishing despite CFP reform.

Statement of Needs:

Note: the following points should be considered in conjunction with the overarching statement of

needs in Section 3, and also in conjunction with the specific statements of need in Annex B.

Commercial fisheries will remain an important sector in the UK, and CFP reform and improved

management approaches will help to stabilise stocks and enhance sustainability, hopefully leading

to increased output and profit. For the sector, EMFF can intervene by:

· Ensuring key skills and critical infrastructure are preserved during transitionary phases

· At the same time, encouraging diversification into other activities in the marine environment,

by way of research, training and financial support

·

Ensuring that innovations and developments in all aspects of safety within the sector· Support for adaptation to climate and other environmental change

· Innovating and incentivising in key areas of CFP reform, including MSY issues relating to mixed

fisheries and technical and practical approaches to the reduction of discards

· Assisting with measures that reduce cost / increase profitability – whilst avoiding any increase

in catching ability (including having regard to ‘technical creep)

· Assisting with measures that improve supply chain mechanisms and market access, with a

view to value adding and delivering higher prices to fishermen

· Fostering increased collaboration between science / management and the commercial sector· Ensuring active collaboration in all areas relating to marine planning and the creation and

management of marine protected areas

· Investing in more science and evidence-based management for the inshore fisheries sector

· Assistance in transition to discard free sustainable fisheries




30

· Bolstering the evidence base and improving management (stock science and socio economic

information); tackling discards and moving from landed to catch quota – which requires an

improved evidence base.

· Required for mixed fisheries management and move towards eco-system based approach:

gear selectivity trails, technical spatial measures trialled· Species survivability research

· Support for management – FDF costs, technology development, roll-out

· Support to embed regional approach to management and Advisory Councils: modernise

management of fishing opportunities; develop decentralised local approach to management

· Support for independently assessed fishery certification

· Support for POs to take an increasing role in marketing

· Improve sector viability during transition phase to discard free – eligible for using loan finance

during this transition.




31

5. SWOT Analysis for Sustainable Development of Aquaculture

The SWOT analysis for sustainable development of aquaculture in the UK is shown in Table 5. It has

been drawn up in consultation with stakeholders and others as described in Section 3, and also takes

into account the relevant Articles of the draft Regulation:

· Article 45. Innovation

· Article 46. Investments in off-shore and non-food aquaculture

· Article 47. New forms of income and added value: Supply chain integration; new species;

complementary business (angling tourism, education, etc.)

· Article 48. Management, relief and advisory services for aquaculture farms

· Article 49. Promoting human capital and networking

· Article 50. Increasing the potential of aquacultures sites

· Article 51. Encouraging new aquaculture farmers

· Article 52. Promotion of aquaculture with high level of environmental protection

· Article 53. Conversion to eco-management and audit schemes and organic aquaculture

· Article 54. Aquaculture providing environmental services

· Article 55. Public health measures

· Article 56. Animal health and welfare measures

· Article 57. Aquaculture stock insurance.

The UK aquaculture sector is strongly focused in Scotland, and much of the context and SWOT

details below are drawn from that experience. Nevertheless, it is important to note that there are

aspirations and realistic prospects for further aquaculture developments in all parts of the UK, and

that the needs and the corresponding measures identified for Scotland have potential relevance for

the whole UK. Specific needs have been identified by other devolved administrations, and these are

incorporated below.

Prospects for further aquaculture development may and probably do exist in all parts of the UK, but

for these to materialise they must have commercial investors willing to participate. EMFF can assist,

and even stimulate by way of pilot projects, but new commercial developments have to be driven by

the private sector.

Aquaculture has a vital role to play in global food security as pressures for available land to grow

crops and animal protein intensify. There will be a significant challenge in feeding a growing

population and this must come from aquaculture. The Scottish Government is committed to the




32

continued sustainable growth of aquaculture. It is one of Scotland ’s key food production sectors and

helps to underpin sustainable economic growth particularly in Scotland ’s rural and coastal

communities and has significant potential to contribute further, investing to provide quality and

secure jobs. Scotland ’s draft Marine Plan makes explicit provision for aquaculture expansion with

the ambition of increasing marine finish production sustainably to 210,000 tonnes (159,269 tonnesin 2011) and shellfish to 13,000 tonnes (6,525 tonnes in 2012) by 2020. A Ministerial Group for

Sustainable Aquaculture (MGSA) was established in 2013 to support Scotland ’s aquaculture industry

to achieve these 2020 sustainable growth targets with due regard to the marine environment.

There is a challenge to the UK from only SME companies being eligible for EMFF. This is a key issue

for the UK aquaculture industry, particularly in Scotland, where nine companies produce, between

them, 97% of the farmed Atlantic salmon in UK, and 75% (by volume) of the entire UK output of

aquaculture products15

. Inability to utilise the investment capacity, expertise and innovativecapability of these companies within projects sponsored by the EMFF is a potential strategic

weakness for the UK and for Europe as a whole, where a clear need to develop aquaculture has been

identified. This comment has been echoed by one senior official responsible for the processing

sector in the UK, and has been noted in independent research conducted for the Commission

(Sturrock et al , 2008 16 ).

One solution for this in Scotland could be that the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation (SSPO),

which is an SME, act as a conduit for EMFF resources aimed at innovation projects in new

opportunity development, marketing, efficiency, environmental protection and improved

sustainability – but not as a vehicle for fixed asset grants and other purely financial / structural

measures. The advantage is that the SSPO (in collaboration with recognised research providers) can

tap into the expertise and knowledge that resides within the larger companies. This is an important

opportunity for Scottish and therefore UK aquaculture (and the wider UK fisheries industry), and

could be specifically written into the Operational Programme.

Producer organisations (POs) (as defined in European law) figure strongly in the aquaculture related

components of the common organisation of the markets 17 initiatives being promoted by the

Commission – and the SSPO is a good example of such an organisation. It may be possible to develop

15 Source: MSS Annual Survey + Fishing News No. 916 http://www.easonline.org/files/JRC%20EmergingAquacultureSystems_II.pdf17 http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/market/com/index_en.htm




33

further aquaculture POs elsewhere in the UK, and this prospect was highlighted by stakeholders and

is under active consideration.

The support for ports associated with the commercial fisheries and processing sectors during the

current and recent programmes has been discussed in Section 4. I t should be noted that aquaculturehas now grown to such an important scale in parts of the UK that improvements in (and therefore

opportunities for) some traditional ports may be required in order to support the sector during the

lifetime of the EMFF programme. It is believed that there is no specific Article in the current draft of

the Regulation that allows this, and this is a strategic weakness.

Links to CSF Thematic Objectives : 1, 3, 4, 6 and 10.

Table 5. SWOT Analysis for Sustainable Development of Aquaculture in the UK – Not Ranked.

Strengths1. Continuity of quality, specification and price

of supplies - the ability to plan predictableproduction

2. Environmental footprint is low comparedwith some other food production

3. Well regulated + traceability (assuredquality)

4. Global image: aquaculture is widely seen asfuture source of seafood security

5. Technically innovative, well trained staff6. Large companies in some areas, ability to

invest – but limited to some parts of thesector

7. Increasing research support for the sector(Marine Scotland, Technology StrategyBoard, Scottish Funding Council, ScottishAquaculture Research Forum, NaturalEnvironment Research Council, etc.):research to provide solutions to remainingor new sustainability issues

8. The industry in Scotland has clear growthtargets to 2020, supported by ScottishMinisters, which are attainable – and

sustainable - with the right level of publicsector encouragement.

Weaknesses1. Lack of collaboration; no Producer

Organisation in some areas2. Economic challenges for some parts of the

sector, therefore difficult to obtain funding(including match funding for EMFF)

3. Vulnerability to health / disease / waterquality challenges

4. Limitations on sites; offshore not proven;need input to marine spatial planning

5. Industry perception of a lack of capacitybuilding by government, and unresponsive

planning / regulatory system, with limitedunderstanding of the key issues / needs ofthe sector

6. Ability to access new medicines is restricteddue to the scale of the industry and highdevelopment costs

7. Ability to meet future demand due to slowrate of industry growth v. increasingdemand for seafood

8. Reliance on wild seed (mainly musselfarming)

9. SME rule is a strategic weakness for the UK

10. Vulnerable to negativity from media andothers: environmental; wild salmonids;food safety; feed sustainability.

Opportunities

1. Possibility of devolved administrationProducer Organisation (PO) or Inter-branchOrganisation (IBO

Threats

1. Costs of inputs rise too steeply (e.g. feedingredients, whether sustainable ortraditional; fuel and energy)




34

2. Growing demand / need for seafood inEU28 and wider; heavy dependence onseafood imports from third countries,therefore import substitution

3. Collaboration with other marine industries(co-location; aquaculture in MPAs)

4. Diversification opportunities: IMTA; marinerenewables; marine agronomy5. Potential for new species with national

provenance, e.g. charr6. Blue bio-tech7. R&D and innovation supports progress:

health; containment; feed sustainability8. New technologies open up new production

opportunities (e.g. more exposed sites;better seed supply; more environmentallyfriendly juvenile production)

9. Collaboration with other marine industries,

e.g. using fishing sector skills in moreexposed locations and possible synergieswith renewables sector

10. Diversification prospects – shellfish;integrated multi-trophic aquaculture;marine renewables, marine bio-fuels

11. World-leading expertise offers ‘knowledgeexport ’ potential – from industry and fromUK’s academic institutions

12. Improvements in predator control.

2. Low-cost 3 rd country imports distort marketopportunities

3. New diseases emerge or are introduced byothers; non-native species

4. Water quality issues, pollution and harmfulalgal blooms

5. Negative publicity incidents that damageimage and investment opportunities6. Unpredictable weather events increase and

damage infrastructure7. Industry perception that there is slow,

unpredictable or over-burdensomelicensing and regulation, which discouragesinvestment: over use of precaution byregulators unfamiliar with implications ofaquaculture. Resistance to change

8. Continuing exclusion of larger companiesfrom EMFF may stifle innovation,

development and investment9. Norovirus: human health, understanding;lack of science; monitoring

10. High start-up costs and performance ofMMO and EMFF delivery teams.

Statement of Needs:



UK aquaculture will continue to grow, particularly in Scotland in the first instance, but quite

possibly across other parts of the UK if new initiatives are supported. Such growth will contribute

to the needs of EU28 for sustainable seafood supplies to 2020 and beyond. Growth will be

facilitated by:

· Innovation and research into reducing potential impacts on other sectors, e.g. sea lice and

escapes with respect to wild salmonids; use of licensed therapeutants; interaction with

predatory species

· Constant innovation in development of sustainable (sometimes non-traditional) raw material

sources for ‘fed ’ aquaculture species




35

· Innovation and technical developments (including pilot scale projects) that open up

commercially viable new productive areas – including pen-based and large scale mollusc

opportunities for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as Scotland

· Moves to further exposed sites through adherence to equipment technical standards

prescribed in Aquaculture & Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2013· Working closely within the general activity of marine spatial planning

· Provision of working capital as well as fixed capital support for some parts of the sector,

through the use of financial engineering

· Innovation that reduces reliance on variable wild seed supplies

· Water quality improvements in all aquaculture areas, but especially shellfish

· In the longer term, possible co-production (co-location) with other marine sector

developments

· Support for a programme to better-inform regulators and other public sector bodies, and

possible investment into studies concerning the regulatory framework in different parts of the

UK

· Partnering in (using core expertise) developments in non-food aquaculture: marine agronomy;

marine bio-fuels

· Involvement of the SSPO in a range of research and innovation projects, and support for the

prospect of creating new aquaculture POs or IBOs in other devolved administrations.




36

6. SWOT Analysis for Sustainable Development of Fisheries Areas

The SWOT analysis for sustainable development of fisheries areas in the UK is shown in Table 6. It

has been drawn up in consultation with stakeholders and others as described in Section 3, and also

takes into account the relevant Articles of the draft Regulation:

Article 61. Integrated local development strategies

Article 62. Fisheries local action groups

Article 63. Support from the EMFF for integrated local development

Article 64. Preparatory support

Article 65. Implementation of local development strategies

Article 67. Running costs and animation.

The ‘communities ’ theme in this chapter of the EMFF draft Regulation is strong, and this is an area

where there are good possible opportunities for co-funding with other CSF-backed projects. The

importance of the principle of Community Led Local Development (CLLD) is well appreciated in the

UK. Stakeholder feedback from those involved in existing EFF Axis 4 initiatives has been detailed and

well thought-out. Other stakeholder feedback maintained a stance that fisheries funds should

continue to be targeted on the actual production sectors directly, but this fails to recognise the

importance of fisheries area communities in providing the infrastructure and workforce that current,

and possibly future, productive operations need. There are two core themes in the SWOT in Table 6:

1. Elements that relate to the way that communities contribute to / benefit from the primary

fisheries sector

2. Elements that relate to support for these communities in ways that are not directly related to

commercial fisheries, aquaculture or processing. If action on these elements is effective in

preserving community critical mass and social cohesion, then the interface with the fisheries

sector remains possible.

Links to CSF Thematic Objectives : 3, 9, and 10.

Table 6. SWOT Analysis for Sustainable Development of Fisheries Areas in the UK –

Not RankedStrengths

1. The UK has an extensive coastline, withgood catches of a varied range of fishspecies

2. Rich and varied natural coastline withexcellent wildlife and scenery / qualitymarine wildlife, bio-diversity andenvironments

Weaknesses

1. Decline of traditional fishing industries andskills retention, an ageing population,residents tend to out-migrate for work

2. Remoteness of Coastal Communities e.g.high transport costs of getting catch to themarket




37

3. Maritime expertise in traditional skills4. Strong tourist areas are defined e.g.

Cornwall5. Entrepreneurship inherent in coastline

communities6. Good educational establishments (Colleges,

Universities, Centres of Excellence) linkedto Communities e.g. Newcastle University isa Centre of Excellence for Fisheries

7. The interest in the production of locallyproduced food is entrenched in UKconsumer minds.

8. Good port infrastructure9. Attractive towns and harbours for tourism

and residential use (in some areas)10. Strong maritime and cultural heritage.

3. Difficulty for Coastal Communities tomaximise benefits of the supply chain e.g.gaining access into key markets

4. Lack of collaboration efforts: supply-chains& marketing and public campaigns

5. Cash flow management and obtaining

access to investment Finance / Capital isdifficult6. Lack of business advice is variable across

rural areas of the UK. Businesses need tochange / evolve and business advice needsto be tailored to the Fishing Industry

7. There is an unwillingness within theIndustry to engage on Axis 4; reasons citedwere due to the complexity of form filling,belief that EMFF monies should supportonly the fishing sector itself disillusionmentin the system, and CFP

8. Tendency for parochialism and / orcommunity apathy9. Lack of local awareness of local assets and

limited exploitation of coastal assets10. Property: high cost residential property and

lack of suitable commercial premises nearharbours

11. Difficult to access match funding.12. High levels of deprivation and need for

regeneration in many areas13. Businesses: low rates of start-ups and

below average earnings14. Lack of focus on niche markets.

Opportunities

1. There is growth and interest in food acrossthe UK, in particular a demand for freshseafood of local provenance

2. Getting young people into the Industry,however this comes with a threat of howdo new entrants get access to availablequota

3. Skills development, modernapprenticeships and re-skilling to meet new

sectoral and market needs and capitalisingon transferable skills whilst maintainingtraditional skills

4. Maximising benefits for the reliability of thesupply chain, also a weakness

5. Access to Financial Engineering Instrumentsto assist businesses in working capital

6. A vision is needed for the Fisheries Sectori.e. a package that addresses the inhibiting

Threats

1. Quota impacts2. Increasing transport costs impacts

profitability of local economy givendistance to main markets

3. Protected Landscapes and MarineProtected Zones i.e. a decline in amount ofthe available environment for fishers andcommunities. (This could also be seen as anopportunity)

4. Higher entry costs in the future maydiscourage new entrants into the Industry

5. Reduced fishing opportunities leading toloss of employment opportunities - loss oflocal services, infrastructure and employers

6. Processing jobs moving internationally7. Impact of global warming and non-

sustainable practices8. Poor location of offshore wind farms




38

factors impacting the Industry e.g. Finance,Advice, Diversification

7. Blue growth economy is a key opportunityi.e. diversification into non-food activities(offshore renewables). Benefits ofdiversification should accrue to Coastal

Communities8. Fisheries Local Action Groups to adjust andtake advantage of CFP opportunities andthe associated impact on Communities

9. Change to new income streams to maintain/ develop harbours: higher value economicsectors, including opportunities within themarine economy focusing on matchingskills to business demand

10. Reimagining small harbours for alternativeuses

11. Public campaigns related to the maritime

economy, new niche markets and areaidentity and USPs.

9. Lack of availability of public and privatesector match funding for investment

10. EU Referendum11. Small scale nature of funding available

deters the number of projects that canmake a significant impact

12. Competition for land (for development),labour (workforce) and capital (finance forinvestment) from other sectors. [This is athreat for the fisheries aspect, but notnecessarily for the areas]

13. An increasing mis-match betweencommunity aspirations and private andpublic sector capacity and resources.

Statement of Needs:



UK fisheries areas are potentially threatened by a reduction in the scale of the commercial

catching sector, yet remain vital for the provision of infrastructure, support services and the

workforce for the (sustainable) catching sector that remains. These communities are also vital in

their own right, yet are often located in remote coastal / rural areas where there has traditionally

been little other source of primary employment. Key needs are:

· Ensuring access to match funding and co-finance

· Clarify issues on complementarity of EU funds

· Developing high quality local action plans

· Support to provide professional input to FLAGs (Fisheries Local Action Groups)

· Look for opportunities to merge FLAGs with LAGs, where appropriate and where efficiency

can be demonstrated

· Investment in training and re-skilling

· Infrastructure investment to create new economic opportunities – capacity building

· There will be multi-use infrastructure, training, education, natural heritage, cultural heritage

and tourism aspects to FLAG projects – ensure that mechanisms exist to actively collaborate




39

with other CSF and national funding programmes, possibly through working more closely with

Community Planning Partnerships and Local Enterprise Partnerships (as appropriate by

region)

· Consider a national network of FLAGS (or some co-ordination mechanism) whereby best

practice can be shared, and where national strategic initiatives can be explored anddeveloped

· Define clear eligibility criteria for ‘fisheries areas ’ EMFF projects, in order to avoid case-by-

case interventions by devolved administration Grants Team (refer to FARNET resource 18).

18 https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/cms/farnet/




40

7. SWOT Analysis for Marketing and Processing Related Measures

The SWOT analysis for marketing and processing related measures in the UK is shown in Table 7. It

has been drawn up in consultation with stakeholders and others as described in Section 3, and also

takes into account the relevant Articles of the draft Regulation:

Article 69. Production and Marketing Plans

Article 70. Storage aid

Article 71. Marketing measures

Article 72. Processing of fisheries and aquaculture products

For the SWOT analysis in this sector of the industry, it has been important to take note of some of

the details the Commission has added to the Articles shown above. In particular:

1. Article 69 appears to be restricted to support for organisations that legally qualify as

‘producer organisations ’. Whilst POs are strong in the commercial fisheries sector, they are

rare in EU28 aquaculture. However, there are a number of effective trade associations in

existence, and it would be unfortunate if these could not access EMFF funds for assistance in

work on high quality marketing and production planning

2. Article 72 provides for support specifically in the areas of: energy saving and environmental

impact reduction; species of limited or no commercial interest; by-products; and organic.

The UK processing sector needs to consider carefully the sorts of projects it might wish to undertake

in relation to any EMFF grant support, and the SWOT analysis takes account of this.

Links to CSF Thematic Objectives : 1, 3, and 7.

Table 7. SWOT Analysis for Marketing and Processing Related Measures in the UK – Not Ranked.

Strengths

1. Strong international reputation for some

UK companies2. Commitment of companies (families)3. Technical skills and ability to innovate in

parts of the sector4. Ongoing trend in improving skills and best

practices5. Increasing trend towards sustainability and

traceability credentials – certification /accreditation

Weaknesses

1. Continuity of supply; dependence on

seafood raw material supplies2. Size of fish landed and limited outlets forsome products, e.g. small haddock

3. Supply of raw materials and highvulnerability to a limited number of species

4. Transport infrastructure difficult in someareas

5. Capacity issues for one species or another,in different parts of the country




41

6. Seafood trade is increasingly global: theability to source from fishing, farming &global imports – but some caveats onglobal competition

7. The capacity to consolidate and modernisestill exists

8. Good business support (SFIA, SeafoodScotland, SDI, SE, HIE, SAOS, Scotland Food& Drink, etc.).

6. Apparent complexity of the organisationalstructure within the fishing and fishprocessing industry: there is rarely clarity ofcommunication between catcher andprocessor (in wild fish) on the quantity,quality and timing of stock that will be

landed when it is due for the open market7. Logistics often uneconomic for small

processors to target small customers, andsmaller operators increasingly undereconomic/structural pressures

8. Physical presence of the industry rangingfrom large industrial units reaching theirwaste maximum to tiny small businesses inramshackle premises scheduled forredevelopment

9. Traffic congestion for deliveries anddespatch, conflict with retail and office

workers10. Cost of complying with legislation11. Business support not always optimal.12. Seasonality of supply / matching capital

requirements13. High energy costs14. Low investment returns.

Opportunities

1. Innovative processing technology toimprove yield and productivity and reducecosts (especially energy)

2. Promotion of regional Seafood Industry toraise awareness of Local Wild Seafood – quality labels and assurance schemes

3. Supply chain improvements – efficiency,environmental footprint, knowledge aboutproducts, driving competitiveness, valueadding and co-operation

4. Competition with other proteins if grainprices rise

5. Development of new markets: China, India,Russia, etc.

6. Additional supplies as a result of zero

discard rules, increases in aquaculture7. Increasing focus on healthy diets8. The food service sector as it starts to

rationalise9. Shared premises to reduce overheads10. Business Partnerships to offer range of

products11. Training to assist companies comply with

EHO and exporting administration; training

Threats

1. Cheap competition/other proteins – including cheaper imports of processedseafood

2. Quota: traders displacing fish from UK; fishquota transferred to large companies; largecompanies controlling supply chain

3. Declining EU markets; state of the economyin key market countries

4. More fixed weight products5. Loans/ access to working capital become

more difficult6. Competition for labour from other sectors

in some areas7. Major suppliers of, for example, boxes,

transport and other supporting services

withdrawing from industry8. Less processors and capacity9. EU28 production (fishing and farming) not

keeping pace with demand, and rawmaterial imports from 3 rd countries possiblybecoming more difficult / expensive

10. Increasing environmental costs / regulation11. Food scares, resulting in image issues for

seafood




42

in areas such as quality, technology,marketing.

12. Organic restructuring13. Support for energy reduction initiatives14. Collective purchasing (energy, transport,

packaging)

12. Zero discard policy may change fishavailability profile

13. Decommissioning.

Statement of Needs:



Processing and marketing of UK-origin fisheries and aquaculture products is an essential

component of the seafood supply chain, from ‘port to plate ’, and adds value and maintains

employment and economic activity in the UK. Continuity of operations also requires the ability toaccess imported raw materials in some circumstances. The sector has geographic, logistical and

infrastructure challenges, some of which must be met by normal business evolution and some of

which could be assisted through EMFF-funded activities. Key EMFF issues are:

· Improved communications and collaboration throughout the supply chain

· Improved co-ordination of marketing and promotion activities for UK and regional products

· Reduce energy costs through innovation: energy costs in this sector are very high; industry has

a high energy demand

·

Support for collective purchasing (energy transport packaging)· Support for independently assessed fishery certification

· Technical / market innovations in: processing technology; opportunities for utilising by-catch

and unfamiliar species; improved utilisation of less than perfectly-sized fish; stabilisation of

fishery products landed in locations remote from processing capacity

· Technical innovation in environmental footprint reduction and energy consumption

· Staff training in emerging quality / environmental health issues.




43

8. SWOT Analysis for Accompanying Measures for the Common FisheriesPolicy under Shared Management

The SWOT analysis for accompanying measures for the CFP under shared management in the UK is

shown in Table 8. It has been drawn up in consultation with policy officials and others as described in

Section 3, and also takes into account the relevant Articles of the draft Regulation:

Article 78. Control and Enforcement

Article 79. Data Collection

This component of the EMFF, together with other related initiatives, could be seen as sitting at the

centre of the activities that will deliver effective reform of the CFP. Fisheries management planning

depends upon access to good data, and the management decisions that result from an analysis of

those data require to be underpinned by controls and enforcement. Articles 78 and 79 contain

numerous sub-sections, with a wide range of measures that can be supported by EMFF.

There was limited stakeholder input to the SWOT analysis in this category since it seen as largely a

matter for government, although it should be stressed that the NGO community is firmly in support

of all the activities that could be described as ‘evidence-based and robustly regulated ’ fisheries

management. Evidence for developing the SWOT took account of the existing baseline information

(Annex A), and also drew on documents such as The Future of Fisheries Management in Scotland

(2010) 19 – a study commissioned by the Cabinet Secretary in Scotland, but entirely relevant to the UK

as a whole. It is perhaps apt to quote the study ’s guiding principle: “ The achievement of sustainable

fisheries managed through a precautionary, ecosystem based and science led management system

and reliant on the incentivisation of the fishing industry rather than on restrictive regulation. ”

Links to CSF Thematic Objectives : 1, 2, 3, 8 and 9.

Table 8. SWOT Analysis for Accompanying measures for the Common Fisheries Policy under shared

management in the UK.

Strengths1. Good tradition of high quality fisheries

science and data collection in UK2. UK Government, its science advisers and its

policy makers have a reputation forinnovation and a keen understanding of the

Weaknesses1. The regional UK industry is dependent on

the Westminster Government for‘leadership ’ in negotiations with Brusselsand for setting at least some of theparameters for domestic fisheries

19 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/329048/0106408.pdf




44

role the fishing sector plays in the UKeconomy and way of life

3. Good examples of collaboration betweenfishers and regulators in UK, e.g. real timeclosures

4. Well-staffed and well-equipped regulatory /

inspection bodies in UK5. World class fisheries science capability:

CEFAS, MSS6. Establishment of collaborative bodies.

management – which may be a weaknessfor the regions

2. Uncertainty about the validity of scientificadvice on the part of fishers

3. Difficulties in implementing MSY approachto some mixed fisheries

4. Difficult to fund inshore fisheries datacollection / science / management: animportant but fragmented sector.

Opportunities

1. Regional fisheries management, asforeseen in CFP reform (RFOs), shouldbenefit UK commercial fisheries

2. Integrate scientific knowledge with thefishers ’ ecological knowledge in anacceptable way, taking into account riskassessment, integrated managementprinciples, and ecosystem- basedconsiderations

3. An integrated network of MarineConservation Zones by 2013

4. Maximum sustainable yield (MSY) for allmajor commercial fisheries by 2015

5. ‘Good environmental status ’ for allEuropean seas by 2020.

Threats

1. Availability of public expenditure to fundreforms, data collection and management /enforcement

2. Uncertainty about economic sustainabilityissues (see SWOT for commercial fishingsector) places risk on industry ’s ability /willingness to collaborate on data collectionand with new management regimes

3. Continuing lack of agreement betweenfishers and public sector scientists withrespects to fisheries managementrequirements

4. Lack of acceptance of benefits / necessityof spatial restrictions (e.g. MPA,renewables, etc.) by fishers creatingtensions and undermining collaborativeefforts

5. A move towards a low F fishery to ensuresustainable fishing and the possibility ofincreased fishing opportunities in futurewill have major consequences for currentlevels of fishing activity across a large rangeof commercial fisheries in UK waters

6. Developing tensions between traditionalfisheries science and emerging ‘ecologicalapproach ’ science; difficulties ininterpreting climate change science.

Statement of Needs:

All of the actions described in Articles 78 and 79 of the draft Regulation are potentially important

for the UK, but two overarching goals emerge:

· Activities should foster improved co-operation between public-sector science and the

experience resident within the industry




45

· Regional decision-making and enforcement, based on high quality evidence, should be

actively promoted and supported by all actions taken under Articles 78 and 79

More widely, obligations under CFP reform, the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, the IMP, the

Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 are well understood,

and require actions that could be in-part supported by EMFF.




46

Annex A: EMFF UK Baseline Review 2013

A1. Introduction

This baseline review provides a high level overview, based on the available statistical information, of

UK’s performance against the Union priorities related to aquaculture, fisheries and fish processing

and which translate the relevant Thematic Objectives of the CSF.

In many cases relevant data are not available. In other cases the data may be indicative rather than

specific. Overall this review is provided to support discussions and needs to be supplemented by

other information and by expert judgement.

The purpose of this review is to inform the SWOT analysis which, with the input of further expert

knowledge, has been conducted at an early stage in development of the EMFF Operational

Programme and which is used to identify the key areas of focus and priority for the programme in

UK.

A2. Objectives of EMFF

EMFF shall contribute to the following objectives (Article 5):

1. Promoting fisheries and aquaculture which are competitive, economically viable, socially and

environmentally sustainable

2. Fostering the implementation of the CFP

3. Promoting a balanced and inclusive territorial development of fisheries areas

4. Fostering the development and implementation of the Union's IMP in a complementary manner

to cohesion policy and to the CFP.

A3. Priorities of EMFF (Danish Presidency compromise text)

EMFF shall contribute to the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and to

the implementation of CFP. It shall pursue the following Union priorities for fisheries and

aquaculture, which translate the relevant Thematic Objectives of the CSF:




47

1. Promoting sustainable and resource efficient fisheries and aquaculture including related

processing through the focus on the following specific objectives:

a. Reduction of the impact of fisheries on the marine environment

b. Protection and restoration of aquatic biodiversity and ecosystems

c. Enhancement of ecosystems related to aquaculture and promotion of resource efficientaquaculture

d. Promotion of aquaculture with high level of environmental protection and of animal

e. Health and welfare and of public health and safety.

2. Fostering innovative, competitive and knowledge based fisheries and aquaculture including

related processing through the focus on the following specific objectives:

a. Support to strengthening technological development, innovation and knowledge

transferb. Enhancement of the competitiveness and viability of fisheries and aquaculture

c. Enterprises, including, in fisheries, of small scale coastal fleet and improvement of safety

or working conditions, and, in aquaculture, of SMEs in particular

d. Development of new professional skills and lifelong learning

e. Improved market organisation for fishery and aquaculture products.

3. Fostering the implementation of the CFP through the following specific objectives:

a. The supply of scientific knowledge and collection of data

b. The support to control and enforcement, enhancing institutional capacity and an

efficient public administration.

4. Increasing employment and territorial cohesion through the following specific objectives:

a. Promotion of economic growth, social inclusion, creation of jobs and supporting labour

mobility in coastal and inland communities depending on fishing and aquaculture

b. Diversification of activities within fisheries and into other sectors of maritime economy.

The baseline assessment presented below is based upon the five key chapter headings in the draft

Regulation



EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT

48

A4. Sustainable Development of Fisheries

A4.1 Status of Fish Stocks

The percentage of fin-fish stocks around the United Kingdom at full reproductive capacity and

harvested sustainably is used as an indicator of the state of fish stocks of interest to the UnitedKingdom.

This sustainability indicator is based on a consistent set of 15 stocks since 1991 and on a consistent

set of 14 stocks between 1982 and 1990. The 15 stocks represent a wide range of different stocks

and fisheries, including demersal groundfish (cod, haddock, saithe), flatfish (sole, plaice), and pelagic

Summary: Sustainable Fisheries· Out of 15 indicator fin-fish stocks in UK waters, the proportion of stocks at full

reproductive capacity and being harvested sustainably has risen from around 10% in theearly 1990s to 45% in 2011.

· The total allowable catch limits for the great majority of the fish stocks of keyimportance to the UK fleet are set consistent with the scientific advice

· Fishing mortality is at or close to target for many stocks of importance with somenotable exceptions

· Though significant progress has been made on reducing discards we are still somedistance from achieving our goal of discard free fisheries.

· Recent data does not suggest a particular trend toward greater fuel efficiency· UK landings of demersal fish decreased over last few decades while landings of shellfish

have increased during the same period. Pelagic fish landings have fluctuatedconsiderably over the last 50 years although landings of the species have increasedcompared to 1960.

· A large number of vessels in the UK fleet are quite old. Older vessels tend to be lessefficient at catching and have higher repair and maintenance costs. There is a negativerelationship between operating profit and vessel age. Profitability is such that, for manysegments, the “ average vessel ” would not be able to reinvest in a new vessel

· Some key costs – fuel, vessel owner costs (including quota lease costs) appear to haverisen in recent years, at least for some segments

· Prices for key demersal and pelagic species have risen in real terms over the past decadewhereas shellfish prices have changed less

· Productivity of the fleet appears to have increased overall although some segments mayhave experienced stagnant or declining productivity

· Profit rates are volatile but may have declined for some nephrops-dependent segments·

Employment in capture fisheries has declined slowly over recent years. It would requirea substantial stock recovery to see this turned around· Numbers of fishermen declined in a number of ports and with exceptions to some ports· Around half of fisheries employment is associated with inshore activity· Around 35 per cent of fisheries employment is associated with static gears. The

remainder is deployed on either mobile gears or mixed gear vessels




49

(mackerel, herring). Many of these stocks are extremely valuable or have high conservation profile.

The indicator is applicable only to these stocks, and does not include any elasmobranch species

(sharks and skates).

In 2011, 45% of the 15 indicator fish stocks around the United Kingdom were at full reproductivecapacity and were being harvested sustainably. Since 2000, 25-45% of the indicator stocks around

the United Kingdom have been at full reproductive capacity and being harvested sustainably,

compared to 5 – 30% in the years from 1990 to 1999.

The proportion of the 15 stocks being harvested sustainably increased from around 10% in the 1990s

to 25-45% during 2000 – 2007, and to 65-70% since 2008. The proportion with full reproductive

capacity increased from 45% in 1999 to 70% in 2010 and 2011 (all figures are rounded to the nearest

5%).

Although the proportion of stocks being harvested sustainably is increasing, fishing mortality in

many stocks remains above values that may be considered as providing the maximum long-term

yields or economic returns under the prevailing environmental conditions that affect stock

productivity.

A4.2 Fishing Mortality

In general, fisheries management is based on an approach aimed at fishing at a rate likely to lead to

long term stock sustainability. This is exemplified in the concept of maximum sustainable yield

(MSY).

The goal of achieving MSY has an international legal basis. The European Commission for Fisheries,

DG MARE, has emphasised the importance of the target that all European fisheries are to be

exploited for MSY by 2015.

Where no agreed international management plan exists, the default ICES position for stocks with full

accepted assessments is to base advice on a fishing mortality rate (known as FMSY) that is expected to

generate the MSY for the participating fleets: that is, the highest possible catch that can be

maintained indefinitely. Examples include West of Scotland haddock.

MSY (or, more specifically, FMSY) can be very difficult to estimate, and proxies to it are often used. It

may be different in single-species and multi-species contexts, but it is generally the case that FMSY is




50

less than the historical fishing mortality rate experienced by a stock. Hence a requirement to fish at

or around FMSY usually leads to a reduction in fishing mortality, and a concomitant increase in

sustainability.

Figures 7 to 11 below show how some of the stocks of key importance are performing relative to the

FMSY target. Mackerel and haddock are at or close to the target as are most nephrops stocks with the

exception of Farn Deeps (charts not shown). Other stocks, most notably cod, are performing less

well. Data for FMSY and the current stock status is unavailable for a number of important stocks, in

particular whiting and monkfish.

Figure 7. Fish mortality: Mackerel

Source: ICES Advice2012,CEFAS

Figure 8. Fish mortality: Haddock, North Sea


0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007

F(ages 4-8)

Fishing Mortality FlimFpa

FMSY

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008

F(ages 2-4)

Fishing Mortality FlimFpaFMSY




51

Figure 9. Fish mortality: Haddock, West of Scotland


Figure 10. Fish mortality: Cod, North Sea


Figure 11. Fish mortality: Cod, West of Scotland


0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008

F(ages 2-6)

Fishing MortalityFpa

FMSY

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008

F (ages 2-4)

Fishing MortalityFmsyFpaFlim

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

1981 1987 1993 1999 2005 2011

F (age

s 2-5)

Fishing Mortality FlimFpaFmsy




52

A4.3 Fuel Efficiency

Aside from the fish itself, fuel is the most significant resource input to the fishery. On average, 21

pence is spent on fuel for every £1 of fish landed. Not surprisingly the figure is higher – 24 pence per

£1 – for the mobile sector than for the static gear sector which spends on average 12 pence on fuelfor every £1 landed. The data on this is incomplete with some segments, notably pelagic, not

represented. 20

The inshore fishery performs marginally better than the offshore in terms of fuel efficiency. On

average each £1 of fish landed from the inshore (0-6nm) required £0.19 of fuel compared to £0.22

for each £1 of fish from the offshore (>6nm). The better performance differential is driven by the

greater proportion of static gears in the inshore fishery which required, on average, only £0.11 per

£1 of revenue, although the inshore mobile fishery is less fuel efficient than its offshore counterpart.

Table 9. Fuel cost per £1 of revenue, 2011

Gear group 0-6 miles6-12miles >12 miles Offshore All areas

Mobile 0.25 0.35 0.23 0.23 0.24Static 0.11 0.18 0.13 0.14 0.12Total 0.19 0.30 0.21 0.22 0.21

Looking at key segments over the over the recent past, there is no obvious trend toward greater fuel

efficiency in terms of fuel use per day at sea except perhaps in the static gear sector or in terms of

fuel use per tonne landed. On the latter measure the North Sea nephrops segment appears to have

become less fuel efficient over the last few years.

Table 10. Average Fuel Consumed: Litres per day at sea per vessel for selectedfleet segments

Year NS Nephrops WS Nephrops Pots and Traps NSWOS Demersal2008 1,081 483 386 1,9072009 1,118 464 286 2,4232010 1,171 470 282 2,051Source: Seafish

20 Data on fuel use is from Seafish 2011




53

Table 11. Average Fuel Consumed: Litres per tonne landed per vessel for selectedfleet segmentsYear NS Nephrops WS Nephrops Pots and Traps NSWOS Demersal

2008 1,282 1,278 1,324 1,1112009 1,362 1,237 1,178 1,1522010 1,511 1,262 1,255 1,098Source: Seafish

A4.4 Discards

Discards are the portion of a catch of fish which is not retained on board during commercial fishing

operations and is returned, often dead, to the sea. Though significant progress has been made on

reducing discards we are still some distance from achieving our goal of discard free fisheries. There

are scientific observer programmes in place in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland to estimate

and monitor discarding levels as part of the Data Collection Framework (DCF).

Recent analysis of this data has improved our understanding of the patterns, extent and drivers of

discarding in English fisheries and has included:

- Identifying trends in fleet discarding patterns: Here a discard quantity index to monitor the

annual changes in total quantity of discards has been developed in combination with a discard

rate index and discard proportion indices to monitor how discarding behaviour during fishing

operations changes with time. These indicators demonstrate that there had been a reduction of

61% between 2002 and 2008 in the weight of discards. The reduction in discards was due to the

reduced fishing effort (number of fishing vessels operating and allocated fishing time) rather

than improvements in the selectivity of fishing practices.

- Describing the composition, rates and length frequency of discards by fishery and species:

English vessels discarded an estimated 24,500 tonnes of fish in 2008 and 26,500 tonnes in 2009

and in 2010. The quantity of discards equated to around 30% of the total weight of fish caught

and around one half of the total number caught. Most discards were generated by over 10m

otter trawlers targeting fish or Nephrops and over 10m beam trawlers. Species discarded in the

largest quantities included dab, plaice, whiting and lesser spotted dogfish. Length data for all

species discarded or retained have been generated for English gear and area combinations.




54

Table 12. Estimated discard rates (% of total catch weight discarded) by English metier andarea for 2009.

Area

Metier 4&7d 7a 7e 7fghBeam_trawl_DEF_o10m 32 35Gill_Trammel_nets_o10m 25 15Gill_Trammel_nets_u10m 15 8 5Nephrops_trawl_o10m 39 57Nephrops_trawl_u10m 26 66Otter_trawl_o10m 6 38 34Otter_trawl_u10m 39 35 23 16

Source: CEFAS

Identifying the drivers of discarding: A novel method was developed that made inferences on

the causes of discarding by partitioning discards into four categories based on the length of the

fish and the associated legislative restrictions. The drivers were defined as; fish discarded below

the legal minimum landing size (MLS); fish for which there is no market; fish for which there are

inconsistencies in market and sorting practices; and the maximum of discards that attributed to

fishermen ’s responses to quota restrictions. The method was applied to all data from the English

Observer programme or some data generated from observer programmes from five Member

States.

For the English fisheries, the mean contributions to the total discard weight from each of the drivers

remained relatively constant between 2002 and 2010; 17% were of fish under MLS, 37% were of fish

for which there was no market, 24% attributable to inconsistencies in markets and sorting and 22%

of discards were attributed to the maximum amount of quota derived discards. Each of the four

drivers, therefore, made a substantial contribution to the total discard quantity when examined at a

national fleet level. It was apparent that the influence of different drivers differed among regions

but was similar across gears types and vessels lengths within those regions.

For Scottish vessels, discards of North Sea cod have reduced overall by nearly half since 2007 from

6,500t to 3,500t. Progress in North Sea has been better than west coast.

North Sea : 29% of whitefish caught by Scottish fishermen in 2011 were discarded which represents

38% of TAC. The introduction of Highly Selective Gear in 2012 is expected to have reduced unwanted

catches further, though this will require full compliance.




55

West coast : 68% of whitefish caught by Scottish fishermen in 2011 were discarded which represents

173% of the TAC. Much of this is of undersize fish, and so may be impeding stock recovery. It should

be noted that TACs for many whitefish stocks in West of Scotland are very low and as a result even

very small numbers of discarded fish can give very high discard rates.

A number of discard reduction measures are already in place in UK including:

· Using more selective fishing nets to avoid catching unwanted fish in the first place. Trials for

further selective gear are underway (120 vessels TR2 vessels use highly selective gear

reducing cod catches by 60% - 31 TR1 vessels use selective gears);

· Observing seasonal or temporary closures (e.g. RTCs), of rich fishing grounds during critical

times (164 closures to date in 2012 covering ~37,000sqm);

· Catch Quota scheme and observer programme to deter discarding (22 Scottish and 11

English vessels in catch quota scheme);· A ban on high grading (the discarding of fish which can be landed legally);

· A ban on slipping (the releasing of fish before the net is fully taken on board, resulting in the

loss of dead or dying fish) in pelagic fisheries;

· Jigging machines in the pelagic fisheries to sample the catch prior to nets being lowered so

that skippers can avoid catching unwanted fish.

Table 13. North Sea: discards as % of total catch Scottish vessels.

Cod Haddock Whiting

TR1 TR2 TR1 TR2 TR1 TR22003 9% 40% 38% 56% 42% 77%2004 11% 30% 20% 41% 45% 72%2005 12% 39% 9% 36% 29% 70%2006 15% 51% 18% 71% 17% 61%2007 43% 78% 38% 85% 19% 43%2008 63% 67% 21% 70% 20% 57%2009 41% 74% 13% 64% 21% 35%2010 25% 70% 14% 68% 30% 68%2011 20% 80% 16% 72% 13% 65%




56

Table 14. West of Scotland: discards as % of total catch Scottish vessels.

Cod Haddock WhitingTR1 TR2 TR1 TR2 TR1 TR2

2003 1% 10% 43% 67% 37% 88%2004 2% 38% 44% 75% 79% 91%

2005 1% 52% 30% 89% 67% 90%2006 49% 76% 46% 81% 28% 94%2007 71% 81% 48% 74% 17% 79%2008 74% 22% 26% 69% 8% 66%2009 86% 87% 42% 41% 69% 70%2010 82% 96% 9% 99% 35% 99%2011 93% 94% 14% 94% 37% 95%

Table 15. North Sea: discards as % of total catch by English otter trawl vessels by codend mesh size(2012 data).

SpeciesNumber sampled

tripsMean discarded by weight (%) Discard Range %

Cod

100-119 2 13.59 0 - 27.18120+ 12 4.53 0 - 21.7970-99 43 20.18 0 - 100

Haddock

100-119 2 0.31 0 - 0.62120+ 12 2.68 0.29 - 7.4470-99 33 9.80 0 - 100

Plaice

100-119 3 17.34 0 - 34.59120+ 12 23.05 1.81 - 51.9170-99 47 56.24 0 - 100

Sole

100-119 1 0.00 0120+ 2 0.59 0 - 1.8470-99 36 14.93 0 - 100

Source: CEFAS

A4.5 Landings by UK vessels

In 2011, UK vessels landed 600 thousand tonnes of sea fish (including shellfish) into the UK and

abroad with a value of £828 million. This represents a 1 per cent fall in quantity but a 15 per cent

increase in value compared with 2010. The rise in value is primarily due to an increase of more than

40 per cent in the average price of pelagic fish.




57

Figure 12. Landings Quantity into England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland by UKvessels: 2007 to 2011.

Source: Based on MMO tables 3.2 a-dhttp://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/fisheries/statistics/annual2011.htm

In 2001, demersal fish accounted for almost half of total landings by value. By 2011, this had fallen to

35 per cent, with pelagic and shellfish comprising 30 per cent and 35 per cent respectively. In terms

of quantity, over half the Scottish and Northern Irish fleets ’ landings was pelagic fish. The Welsh fleetlanded mainly shellfish while the largest component of landings by the English fleet was pelagic fish,

very closely followed by demersal fish. 21

21 UK Sea Fisheries Statistics 2011: MMO




58

Figure 13. Landings Value into England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland by UK vessels:2007 to 2011.

Source: MMO, based on tables 3.2 a-dhttp://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/fisheries/statistics/annual2011.htm

UK landings of demersal fish decreased over last few decades while landings of shellfish have

increased during the same period. Pelagic fish landings have fluctuated considerably over the last 50

years although landings of pelagic species have increased compared to 1960. The decline in landings

of demersal fish has a number of causes, including reductions in fleet size, declining fish stocks and

restricted fishing opportunities. The increase in shellfish landings into the UK may partly be

explained by diversion of fishing activity into this sector, in which there are often fewer restrictions.

A large proportion of shellfish landings are made by vessels 10 metres or under, for which there is no

statutory obligation to complete a fishing logbook or landing declaration. 22 .

A4.6 Characteristics of the UK fleet

In 2011, the UK fishing industry had 6,444 fishing vessels compared with 7,721 in 2001, a reduction

of 17 per cent. The fleet in 2011 comprised 5,056 10 metre and under vessels and 1,388 over 10

metre vessels 23. The number of registered UK fishing vessels has fallen in 2011 by 26 per cent since

1996. Capacity (GT) and power (kW) have decreased by 26 per cent and 23 per cent respectively

over the same period

22 UK Sea Fisheries Statistics 2011: MMO23 UK Sea Fisheries Statistics 2011: MMO




59

Scotland and Northern Ireland have higher proportions of large vessels than England. For example,

18 per cent of the Scottish fleet and 29 per cent of the far smaller Northern Irish fleet exceed 15

metres in length compared with 6 per cent in England. However, the number of Scottish vessels

exceeding 15 metres in length fell by 8 per cent in 2011. The capacity of the 274 vessels over 18metres in length in Scotland is almost the same as the total capacity of the English, Welsh and

Northern Irish fleet combined.

Figure 14. Size of the UK fishing fleet, by country of administration: 2008 to 2011.

Source: MMO, based onhttp://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/fisheries/statistics/documents/ukseafish/2011/final/2-2.xls

-

500

1,000

1,5002,000

2,500

3,000

England Wales Scotland Northern Ireland

Number

Administration

10m and Under

2008 2011

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800


Number

Administration

Over 10m

2008 2011




60

Figure 15. Engine power of the UK fishing fleet, by country of administration: 2008 to 2011.

Source: MMO statistics, based onhttp://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/fisheries/statistics/documents/ukseafish/2011/final/2-2.xls

In total, 62 per cent of the UK fleet (whose age is known) were built more than twenty years ago.

While the number of vessels being built since 1991 has decreased, the average capacity and power

of these vessels has increased by 50 per cent

0

20000

40000

60000

80000100000

120000

140000

160000


Power (kW

)

Administration

10m and Under

2008 2011

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000


Power (kW)

Administration

Over 10m

2008 2011




61

Table 16. Age of UK vessels by country of administration: 2011.

Year of construction

Unknown1960

or 1961- 1971- 1981- 1991- 2001- 2011 TotalNumber earlier 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

England 190 100 202 614 860 582 552 20 3,120Wales 57 7 9 71 142 90 87 2 465Scotland 164 58 134 418 628 387 295 10 2,094NorthernIreland 27 9 44 95 102 60 42 - 379Total 453 178 409 1,271 1,833 1,222 1,039 39 6,444

Source: MMO - 2.4 Age of UK vessels by country of administration: 2011, UK Sea Fisheries Statistics2011Note: Total includes vessels from (a) Islands include Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man and (b)

Vessels which are registered but not administered by a port; typically new vessels and vesselschanging administrations.

A recent study on profitability using case studies reports negative relationship between operating

profit and vessel age. Older vessels would tend to be less efficient at catching and have higher repair

and maintenance costs. Profitability is such that, for many segments, the “ average vessel ” would not

be able to reinvest in a new vessel. In other words, many businesses exist for as long as they can

keep an old fishing boat seaworthy 24.

Figure 16. Profit by vessel age group: Example for Crab in N. Sea

24 Catch Rights Based Management (C-RBM) in English Fisheries. DEFRA and University of Portsmouth, August 2012

Vessel age group (years)

<10m vessels, main species crab, main area N. Seaaverage operating profit per vessel age group, 2009

under 10(12 vessels)10 to 19(7 vessels)




62

Figure 17. Profit by vessel age group: Example for Nephrops in N. Sea for over 10m vessels

A4.7 Productivity and competitiveness

Average earnings from selected areas has gone up over the years and presented in the table below.

Table 17. Average Earnings (£) per vessel in selected areas and gear type.

Source: calculated as Average fishing income per vessel/ average days at sea using data fromhttp://www.seafish.org/about-seafish/news/seafish-publishes-multi-year-fleet-economic-performance-dataset

Looking at specific selected sectors, the North Sea and West of Scotland demersal segments have

achieved significant productivity gains since 2005, whereas productivity has been static or falling for

static gear and nephrops segments.

Vessel age group (years)

NS nephrops trawl, >300kW, >10maverage operating profit per vessel age group, 2009

under 10(22 vessels)10 to 19(9 vessels)20 to 29(35 vessels)

2005 2007 2009 2012 2012-2005 Area VIIA demersal trawl over 10m 845 1,194 1,181 1,199 355 Area VIIA nephrops trawl over 250kW 852 1,300 1,068 1,828 976

Area VIIA nephrops trawl under 250kW 590 811 682 1,160 571 Area VIIb-k trawl 24-40m 2,362 2,112 3,737 5,709 3,348 Area VIIb-k trawl 10-24m 799 996 931 1,502 703 UK Gill netters over 10m 1,828 1,681 2,310 2,965 1,137 UK Longliners over 10m 2,012 1,346 2,826 3,701 1,689 North Sea beam trawl over 300kW 4,066 4,750 6,376 15,924 11,857 North Sea beam trawl under 300kW 369 1,438 592 1,236 867 North Sea nephrops trawl over 300kW 2,019 2,853 2,250 2,836 816 North Sea nephrops trawl under 300kW 918 1,360 1,138 1,414 496 North Sea and West of Scotland demersal trawl over 24m 3,691 5,194 5,515 7,108 3,417 South West beam trawl over 250kW 2,229 2,582 2,585 3,359 1,130 South West beam trawl under 250kW 1,545 1,586 1,681 2,416 872 West of Scotland nephrops trawl over 250kW 1,108 1,527 1,181 1,980 872 West of Scotland nephrops trawl under 250kW 610 942 741 1,145 536




63

Table 18. Average Earnings: £ per vessel per day at sea forselected fleet segments (2011 prices).

YearNS

NephropsWS

NephropsPots and

TrapsNSWOS

Demersal

2005 1,718 831 923 3,1072006 2,212 1,042 972 3,8612007 2,305 1,195 964 3,8372008 1,908 1,039 891 3,5942009 1,705 860 852 4,3592010 1,813 888 916 4,265Source: Seafish

A4.8 Price trends

Prices achieved for key whitefish and pelagic species have been on a largely upward trend in real

terms over the past decade (see charts below). Shellfish prices on the other hand have not changed

significantly over the period. To a large extent the fish prices faced by Scottish fishermen are heavily

influenced by supply and demand across European if not global markets and the opportunities to

push prices upward may be limited. Nevertheless there may be opportunities for both fishermen

and processors and marketers to add value to the product to secure better returns. For example,

some of the price increases observed in the data may be attributable to improvements in product

handling on board vessels.

Figure 18 a, b & c. Price Trends.

Average Price per tonne of Mackerel 2002 - 2011(2011 prices)

£-

£200

£400£600

£800

£1,000

£1,200

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 3

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 5

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 8

2 0 0 9

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 1




64

A4.9 Cost trends

Controlling costs is a key element of improving competitiveness. One of the key costs for fishingvessels is fuel. A combination of rising fuel prices and static fuel efficiency (see above) have resulted

in a gradual increase in the total cost burden of fuel as a proportion of revenue.

Vessel owner costs, which includes the all-important quota lease costs, are another important cost

category and have risen for North Sea demersal and nephrops segments.

Table 19. Fuel Costs: % of Total Income for selected fleet segments.

Year NS Nephrops WS Nephrops Pots and Traps NSWOS Demersal

2005 16 16 n/a 132006 15 13 8 142007 16 14 9 172008 24 22 16 212009 22 18 11 222010 23 20 11 17Source: Seafish

Average Price per tonne of Cod, Haddock andMonkfish 2002 - 2011 (2011 prices)

£-

£1,000

£2,000

£3,000

£4,000

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 3

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 5

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 8

2 0 0 9

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 1

Cod Haddock Monkfish

Average price per tonne of nephrops andscallops 2002-2011 (2011 prices)

£-

£1,000

£2,000

£3,000

£4,000

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 3

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 5

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 8

2 0 0 9

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 1

Nephrops

Scallops




65

Table 20. Vessel Costs: % of Total Income for selected fleet segments.Year NS Nephrops WS Nephrops Pots and Traps NSWOS Demersal2005 20 25 n/a 182006 21 33 29 172007 24 27 23 262008 24 26 23 232009 27 28 21 292010 30 26 24 22Source: Seafish

A4.10 Profits

Operating profits – the excess of revenues over fishing costs – appear from the available data to be

quite volatile and, for the key selected segments examined, do not appear to be following a strong

trend up or down although the nephrops-dependent segments, including static gear, may be

observed to have become less profitable.

Table 21. Operating Profit: % of Total Income for selected fleet segments.

Year NS Nephrops WS Nephrops Pots and Traps NSWOS Demersal2005 18 22 n/a 142006 21 6 9 182007 15 13 18 72008 12 17 24 102009 14 19 32 122010 5 13 11 18Source: Seafish

A4.11 Employment in UK Sea Fisheries

In 2011, an estimated 12 405 people were employed in the fish catching sector, 298 less than in 2010.

Of these, 10 040 (81%) were employed as full-time fishers. The proportion of full-time fishers has

changed little over ten years; in 2001 there were 14 958 people employed in the sector, of which 81%

were full-time.

Since 2001, the number of fishermen on English administered vessels has decreased by 13 per cent

and on vessels administered in Scotland by 25 per cent. In Northern Ireland fishermen numbers

increased by 23 per cent but they decreased in Wales by 11 per cent.

In 2011, part-time fishermen accounted for 19 per cent of all fishermen and no change from the

proportion in 2001. 30 per cent of f ishermen on vessels administered in Wales were part-time




66

compared with 19 per cent for vessels administered in England, 18 per cent in Scotland and 16 per

cent in Northern Ireland

Using a breakdown of the number of regular and part-time fishermen by country in the UK from

1938 to 2011, since 1938:- Numbers of fishermen on UK registered vessels have decreased by 74 per cent. This

reduction has been experienced by both regular and part-time fishermen.

- The proportion of fishermen in each country of administration has changed little. In 1938

fishermen numbers in England and Wales represented 61 per cent of the UK total, while

Scotland represented 37 per cent. In 2011, the proportions were 55 per cent and 40 per cent

respectively.




67

A5. Sustainable Development of Aquaculture

A5.1 Overview of UK aquaculture

Aquaculture production in the United Kingdom is concentrated on Atlantic salmon, rainbow trout

and mollusc shellfish, such as mussels and Pacific Oysters. There is limited production of other

species, such as carp, brown trout, turbot, halibut, cod and Arctic char. There is growing use of

longline mussel culture in coastal waters around Scotland, and planned developments in England

and Wales though to date only one or two operations have been established. There are also

emerging species such as tilapia, bass and bream based on re-circulation systems. Technology and

production facilities have continued to evolve, particularly in the Atlantic salmon and longline mussel

sectors. Consolidation of businesses and increased automation have led to decreasing employmentand increased productivity.

The relative importance of the aquaculture sector varies around the United Kingdom. For example,

nearly all of the UK farmed salmon is produced in Scotland and the majority of farmed mussels are

produced in Wales. In 2010 there were approximately 500 active fish and shellfish farming

Summary: Sustainable and Resource Efficient Aquaculture

· Increases in both the technical productivity (tonnes per person) and economicproductivity (£ per person) of the farmed salmon sector have been impressive. Revenuegenerated per employee has more than doubled in real terms in the last ten years

· Productivity in the trout sector has been stagnant over the same period with productionand revenue per employee either falling or static

· Productivity in shellfish production is estimated to have increased significantly, butremains very low compared to the fin fish sectors

· The relative importance of the aquaculture sector varies around the United Kingdom.· Farmed and wild fish interactions: the Scottish Government is introducing a Bill primarily

concerned with the management of farmed and wild fisheries and their interactionswith each other

· Fish farm escapes have reduced on average over the past ten years but infrequent andsubstantial evens may still occur

· Wild fish comprises a significant but reducing share of aquaculture feed· Employment in Scotland ’s fin fish aquaculture sector has declined by around a quarter

over the last ten years to 1,400 as a result of substantial productivity gains in the salmonsector




68

businesses in the UK operating on about 1 250 sites, directly employing over 3 100 people with a

total industry turnover of almost EUR 600m.

Total finfish production was 170 000 tonnes in 2010, dominated by farmed salmon (154,000 tonnes)

and rainbow trout (13 600 tonnes). There is limited production of other species on a niche oremerging basis, such as tilapia, sea bass, halibut, and turbot, totalling less than 1 000 tonnes. Other

species, e.g. various carp, are produced more for recreational (restocking) or ornamental markets,

and table use is mainly by ethnic communities.

Farmed shellfish production was around 32 000 tonnes in 2010. Mussels are the largest production

(96% of tonnage and 91% of value). Oyster production was reduced by disease.

Aquaculture within England and Wales differs significantly from other parts of the UK such asScotland. Scotland is the major player in the production of salmonid product (approx. 95%) which

dominates the UK finfish production figures. Scotland ’s industry is primarily marine based and also

incorporates a significant shellfish sector 25 .

The UK is the third largest aquaculture producer in EU28, with 14% of overall production by weight.

Although UK production has been relatively static since 2004, only Greece has shown a faster overall

rate of production increase since the mid-1990s (Figure 19) 26. Bostock et al (2009) 27 showed that in

the period 2006/7 11 out of the 16 largest European aquaculture companies were either UK or

Greek – companies larger than SME scale. Both the UK and Greece have significant marine pen-

based finfish aquaculture production (Atlantic salmon in the UK and seabass and bream in Greece).

25 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/82402/120112-aquaculture-consult-doc.pdf26 http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/software/fishstatj/en27 https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/9142/1/EP177CompetitivenessFinal.pdf




69

Figure 19. EU28 Aquaculture production by weight.

A5.2 Production volume and values

Table 22 below summarizes information on the scale of aquaculture in the United Kingdom taken

from the production surveys which are annual censuses. Economic information is recorded by the

UK Office for National Statistics in their business register (ABI, which is a sample survey), includingkey economic indicators for the aquaculture industry compared to the other fisheries sectors. The

number of enterprises is considerably smaller than the number of sites and reflects an industry that

includes large international concerns down to individual artisanal and part-time activity. This is

reflected in the sampling errors associated with the ABI economic data.

Table 22. The UK aquaculture sector in 2010.

Number of aquaculture

sites active in 2010

Tonnes produced

(fish and shellfish)

Number of employed

(full time equivalent)Number % Tonnes % Number %

England andWales

383 31% 22 200 11% 1165 37%

Scotland 767 61% 167 000 83% 1845 58%NorthernIreland

100 8% 12 200 6% 1450 5%

Total 1250 100% 201 400 100% 3155 100%Source: OECD




70

Farm gate prices for table fish in 2010 were estimated GBP 2860/tonne for salmon (converting to

EUR 3400), GBP 2400/tonne for rainbow trout (EUR 2 800) and GBP 5000/tonne for brown trout

(EUR 5 860). Live fish for restocking are more valuable, for example, we estimate carp as averaging

GBP 13000/tonne (EUR 15 250) but larger specimen of carp will command much higher prices.

Employment in Fin Fish Production in Scotland

Overall employment in fin fish aquaculture stands at just over 1,400, down around a quarter

compared to ten years ago, largely as a result of substantial productivity gains in the salmon sector.

Employment in the trout sector has declined over the last decade by around a quarter. Unlike the

salmon sector, this is not due to productivity gains – in fact productivity has actually fallen in trout

production, and this and the decline in employment reflect significant weaknesses in the sector.

At current productivity levels (see above), increasing salmon production in line with the industry ’s

government-supported growth targets (to increase marine fin fish production by 50 per cent over

2009 levels by 2020) would imply an additional 600 jobs. In reality the gain is likely to be lower as

productivity continues to advance and firms benefit from economies of scale.

Table 23. Employment in Scottish fin fish aquaculture (trout, smolts,salmon) 2002-2011

Full time Part time Total2002 1,509 362 1,8712003 1,464 274 1,738

2004 1,393 239 1,6322005 1,159 237 1,3962006 1,111 178 1,2892007 1,126 212 1,3382008 1,165 188 1,3532009 1,201 170 1,3712010 1,275 207 1,4822011 1,243 181 1,424

Source: Marine Scotland 28

28 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/topics/marine/fish-shellfish/FHI/surveys




71

Figure 20. Trout Production: total employment (full and part time)

Source: Marine Scotland

Figure 21. Smolt Production: total employment (full and part time)


Figure 22. Salmon Production: total employment (full and part time)


Shellfish: production and productivity

In 2010, the output of the shellfish production sector of the UK fishing and aquaculture sector worth

more than £330m. Shellfish aquaculture output was worth some £64m in 2010. Direct wild shellfish

020406080

100120140160180

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

050

100150200250300350400450

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

2002 2003 20042005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011




72

exports amounted to £19m in 2010, going mainly to France and Spain. There are significant export

sales direct from UK aquaculture businesses including some £20m of mussels alone. In all, the value

of export sales of shellfish from UK shellfish producers (from fisheries and aquaculture) and shellfish

processors including re-exports amounted to some £440m in 2010 29 .

Over the last ten years the real terms value of shellfish production in Scotland has more than

doubled while employment has remained fairly constant. This implies a substantial gain in

productivity, with average revenue per employee increasing from around £12,000 in 2002 to

£29,000 in 2011. This gain in value is very positive but still leaves productivity in the shellfish sector

trailing far behind that of the finfish sectors. The productivity estimate should be treated as

illustrative as a significant proportion of the sector ’s employment is either part-time or casual – it is

likely that productivity per full-time equivalent would be significantly higher

Table 24. Shellfish production in Scotland: value(£m, 2011 prices) and productivity (revenue peremployee, £000s, 2011 prices)

Productionvalue, £m

Revenue peremployee,

£000s2002 4.3 122003 4.7 132004 5.3 132005 5.1 13

2006 4.7 122007 4.9 132008 7.5 222009 7.7 222010 8.3 212011 9.8 29

A5.3 Aquaculture key issues

Farmed and wild fish interactions in Scotland

The Scottish Government has introduced an Aquaculture and Fisheries Bill whose primary purpose isto ensure that farmed and wild fisheries – and their interactions with each other – continue to be

managed effectively, maximising their combined contribution to supporting sustainable economic

growth with due regard to the wider marine environment.

29 The Contribution of the Shellfish catching, Aquaculture and processing sectors to the UK and Scottish Economies; Seafish,2013




73

The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that there are modern and effective management

structures in place for both farmed and wild salmon and an effective regulatory framework with the

ability to anticipate and mitigate against environmental problems.

It is persuaded that appropriate regulation and management will help to ensure that aquaculture

products remain of the highest quality and are produced within environmental limits.

Research on the Impacts of open pen freshwater aquaculture production on wild fisheries was

recently conducted for the Scottish Government. Its findings suggest that wild salmonids have not

suffered wide ranging population-level impacts arising from farmed salmon. Catch statistics show no

dramatic differences in numbers over the last two decades between rivers with or without freshwater

pens. There are no instances where rivers with freshwater pens have lost their salmon runs or haveeven become severely depressed when compared to rivers without freshwater pens.

Lack of firm evidence does not necessarily indicate that impacts are not or have not been occurring,

only that they have not been clearly identified. Pen-farmed salmonids still escape and offer a potential

threat to wild salmonids no matter how remote or equivocal in terms of current scientific evidence.

Freshwater pen aquaculture is one of the several factors that might affect the health of wild salmonids

stocks/populations.

Overall there does not appear to be a robust evidential case for suggesting radical and potentially

expensive policy change regarding freshwater pen use.

An additional £800,000 of research into the possibility of interactions between wild salmonids and

farmed Atlantic salmon in the marine environment, as a result of sea lice transfers, is about to be

commissioned by the Scottish Aquaculture Research Forum (SARF), with the funding coming equally

from Marine Scotland and the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation.

Escapes from Scottish Fish Farms (salmon and trout), numbers of fish

Escapes from fish farms are highly variable from year to year and the low background of drip escapes

can be obscured by infrequent but substantial one-off events. Overall, farm escapes are not large,




74

averaging around 240,000 a year over the past ten years, but often much lower than this. To put

those figures into context, around 40 million salmon smolts are put to sea each year.

Figure 23. Farmed Finfish Escapes (Scotland).


Fish feed

Historically the two most important ingredients in fish feed have been fish meal and fish oil. The use

of these two marine raw materials in feed production has been reduced and replaced by agricultural

commodities such as soy, sunflower, wheat, corn, beans, peas, and rape seed oil replacing fish oil.

This substitution is mainly done because of heavy constraints on availability of fish meal and fish oil.

According to the Marine Harvest (Salmon Farming Industry Handbook 2012 30) the dependency on

wild fish in salmon feed has been significantly reduced over the last 10 -15 years due to changes in

recipes. A recent report from Nofima (Sørensen et al ., 2011) shows that the average Norwegian

salmon diet in 2000 contained 37% fish meal and 31% fish oil and that it had come down to 25% and

17% respectively in 2010. The downward trend in the use of marine ingredients continues and with

the ability of Atlantic salmon to utilise alternative feed ingredients, lack of feed raw materials should

not be a threat to the growth of the industry. However, there will be increased competition for thebest raw materials and feed prices may therefore be affected.

30 http://www.marineharvest.com/PageFiles/1296/2012%20Salmon%20Handbook%2018.juli_h%C3%B8y%20tl.pdf

100200

300400500600

700

800900

1000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

0 0 0 s

f i s

h




75

Fishmeal in the UK 31

- UK fishmeal consumption in 2010 was 135,400 tonnes which is above the 2007,

2008 and 2009s figure, although significantly down on the period 2002 – 2006. Of the 2010

consumption 97,400 tonnes were imported and 38,000 tonnes produced in the UK, the latter mainlyfrom food fish trimmings.

- The main suppliers to the UK in 2010 were Peru, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Norway and

Iceland (in order).

31 http://www.seafish.org/media/publications/SeafishAnnualReviewFeedFishStocks_201203.pdf




76

A6. Sustainable Development of Fisheries Areas

A6.1 Fishing activities in different ports and in coastal communities

Inshore fishing remains reliant upon the ecological opportunities and species available locally, which

has a pronounced impact on the businesses that fishermen can operate. A Defra case study

research 32 for small vessels groups in local communities in England demonstrated that inshore

fishermen have three principal routes to market, the most widespread being to sell their catch to

fish merchants who take it to market. In some cases fishermen sell at harbour side auctions, with the

less common route being to sell it themselves through a direct link into the local hospitality trade.

The first and second routes generally strip the fish of its provenance, particularly in the case of

prawns or other shellfish and are aimed at continental markets where it competes with other fish

sold as a commodity, achieving a higher price than it would locally. Whilst this is a traditional supply

chain for fish and helps to support fishing incomes, it has a minimal impact on the rest of the

community. Fish sold directly into the local hospitality trade sees the greatest return to the

fisherman and the rest of the community, as its value is not only realised locally but also becomes

part of the broader tourism ‘offer ’ of the area.

In 2011 (MMO):

- Milford Haven is the administration port with the largest number of fishermen in the UK

(991)

- Newlyn is the administration port with the largest number of fishermen in England (872).

This is in part due to the large number of vessels of 9 metres and under overall length which

are manned by part-time fishermen. 52 per cent of fishermen on 9 metre and under vessels

are part-time.

- Fraserburgh has the largest number of fishermen in Scotland (788); however, the largest

number of part-time fishermen is found on vessels administered by Shetland (197).

- Ports with higher numbers of vessels have higher numbers of fishermen (see Chart 2.5). The

three UK ports with the largest numbers of vessels (Newlyn, Poole and Milford Haven) are

also the ports with most fishermen.

- Ports in Wales and the south and west coast of England have some of the lowest proportions

of over 10 metre vessels and the greatest proportions of part-time fishermen

- Ports with greater total vessel power tend to have a higher number of fishermen

32 The Social Impacts of England s Inshore Fishing Industry, Defra (2011)




77

Table 25. Number of fishermen by administration port ranked by highest reduction in total

fishermen: 2010 to 2011

RegularPart-

time Total2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011

England Poole 687 592 296 255 983 847 -Lowestoft 530 469 51 57 581 526 -Brixham 360 274 175 215 535 489 -Newlyn 671 514 227 358 898 872 -Hastings 534 563 68 55 602 618 +Blackpool 67 72 68 81 135 153 +Grimsby 405 434 - - 405 434 +North Shields 517 536 14 44 531 580 +Scarborough 415 477 - 10 415 487 +Plymouth 631 762 57 5 688 767 +Total 4,817 4,693 956 1,080 5,773 5,773

WalesMilfordHaven 563 693 553 298 1,116 991 -Total 563 693 553 298 1,116 991 -

Scotland Ullapool 274 217 11 24 285 241 -Stornoway 350 320 73 62 423 382 -Orkney 277 260 132 113 409 373 -Aberdeen 94 70 58 48 152 118 -Peterhead 400 370 24 28 424 398 -Buckie 192 170 51 48 243 218 -Oban 242 247 23 - 265 247 -Shetland 231 236 217 197 448 433 -Eyemouth 148 135 45 48 193 183 -Mallaig 110 105 9 7 119 112 -Portree 167 162 34 32 201 194 -Scrabster 168 161 - - 168 161 -Kinlochbervie 44 41 - - 44 41 -Ayr 517 512 42 45 559 557 -Fraserburgh 671 657 118 131 789 788 -Lochinver 21 19 1 2 22 21 -Pittenweem 120 123 43 51 163 174 +Campbeltown 231 271 28 41 259 312 +Total 4,257 4,076 909 877 5,166 4,953 -

NIreland North Coast 24 22 30 29 54 51 -

Ardglass 110 111 6 9 116 120 +Portavogie 176 191 15 17 191 208 +Kilkeel 225 254 62 55 287 309 +Total 535 578 113 110 648 688 +

United Kingdom 10,172 10,040 2,531 2,365 12,703 12,405 -Source: MMO table 2.6b – Annual Report 2011




78

A6.2 The tourism industry in coastal communities 33

In 2008 England and Wales seaside tourism employed approximately 210,000 people, or as many

people as the coal mining, steel, pharmaceutical and aerospace industries combined. In 2009 fishing

both inshore and deep water employed 6,209 people directly in England and Wales. Tourism is not

evenly distributed with approximately 61,000 jobs in the 2006/8 period in the South West, 46,000 in

the South East, 29,000 in the North West but only 7,000 in the North East. In this it broadly mirrors

the geographic distribution of the inshore fishing sector. At a county level, in 2007 estimates for the

gross value added to county economies by seaside tourism ranged from £250 million for Cornwall,

down to £20 million in Cumbria and £10 million in Northumberland. Often in coastal towns and

villages, after employment in the public sector, tourism is the preeminent economic activity.

For many of the case study coastal communities done in the Defra report, tourism has become the

major source of income, and the most immediate route for improving their economic fortunes. This

reality is often based on a community development approach of starting from the ‘assets ’ that the

area has – a seaside location, a harbour and the heritage to appeal to visitors. Interviewees were

proud of their communities, viewing them as generally supportive, with a unique culture and

ambience. Many fishermen, together with those who are involved in running the harbour side,

report the draw of fishing and its paraphernalia for visitors to their communities. Inshore fishing has

a particularly important role because it is possible for people to gain closer access to the sights and

sounds of fishing activity working from harbours that the public do not necessarily have to be

excluded from. Tourism managers often describe fishing as being ‘iconic ’ of an area – featuring in

publicity for a resort and adding to its attraction whilst people are visiting, a role that is crucial in

many communities.

33 The Social Impacts of England s Inshore Fishing Industry, Defra (2011)




79

A7. Marketing and Processing Related Measures

A7.1 Processing and handling facilities and structures

Since 2012, the number of UK sea fish processing units has continued to fall, albeit at a slower rate

than between 2008 and 2010. The number of sea fish processing units now stands at 325, a decrease

of 15% on the 384 units recorded in 2010. Employment in the industry has also reduced since 2010.There are now 11,864 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) jobs recorded, a 17% reduction compared to 2010.

This still gives an average FTE per unit of 37, the same as in 2010. However, in 2010 there were only

2% fewer FTE jobs than in 2008.

A small number of large secondary and mixed processors provide a large share of the industry

employment. There has been a shift in the structure of the industry with fewer processing demersal

species exclusively with an increase in mixed species processing. The key processing regions in the

United Kingdom are Humberside and Grampian. In addition to fish supplied by the UK fleet, imports

make up a significant proportion of the raw material supplied to the industry. Important supply

markets include Iceland, Norway and the Faroe Islands. The industry continues to include a small

number of large multi-unit businesses, and a larger number of small, single unit businesses although

the difference in numbers in 2012 survey is much less than in 2004 suggesting the industry is less

fragmented than in recent years.

Summary: Increasing employment and territorial cohesion – seafood processing

· The industry continues to include a small number of large multi-unit businesses, and alarger number of small, single unit businesses although the difference in numbers in 2012survey is much less than in 2004 suggesting the industry is less fragmented than in recentyears.

· Employment declines in sea fish processing were largely in the early part of the periodand have since stabilised. Declines in salmon processing have occurred more recently




80

Table 26. UK seafood processing industry population: FTEs and processing units 34

The most marked decline in numbers of processing units since 2010 has been amongst the smallest

units, i.e. those employing between 1 and 10 FTEs. From 2010 to 2012 there was a 22% reduction in

units of this size and a reduction of 53% since 2004. The 11-25 FTE band saw a 12% reduction over the

last two years. The remaining three size categories have remained stable in numbers.

A7.2 Processing units across the UK

The Seafish 2012 survey reports that Humberside continues to have the largest number of

processing units but ha0s fallen behind Grampian in terms of the number of FTE jobs. Humberside

FTE jobs have fallen by 25% since 2010 and the number of units has decreased by 21%. However,

Humberside activity reveals again that primary processing accounts for the majority share of

processing units at 56%, even though the overall number of primary processing units has fallen by

29% since 2010. The number of primary processing units in Grampian has fallen to such an extent

that mixed processing units now hold the majority. There has also been growth, albeit minor, in the

number of mixed and secondary units in Grampian but overall units in this region are down 13% on

2010 numbers.

34 http:/ /www.seafish.org/media/publications/2012_Survey_of_the_UK_Seafood_Processing_Industry.pdf




81

Figure 24. Number of sea fish processing units by region and processing type 35 .

Figure 25. Industry employment by region and processing type.

35 http:/ /www.seafish.org/media/publications/2012_Survey_of_the_UK_Seafood_Processing_Industry.pdf




82

A8. Accompanying Measures for the Common Fisheries Policy under Shared Management

A8.1 UK Marine and Fisheries Science - Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture

Science (CEFAS)

Background

Cefas is an Executive Agency of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Cefas'

origins date back to 1902 when a small fisheries laboratory was established in Lowestoft, a major

North Sea fishing port at the time. Initially focused on offshore fisheries, the work broadened over the

decades to encompass inshore waters and wider marine and aquatic environmental issues.

Cefas employs over 500 people, with an annual turnover of approximately £53m. It operates from two

main laboratory sites in Lowestoft and Weymouth, with small project offices elsewhere, and owns a

Research Vessel. As an Executive Agency of Defra, Cefas is fully accountable to Parliament through

Ministers.

The CEFAS makes an important contribution to securing healthy and sustainable marine and

freshwater environments so that current and future generations can prosper. Its vision is to make a

real difference for society, as recognised leaders in marine and aquatic science. Cefas seeks to

deliver its vision by undertaking Research and Development (R&D) projects, monitoring and

surveillance and providing science services to promote economic growth and effective protection of

the natural environment through:

- Innovating to enhance the competitiveness, resilience and sustainability of the fishing and

aquaculture industries. For example, working with Defra and industry to secure positive

outcomes from CFP reform and sustaining effective aquatic animal disease controls.

- Contributes to the national evidence base and expert scientific advice that supports

sustainable management of marine and coastal environment. For example, contributing to

the evidence base required for marine licensing and planning decisions and effective

implementation the EU ’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD).

- Improving human health and food security through expertise on fish and shellfish. Forexample, supporting food safety by working closely with the Food Standards Agency and

industry; and

- Supporting the UK energy policy through work relating to offshore renewable and leadership

on adaptation to marine climate change.




83

More than 80% of Cefas ’s income is generated from UK government bodies with Defra, the main

customer, providing more than £30m annual income (around 60% of total income). Other key

government customers are the Food Standards Age (FSA), the Marine Management Organisation

(MMO) and the Environment Agency (EA). An increasing proportion of income generated from wider

markets with around 13% from industry and other sectors and about 5% from the European Union.

Key activities

As the UK's largest and most diverse applied marine science centre, CEFAS helps to shape and

implement policy through our internationally renowned science and collaborative relationships that

span the EU, UK government, non-governmental organisations, research centres and industry. Its

work ranges from freshwater to the open ocean, and includes both wild and farmed fish, including:

·

climate change impacts and adaptation· marine planning and environmental licensing

· sustainable fisheries management

· marine biodiversity and habitats

· fish and shellfish health and hygiene

· emergency response.

CEFAS supports this by collecting, managing and interpreting environmental, biodiversity and

fisheries data.

Cefas scientists also provide direct scientific advisory input at negotiations in support of the UK

Fisheries Minister and Defra fisheries management teams at the annual EU Council of Ministers

negotiations determining the quotas and technical measures used to control European fisheries.

Cefas supports delivery of the UK fisheries manager's key priorities throughout the European and

North Atlantic management systems. It also provides fisheries management advice to fishery

managers and negotiators based upon r igorous scientific analysis, research papers, reports, reviews

and briefing notes.

Assessing fish stock




84

Model Development

Cefas staff have developed stock assessment models, either as generic methods for routine

application to a large range of stocks, or as bespoke assessment models tailored to the specific

characteristics of individual stocks and fisheries. They regularly provide software to ICES and other

organisations and are frequently asked to review the development of models in other organisationsand to collaborate in international studies.

Stock assessment scientists within Cefas are familiar with a broad range of stock assessment

techniques and model software. In recent decades much of the software used by the stock

assessment working groups of ICES, NAFO and many other RFMOs has been developed by Cefas. In

addition, as leaders in the field, Cefas currently chairs the ICES Working Group on Methods of Fish

Stock Assessment (WGMG), the objectives of which are to investigate and further develop all

methods relevant to the assessment and management of fish stocks under the ICES remit.

Applied Stock Assessment

Cefas supports a wide range of national and international scientific working groups, sending staff to

more than 70 ICES Expert Groups, around 12 working groups of the EU Scientific, Technical and

Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) and a range of other scientific meetings, (e.g. IWC, NAFO,

and NASCO). In recent years Cefas has provided the chairs of a significant proportion of the ICES

expert working groups, including almost all of the major area based stock assessment working

groups. This level of leadership demonstrates our reputation for trust, scientific integrity and

achieving negotiated outcomes. Cefas scientists are also regularly invited by overseas organisations

to critically assess and review stock assessments and management practices.

Deep Sea Fisheries

Cefas participates at ICES WGDEEP meetings. Cefas scientists currently co-chair WGDEEP. In

addition, Cefas participates at the ICES Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes (WGEF) which

includes deep-water sharks in its species remit. Cefas scientists are involved in the analysis of deep

water sediment infauna data from the NAFO area to enable the biodiversity and function of seabed

habitats in this area to be quantitatively described for the first time.




85

Acquiring and managing fisheries data

The main focus of Cefas ’ fisheries staff is the provision of advice to science and policy customers,

and to stakeholders on the status of marine finfish stocks, the regulation of marine fisheries and the

mitigation of undesirable impacts of man ’s activities. Cefas runs the extensive research vessel

survey, sampling, data handling and subsequent data collation and analytical programmes requiredto support national and international stock assessment Working Groups and to provide scientific

advice on marine fish stocks. The programme fully satisfies the demanding EU Data Collection

Framework (DCF) of the European Union. Under the influence of Cefas Fisheries Scientists, the DCF is

developing further to improve on current sampling practices.

Cefas manages and coordinates a sampling programme designed to sample the landings of around

2500 vessels landing up to 65 commercially monitored fish and shellfish species at over 182 ports

around the UK (England & Wales) coast.

The Cefas Observer Programme has monitored catches of fishing vessels registered in England and

Wales consistently since 2002. Scientific at-sea observers currently sample around 250 trips and

1200 hauls each year, in which around 350 000 fish are measured annually.

Cefas has developed many innovative and market leading technologies for data capture, data

management and data analysis. Cefas ’ Electronic Data Capture (EDC) system has been used to record

its research vessel fisheries data for the last 15 years.

Cefas has a long history of data collection and data stewardship. CEFAS developed and manage the

UK Government's fisheries management information system.

Training

Stock assessment training

Cefas scientists run numerous courses in both introductory and advanced stock assessment

methods as part of the ICES training programme for stock assessment scientists. These courses are

typically of 5 days duration and cover a broad range of computational and numerical applications.




86

Training in software development

Cefas has extensive skills in programming and model development using a range of software

languages. Training and assistance is provided to new and developing programmers through a range

of mentoring and networking approaches.

Fishery observer training

Cefas operates a fisheries observer programme to collect information required under the EU Data

Collection Framework. Training and development of Cefas fisheries observers is co-ordinated

through a bespoke in-house training programme designed specifically to ensure safe working

practices and consistent high standards of data acquisition.

Training for enforcement officers

Cefas has provided numerous courses, in collaboration with the Marine Management Organisation(MMO), as part of the training programme for Royal Navy Fisheries Inspectors. Personnel recruited

to the MMO have also attended these courses.

CFP REFORM:

Cefas contributes to the process of CFP reform in a variety of ways, from the provision of high

quality data and research to support an evidence-based approach, to engaging directly in the reform

process through participation in RACs, National Fisheries Organisations, ICES Working Groups, STECF

meetings and other national and international fora, both informing and influencing stakeholders and

decision makers.

Cefas holds a key position as chair of STECF, as well as members of several key expert groups and

represents the UK on the ICES ’ Advisory Committee (ACOM). Most recently, Cefas ’ scientists and

advisors played a central role in developing assessment/advisory approaches for data-limited stocks

covered under the CFP and in influencing MSFD criteria/objectives.

Some of its research activities related to CFP reform have included:

• A collaborative Fisheries Science Partnership project between the National Federation of

Fishermen ’s Organisations (NFFO) and Cefas to scope industry-led approaches to Fully

Documented Fisheries (FDFs).

• An English catch quota trial for North Sea Cod using remote electronic monitoring

equipment; this was a voluntary participation project which investigated the use of

catch-quotas, rather than traditional landing quotas.




87

• An English discard ban scoping study to investigate the implications of introducing a

policy to ban discards; a larger follow-up study focused on logistics of landing currently

discarded commercial species, testing estimates of catch and discard levels for different

metiers, and observing changes in markets and fishing methods.

Recent impacts of its work have included:

• Cefas ’ scientists participation in, and contribution to, the ICES ’ Working Group on Mixed

Fisheries Advice for the North Sea (WGMIXFISH); providing science that underpins ICES ’

mixed fisheries advice which will become an essential part of the multi-annual plans

(MAPs) under the Reformed CFP.

• Potential growth of marine finfish take, and economic benefit to the UK, as a result of

the setting of Maximum Sustainable Yield limits by ICES' WKMSYREF, adopting new

science and chaired by Cefas.• Uptake of new science on proxy identification associated with data-limited stocks

following ICES' WKLIFE I and II enabling the sustainable exploitation of over a hundred

data-limited stocks.

A8.2 UK Marine and Fisheries Science - Marine Scotland Science

Background

Marine Scotland Science (formerly Fisheries Research Services) was established as a division of

Marine Scotland on 1 April 2009. Its purpose is to provide expert scientific, economic and technical

advice and services on marine and freshwater fisheries, aquaculture, and the aquatic environment

and its flora and fauna, in support of the policies and regulatory activities of the Scottish

Government including reform of the CFP.

Marine Scotland Science has a total headcount of 279 (including vacancies) and the expertise of its

staff is well recognised e.g. as reflected in the 2012 audit report by the United Kingdom

Accreditation Service.

Marine Scotland Science (MSS) plays is an important part in supporting the Scottish Government's

vision of having marine and coastal environments which are clean, healthy, safe, productive and

biologically diverse as well as being managed for both nature and people.




88

MSS undertakes research and monitoring as well as providing scientific and technical advice on a

number of marine and fisheries issues including aquaculture and fish health, freshwater fisheries,

sea fisheries and marine ecosystems.

The nature of the work is vast and diverse and includes boat and shore based monitoring, laboratory

work, building bespoke monitoring equipment and state of the art computer technology and GIS

systems to analyse, plot and present the information which is found.

Key activities

· Conducts research, monitoring and surveillance

· Undertakes assessments of marine pressures and the state of the marine environment

· Performs regulatory and enforcement activities

· Contributes to the Marine Scotland Emergency Response capability

· Represents the Scottish Government at national and international meetings

· Communicates with its stakeholders

Surveys and sampling

Marine Scotland Science conducts an extensive programme of, amongst a range of programmes,

fisheries related surveys and sampling. The primary use of these data is to provide the estimates of

the numbers at age (or length), and weight at age, that are submitted to the various ICES fish stock

assessment working groups each year. These groups estimate stock size, and fishery induced

mortality, which informs the setting of the total allowable catch (TAC) and other managementmeasures.

Most demersal sampling is directed at the species of commercial importance; cod, haddock, whiting,

saithe, megrim, monkfish and hake, all of which are subject to full analytical assessment each year.

Other species, which may be of less commercial importance or are less frequently landed, are

sampled according to a sampling plan submitted under the EU ’s Data Collection Framework (DCF).

The market sampling component of the sampling programme samples the landed component ofcatch. In 2011 the samples collected for the estimates of the landed component of the main

demersal species required 131,000 fish to be measured, and 19,800 otoliths to be collected and read

(MSS Annual report 2012).




89

The at-sea observer component of the sampling programme samples the discarded component of

the catch. With the co-operation of the fishing industry, MSS staff make around 100 trips per year,

collecting information on the amount of fish discarded, as well as details of their length and age

composition. Each year around 290,000 discarded fish and shellfish are measured and around

18,000 are aged. This information is then combined with the landings data to give a completepicture of the effects of fishing on the stocks.

Influencing and supporting CFP reform

MSS contributes to the process of CFP reform not only through the provision of high quality data and

research but also through direct engagement with the reform process, informing and influencing

stakeholders and decision makers. During 2011-12, MSS staff gave around 60 presentations at both

national and international meetings, provided input to 113 ICES Working Groups as well as to OSPAR

Committees, STECF working groups and plenary meetings and other inter-Governmental meetings.MSS also hosted a considerable number of meetings with representatives from the fishing industry,

the renewable energy industry and the aquaculture industry.

Economics Research

The remit of the Marine Analytical Unit (MAU) is to ensure that Marine Scotland is able to access the

necessary socio-economic advice and analysis (integrated with natural science) to facilitate effective

policy development and operational delivery. Amongst other priorities, it provides evidence that is

used to develop policies which support the continued growth and future development of a range of

existing and new key sectors, such as aquaculture, fisheries and renewable energy, which form part

of Scotland ’s Growth Sectors.

It is important that information is disseminated in an appropriate manner and the MAU produced

and published a revamped Scottish Sea Fisheries Statistics Bulletin during 2011-12. This presents a

detailed overview of landings of sea fish, the Scottish fishing fleet, and the number of sea fishermen

employed.

Research projects on the fully documented fisheries trial, socio-economic impacts of achieving

maximum sustainable yield and a range of potential management options are part of the provision

of economics to an integrated evidence base that promotes sustainable, profitable and well

managed fisheries. Such research also contributes to ensuring Scottish interests and objectives,




90

including the promotion of vibrant coastal communities, are maximised through the on-going

process to reform the CFP.

The MAU works with policy colleagues to maximise the value added to the Scottish economy from

the European Fisheries Fund by facilitating the movement away from a demand led scheme towardsone focussed on outcomes. This has helped ensure that funding is directed towards projects which

most closely align with the SG Purpose and provide best value for money.

A8.3 UK Marine Research Vessels

The UK currently has 7 large-scale ocean and global class marine research vessels of greater than

50m length. The vessel time allotted to each purpose in the current year and maps indicating the

areas each vessel operates in are shown below.

Figure 26. UK Marine Research Vessels.




91

Note: The proportion of research ship time each vessel spent at sea, arranged by activities

contributing to each of the UK Marine Science Strategy (UKMSS) priorities. Source: UK Marine

Research Vessels - An assessment and proposals for improved co-ordination

A8.4 Marine Management Organisation (MMO)

The MMO is an executive non-departmental public body (NDPB) established and given powers under

the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. This brings together, for the first time, key marine decision-

making powers and delivery mechanisms.

History

The MMO began operating in April 2010, incorporating the work of the Marine and Fisheries Agency

(MFA) and acquiring new roles, powers and functions previously associated with the Department ofEnergy and Climate Change (DECC) and the Department for Transport (DfT). Establishing the MMO

marked a fundamental shift in how activities in our marine area are planned, regulated and licensed,

with an emphasis on sustainable development.

Resources

As at 31 March 2013, the MMO has 321 members of staff, with:

· 51 working within the marine licensing function

· 16 working within the marine planning function

· 159 working within operations, which includes fisheries vessel licensing, quota management,

marine conservation and enforcement, statistics and analysis, and staff based in our coastal

offices

· 76 working in support functions such as finance, IT, communications, human resources,

legal, health and safety and board and executive teams

The MMO has offices in Newcastle, London and in 14 locations on the English coast.

Key responsibilities

· implementing a new marine planning system designed to integrate the social requirements,

economic potential and environmental imperatives of our seas

· implementing a new marine licensing regime that is easier for everyone to use with clearer,

simpler and quicker licensing decisions




92

· managing UK fishing fleet capacity and UK fisheries quotas

· working with Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) to

manage a network of marine protected areas (marine conservation zones and European

marine sites) designed to preserve vulnerable habitats and species in UK marine waters

·

responding to marine emergencies alongside other agencies· developing an internationally recognised centre of excellence for marine information that

supports the MMO ’s decision-making process.

A8.5 Adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change 36

Rising sea temperatures, as projected by UKCP09 37, are expected to impact marine fish stocks and

their distribution in the UK Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ 38 ). A key expected climate change impact is

a move northwards of some cold-water species currently popular in the UK, such as cod and

haddock, out of the UK EEZ. Long term temperature trends are illustrated in Figure 27.

36 Natural Environment Theme: Sea Fish, Defra (2013)37 Multi-level ocean projections are given in section 6.3.4 of the UKCP09. Generally shelf seas around the UK are projected tobe 1.4-4oC warmer by the end of the 21st century under a medium em issions scenario38 EEZ is the maritime zone adjacent to the territorial sea within which the coastal state has sovereign rights for the purpose ofexploring, exploiting, conserving, and managing natural resources, both living and non-living, of the seabed, subsoil, and thesubjacent waters and, with regard to other activities, for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone (e.g., the productionof energy from the water, currents, and winds).

Summary: Climate change mitigation· Sea-water temperature is expected to increase due to climate change, creating habitats

suitable for cold and warm water fish at more northerly latitudes.· A slight increase in yields will be the net effect of both reduced and increased fish stocks

in different locations and across different species within the UK EEZ. Opportunities fornew fisheries emerging in the UK EEZ, include species such as John Dory, sea bass,anchovy and squid.

· There is a degree of uncertainty built in to current climate change modelling reportedhere and projections. Additionally, there are few reliable measures of what this maymean for fish stocks.

· Non-climate change drivers of fish stocks and their distribution are important torecognise and include fishing effort levels, fishing gear technology and other habitatuses (such as at sea wind farms).




93

Figure 27. Annual mean temperature averaged over the Scottish mainland, 1800-2006. The red

line emphasises long-term variations. Source: Marine Scotland

However, the projected movements of warm water species, (e.g. squid, anchovy and sea bass), into

the UK EEZ balances this effect. A global review of the impacts of climate change on fish yieldsestimates that overall, the UK would benefit from increased net yields of 1-2% between 2009 and

2050. Achieving this relatively low net positive effect requires action to maximise opportunities.

Sophisticated modelling techniques project increases in habitat suitability within the UK EEZ for a

number of warm-water species 39 (see Table). However, projecting the future impacts of climate

change on fish yields for the UK fishing industry is complex and uncertain and although current

projections use the best available models, they are subject to uncertainty. This is, in part, owing to

uncertainties around the projected change in sea temperatures; the consequent impact on fishstocks and their distribution; and, the impacts of non-climate change drivers on habitat suitability 40.

39 These opportunities include a variety of pelagic and demersal species, which could be fished by a broad section of UK vessels.40 These include: bathymetry, salinity; ice; primary productivity and distance to coast




94

Figure 28. Projected change in habitat suitability for selected species.

The adaptive capacity of the UK fishing industry as a whole is assessed to be relatively high for

climate change impact on fisheries. This is because it has strong commercial incentives to make the

most of profitable opportunities. However, enhancing the capability to monitor new and more

abundant species, support the scientific and technical facilities for both under 10 and over 10 m

vessels, involving collaborative working of fishing vessel operators with the scientific community is

needed. In addition, supporting the diversification of consumer demand through the provision of

information to consumers about a wider range of fish species and through marketing would help

increased landings for selected species.

A9. Other Marine Industry Sectors

There are potential opportunities for the UK fisheries, aquaculture and fisheries areas sectors to

interact with other marine industries over the l ifetime of the new programme, i.e. 2014 – 2020.

Unpublished research undertaken by Marine Scotland identifies some of these opportunities, and

they have also been discussed in the stakeholder working sessions reported in Annex B. Key sectors /

opportunities would appear to include:

1. Marine and coastal leisure and tourism

2. Offshore marine renewable energy (wind, wave and tidal energy)

3. Possible development of marine biomass production

4. Aquaculture in more exposed locations – perhaps involving existing ports and existing skills and

infrastructure within the commercial fishing sector.



Annex B: Devolved Administration SWOT Analyses

B1. Introduction

The SWOT Analysis and Needs Assessment for EMFF programming is for the whole of the UK. While

the EMFF will have a single Managing Authority, as with the current EFF, there is the capacity in the

(draft) Regulation to allow for Intermediary Bodies (IBs) in each of the devolved administrations

within the UK. It is anticipated that each IB will be allocated an element of EMFF budget, and will use

that to address its particular fisheries sector needs. The Managing Authority, supported by a

Programme Monitoring Committee (PMC) will oversee pan-UK effective delivery of the entire

programme, and the Certifying and Auditing Authorities will also act at a UK level.

Whilst there is likely to be a large degree of commonality across the UK in terms of fisheries sector

needs, each area does have its own unique aspirations or challenges. This prompts several

considerations:

1. The overarching UK SWOT Analysis and Needs Assessment should reflect, as much as

possible, elements that capture the unique requirements of regions within the UK

2. In order to ensure that, it is important to create a suite of SWOT analyses for each devolved

administration

3. The UK can choose to restrict the number of measures (i.e. enabling Articles within the

Regulation) it will adopt for the overall programme, but in doing so it needs to take account

of measures that might be specifically required for one or other devolved administration.

This section of the UK SWOT Analysis and Needs Assessment paper presents a SWOT analysis and

needs assessment for each devolved administration. With the exception of Scotland, the SWOT

elements discussed at stakeholder workshops were mostly ranked, and only the highest-ranking

elements are presented in the tables, in order of ranking. As discussed in Section B3, the number of

SWOT elements presented for Scotland is higher but largely unranked – and most of the Scotland

elements were used as discussion points in the other devolved administration workshops, and also

appeared in one form or another in the lower-ranked regional workshop outputs. Overall UK

consideration of fisheries issues was therefore wide-ranging and detailed.

There is no attempt to match regional SWOT analyses with other CSF issues, since this is best

achieved within the main paper, at a UK strategic level. There is also no consideration of CFP under



DRAFT EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT

96

Shared Management measures, since these are largely a matter for government and were not part

of stakeholder consultation.

In addition to the four devolved administration SWOT analyses presented below, consultation was

held with an EFF Axis 4 stakeholder meeting on the 30th

of May 2013, which brought together‘fisheries areas ’ experience from several UK countries – see Annex B6.

In all cases, the outcomes from stakeholder discussions were carefully noted and subsequently

analysed. Stakeholders were cautioned that it would be impossible to include every point they made

within the overall UK SWOT report, and they were therefore urged to prioritise or somehow ‘score ’

the SWOT elements they discussed. The analysis presented below reflects that prioritisation as far as

possible.




97

B2. England

The SWOT and Needs Assessment for England is based on outcomes from a stakeholder working

group held in London on the 4 th of June 2013. There was not sufficient representation to mount

Fisheries Areas or Processing & Marketing groups, but these areas are covered at a UK level by

Annex A information and by other stakeholder engagement.

Table 27. SWOT Analysis for the Overall Fisheries Sector in England.

Strengths

Sustainable Fisheries1. Good fisheries science2. Diversity of species, and most stocks are

healthy/recovering – with strong industrycommitment to recovery

3. Experienced, flexible and adaptableworkforce4. Better image for small scale5. Capacity to fully exploit available resources.

Sustainable Aquaculture1. Continuity of quality, specification and price



3. Global image: aquaculture is widely seen asfuture source of seafood security

4. Aquaculture in England is closer to mainmarkets in EU

5. Diversity of species in England.

Weaknesses

Sustainable Fisheries1. Data gaps, with science and resource

limitations2. By-catch and discards improving but still a

challenge

3. Under-resourced inshore fisheriesmanagement and enforcement4. Fragmented sector5. Poor record on health and safety.

Sustainable Aquaculture1. Lack of collaboration; no Producer

Organisation2. Difficult to obtain funding (including match

funding for EMFF)3. Vulnerability to health / disease / water

quality challenges4. Limitations on sites; offshore not proven;

need input to marine spatial planning(mainly shellfish)

5. Poor support from / understanding bysome public sector policy and regulatorybodies.

Opportunities

Sustainable Fisheries

1. Innovation, pilot trials and incentives toadopt new gear (linked to discard reductionand MSY)

2. Broader engagement in data collection andcollaboration with scientists

3. Knowledge transfer / exchange within theindustry

4. Investing in renewable resources; self-management; closed areas; seasons, etc.

Threats


1. Austerity measures affect ability to match-fund EMFF (whether public or private)

2. Poor management of change (e.g. discardban)

3. Critical mass to retain infrastructure and,especially, knowledge within the sector

4. Sloping playing field compared to other EUMS, e.g. on fuel subsidies

5. Continued overfishing despite CFP reform.




98

5. Use of IT linked to improved marketingcollaboration and value-adding.

Sustainable Aquaculture1. Possibility of an England Producer

Organisation (PO) or Inter-branchOrganisation (IBO2. Growing demand / need for seafood in

EU28 and wider; heavy dependence onseafood imports from third countries,therefore import substitution

3. Collaboration with other marine industries(co-location; aquaculture in MPAs)

4. Diversification opportunities: IMTA; marinerenewables; marine agronomy

5. Blue bio-tech.

Sustainable Aquaculture1. Costs of inputs rise too steeply (e.g. feed

ingredients, whether sustainable or

traditional; fuel and energy)2. Low-cost 3 rd country imports distort marketopportunities

3. Over use of precaution by regulatorsunfamiliar with implications of aquaculturedevelopment in England. Resistance tochange

4. New diseases emerge or are introduced byothers; non-native species

5. Water quality issues, pollution and harmfulalgal blooms.

Statement of Needs (England):

Sustainable FisheriesInvestment in technology and practices relating to meeting (and financially surviving) key CFPreform obligations.Investment in good science and data collection at a government / regional / international level,but also ensuring that the catching sector is involved with and participating in all aspects of that.Innovation in cost reduction strategies.Innovation in value-adding strategies.

Sustainable AquacultureSupport for the creation of an English Aquaculture PO or IBO.Support for a programme to better-inform regulators and other public sector bodies.Innovation and pilot scale developments in new production techniques / opportunities e.g. largescale shellfish farms and pen-based marine farms.Financial engineering to assist with ‘total ’ investment packages – in collaboration with existingand new commercial investors.Innovation projects into diversification: non-food and collaboration with other marine industrysectors.




99

B3. Scotland

The SWOT and Needs Assessment for Scotland is based on stakeholder and policy official

consultation as outlined in Section 2 of this paper.

The enumerated SWOT elements list is longer for this Scottish Annex compared with other devolved

administrations due to the wide-ranging nature of the feedback received, over an extended period

of time. This does not imply lack of input from the other devolved administrations, and the

workshops in those countries were presented with an original longer list of SWOT ideas for

discussion, based upon the initial work in Scotland. These were then ranked, and only the highest-

ranking elements recorded in the other devolved administration tables in Annex B.

The entire list of Scottish SWOT elements is included in this section so as to indicate the breadth of

ideas that were discussed and ranked across the entire UK. Note that the SWOT elements in Table 28

are not presented in any particular order of ranking or priority.

Table 28. SWOT Analysis for the Overall Fisheries Sector in Scotland – Not Ranked.

Strengths

Sustainable Fisheries1. Experienced and skilled workforce, with

good local knowledge. Lowerunemployment rates reflect Scotland ’sadaptable workforce

2. Diversity of species, many of which arebeing fished at sustainable levels

3. Some sectors profitable – pelagic, scallop,some creelers

4. Good heritage and good image5. Average landed value exceeded RPI in the

period 2006-20106. Strong fishermen ’s organisations7. Closely regulated industry8. Sustainability – ability to collaborate for

funding9. Some capacity for capital investment10. Willingness to consider diversification.

Sustainable Aquaculture

Weaknesses

Sustainable Fisheries1. Economic difficulties faced by Scottish Fleet

(SFF 2012). Price volatility is so endemic tothe industry that value cannot beguaranteed

2. Diversity of species may itself be aweakness, as under present managementrules, quota may not exist or equal theopportunity. Underinvestment hasimpacted on productivity &competitiveness

3. Mixed fisheries make MSY managementdifficult

4. Some stocks fished above fMSY5. A perception of overcapacity in some

sections of the fleet, although this is largelyincorrect / doubtful over different years asfisheries stocks vary

6. Aging fleet, fuel inefficiencies7. Aging crews and therefore crew retention

concerns8. Costs include; oil, days at sea, quota,

regulatory – possible cost of discardsrestrictions

9. Unclear science / data




100

1. Continuity of quality, specification andprice of supplies - the ability to planpredictable production

2. Well regulated and good internal disciplineoperating to high health and welfarestandards – further enhanced by industry

CoGP and recent passing of Aquaculture &Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2013.3. Technically innovative, well trained staff4. Large companies in Scotland, ability to

invest – but limited to some parts of thesector

5. Global image: aquaculture is widely seen asfuture source of seafood security, providedsome sustainability issues are addressed.

6. Increasing research support for the sector(Marine Scotland, Technology StrategyBoard, Scottish Funding Council, Scottish

Aquaculture Research Forum, NaturalEnvironment Research Council, etc.):research to provide solutions to remainingor new sustainability issues

7. The industry has clear growth targets to2020, supported by Scottish Ministers,which are attainable – and sustainable -with the right level of public sectorencouragement.

Sustainable Fisheries Areas1. Maritime expertise in traditional skills2. Local colleges provide a resource to build

capacity in service delivery3. Economic activity around main ports is

significant and export orientated4. Strong track record of the local fisheries

food industry. 5. Rich and varied natural coastline with

excellent wildlife and scenery6. Quality marine wildlife, bio-diversity and

environments7. Growth of tourism markets8. Rich cultural and maritime heritage9. Attractive towns and harbours for tourism

and residential use.

10. Bycatch and discards improving but still aproblem.

Sustainable Aquaculture1. Ongoing vulnerability to health / disease /

water quality challenges – similar to any

animal farming system2. Economic challenges for some parts of the

sector, therefore difficulty in findinginvestment finance: capital and workingcapital

3. Vulnerable to negativity from media andothers: environmental; wild salmonids;food safety; feed sustainability

4. Finite growth opportunities in inshorewaters; offshore technologies still unproven

5. Impossible to domesticate a wide range ofspecies: limited to current species

(Scotland)6. Ability to access new medicines due to scaleof industry and development costs

7. Ability to meet future demand due to slowrate of industry growth v. increasingdemand for seafood

8. Reliance on wild seed (mussel farming)9. SME rule is a strategic weakness for

Scotland.

Sustainable Fisheries Areas1. Decline of traditional fishing industries and

skills retention, an ageing population,residents tend to out-migrate for work – although not relevant to all areas

2. Mixed quality of infrastructure and lack ofquality service sector offerings

3. Lack of collaboration efforts: supply-chains& marketing and public campaigns

4. High cost residential property and lack ofsuitable commercial premises nearharbours.

5. Poorly maintained harbours which limit thepotential for tourism

6. Lack of local awareness of local assets andlimited exploitation of coastal assets

7. High levels of deprivation and need forregeneration in many areas

8. Businesses: low rates of start-ups andbelow average earnings




101

Processing and Marketing1. Strong international reputation for Scottish

companies ( “ If you are good enough tosupply M&S …” , etc.)

2. Technical skills and ability to innovate in

parts of the sector3. Ongoing trend in improving skills and best

practices4. Increasing trend towards sustainability and

traceability credentials - certification5. Seafood trade is increasingly global: the

ability to source from fishing, farming &global imports – but some caveats onglobal competition

6. The capacity to consolidate and modernisestill exists

7. Good business support (SFIA, Seafood

Scotland, SDI, SE, HIE, SAOS, Scotland Food& Drink).

9. Tendency for parochialism and / orcommunity apathy

10. Lack of capitalisation of niche markets11. Difficult to access match funding and co-

finance.

Processing and Marketing1. Continuity of supply; dependence on

seafood raw material supplies2. Size of fish landed and limited outlets for

some products, e.g. small haddock3. Transport infrastructure difficult in some

areas4. Capacity issues for one species or another,

in different parts of the country5. Apparent complexity of the organisational

structure within the fishing and fishprocessing industry: there is rarely clarity of

communication between catcher andprocessor (in wild fish) on the quantity,quality and timing of stock that will belanded when it is due for the open market

6. Logistics often uneconomic for smallprocessors to target small customers, andsmaller operators increasingly undereconomic/structural pressures

7. Physical presence of the industry rangingfrom large industrial units reaching theirwaste maximum to tiny small businesses inramshackle premises scheduled forredevelopment

8. Traffic congestion for deliveries anddespatch, conflict with retail and officeworkers (Note: similar issues for oldBillingsgate, and now for new Billingsgate)

9. Cost of complying with legislation10. Business support not always optimal.

Opportunities

Sustainable Fisheries1. Stocks have an inherent capacity to recover

and flourish, and good fisheries

management can assist this2. Growing demand / need for seafood in

EU28, Asia and more widely3. Encourage improvements to marketing

organisations in the fisheries sector to drivecompetitiveness, value adding and co-operation

4. Support opportunities which useestablished and emerging marine

Threats

Sustainable Fisheries1. Critical mass to maintain local

infrastructure – linked to rising costs, lower

profitability and failure to retain personnel2. Continued stock declines, despite CFP

reforms – although in reality most of thestocks utilised by the Scottish fleet areimproving

3. Difficulty for new entrants to obtain quota,track record, etc.

4. Costs increase: fuel, but also leasing, bothof days and quota




102

knowledge to diversify into emergingsectors

5. Transition to sustainable fisheries and thedelivery of CFP targets on MSY and thediscarding of fish

6. Opportunities to collaborate in science: CFP

research, MPA management, and thegeneral restoration of marine biodiversityand ecosystems

7. More opportunities for inshore fisheries – for some segments of the industry

8. Collaboration with processors to promoteindustry and products: better supply chaincommunications

9. Opportunities to maintain quality byimproved handling / systems.


1. Growing demand / need for seafood in EU28and wider: the market for Scottishproduction continues to grow.

2. Scotland has the second longest coastline(next to Norway) in Europe and a Scottishsea area of 470,000 km 2

3. R&D and innovation supports progress:health; containment; feed sustainability

4. New technologies open up new productionopportunities (e.g. more exposed sites;better seed supply; more environmentallyfriendly juvenile production)

5. Collaboration with other marine industries,e.g. using fishing sector skills in moreexposed locations and possible synergieswith renewables sector

6. Diversification prospects – shellfish;integrated multi-trophic aquaculture;marine renewables, marine bio-fuels

7. World-leading expertise offers ‘knowledgeexport ’ potential – from industry and fromScotland ’s academic institutions

8. Possibilities for development of additionalaquaculture producer organisations (POs),or possibly Inter-Branch Organisations 41 (IBOs).

Sustainable Fisheries Areas1. Re-skilling to meet new sectoral and

market needs and capitalising ontransferable skills whilst maintainingtraditional skills

5. Long term impact of climate change6. Negative publicity: impact on markets,

additional pressure on regulators for moreaction

7. Regulation: MSY and discards ban arechallenging and possibly more costly. Mixed

fisheries will encounter large problems inthe search for MSY8. Too much diversification risks loss of

experience from the workforce.

Sustainable Aquaculture1. New diseases emerge or are introduced by

others

2. Costs of inputs rise too steeply (e.g. feedingredients, whether sustainable ortraditional; fuel and energy)

3. Negative publicity incidents that damageimage and investment opportunities

4. Water quality issues, pollution and harmfulalgal blooms continue to cause problems

5. Unpredictable weather events increase anddamage infrastructure

6. In the future, slow, unpredictable or over-burdensome licensing and regulation mightdiscourage further investment in Scotland

7. Continuing exclusion of larger companiesfrom EMFF may stifle innovation,development and investment

8. Diversification opportunities (e.g. non-food)are hampered because of existing industryfocusing on core-business: lack ofcommercial champions for newdevelopments.

Sustainable Fisheries Areas1. Decline in the scale and value of fishing and

fish processing2. Loss of local services, infrastructure and

employers

41 See for example: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0416:FIN:EN:HTML




103

2. Maintaining working harbours andknowledge locally

3. Diversification into higher value economicsectors, including opportunities within themarine economy focusing on matchingskills to business demand

4. Provision of facilities and infrastructure forharbour users to create new economicopportunities

5. Scope for greater use of coast and sea forleisure, tourism and business

6. Reimagining small harbours for alternativeuses

7. Support for skills development inagriculture, aquaculture and forestry; forquality apprenticeship places among SMEsand social enterprises, and for higher levelapprenticeships and sandwich courses,

particularly in growth sectors and lowcarbon sectors8. Public campaigns related to the maritime

economy, new niche markets and areaidentity and USPs.

Processing and Marketing1. Innovative processing technology to

improve yield and productivity.2. Promotion of Scottish Seafood Industry to

raise awareness of Local Wild Seafood –

quality labels and assurance schemes3. Supply chain improvements – efficiency,

environmental footprint, knowledge aboutproducts, driving competitiveness, valueadding and co-operation

4. Competition with other proteins if grainprices rise

5. Development of new markets: China, India,Russia, etc.

6. Additional supplies as a result of zerodiscard rules, increases in aquaculture

7. Increasing focus on healthy diets

8. The food service sector as it starts torationalise

9. Shared premises to reduce overheads10. Business Partnerships to offer range of

products11. Training to assist companies comply with

EHO and exporting administration; trainingin areas such as quality, technology,marketing.

3. Increasing transport costs impactsprofitability of local economy givendistance to main markets

4. Skills mis-match, increase use migrants tofill jobs, processing jobs movinginternationally and fisheries communities

becoming commuter areas5. Impact of global warming and non-

sustainable practices. 6. Small scale nature of funding available


7. Lack of availability of public sector matchfunding for investment

8. Lack of capacity of community groups tocapitalise on opportunities

9. Lack of private sector involvement incommunity events and activities

10. Lack of willingness for collaborationbetween sectors and groupsCompetition for land (for development),labour (workforce) and capital (finance forinvestment) from other sectors.

Processing and Marketing1. Cheap competition/other proteins –

including cheaper imports of processedseafood

2. Quota: traders displacing fish fromScotland; fish quota transferred to largecompanies; large companies controllingsupply chain

3. Declining EU markets; state of the economyin key market countries

4. More fixed weight products5. Loans/ access to working capital difficult6. Competition for labour from other sectors

in NE & Shetland7. Major suppliers of, for example, boxes,

transport and other supporting serviceswithdrawing from industry

8. Less Scottish boats. Boats sold out ofScotland

9. Less processors and capacity10. EU28 production (fishing and farming) not

keeping pace with demand, and rawmaterial imports from 3 rd countries possiblybecoming more difficult / expensive

11. Increasing environmental costs / regulation12. Food scares, resulting in image issues for

seafood




104

12. Support for energy reduction initiativesExport guarantees.

Zero discard policy may change fishavailability profile.

Statement of Needs (Scotland):


Commercial fisheries will remain an important sector in Scotland as CFP reform and improvedmanagement approaches begin to stabilise stocks and enhance sustainability. For the sector,EMFF can intervene in the following areas:· Ensuring key skills and critical infrastructure are preserved during transitionary phases· Support for adaptation to climate and other environmental change· At the same time, encouraging diversification into other activities in the marine environment,

by way of research, training and financial support· Assisting with measures that reduce cost / increase profitability – whilst avoiding any increase

in catching ability (including having regard to ‘technical creep)· Assisting with measures that improve supply chain mechanisms and market access, with a

view to value adding and delivering higher prices to Scottish fishers· Fostering increased collaboration between science / management and the commercial sector· Ensuring active collaboration in all areas relating to marine planning and the creation and

management of marine protected areas· Investing in more science and evidence-based management for the inshore fisheries sector· Assistance in transition to discard free sustainable fisheries· Bolstering the evidence base and improving management (stock science and socio economic

information); tackling discards and moving from landed to catch quota – which requires animproved evidence base.

· Required for mixed fisheries management and move towards eco-system based approach;gear selectivity trails, technical spatial measures trialled

· Species survivability research· Support for management – FDF costs, technology development, roll-out· Support to embed regional approach to management and Advisory Councils: modernise

management of fishing opportunities; develop decentralised local approach to management· Support for independently assessed fishery certification· Improve sector viability during transition phase to discard free – eligible for using loan finance

during this transition.

Sustainable AquacultureScottish aquaculture will continue to grow, meeting the expectations of Scottish Ministers andalso contributing in large part to the needs of EU28 for sustainable seafood supplies to 2020 andbeyond. Growth will be facilitated by:· Innovation and research into reducing potential impacts on other sectors, e.g. sea lice and

escapes with respect to wild salmonids; use of licensed therapeutants; interaction with

predatory species· Constant innovation in development of sustainable (sometimes non-traditional) raw material

sources for ‘fed ’ aquaculture species· Innovation and technical developments that open up commercially viable new productive

areas· Provision of working capital as well as fixed capital support for some parts of the sector· Innovation that reduces reliance on variable wild seed supplies




105

· Water quality improvements in all aquaculture areas, but especially shellfish· In the longer term, possible co-production with other marine sector developments· Partnering in (using core expertise) developments in non-food aquaculture: marine agronomy;

marine bio-fuels· Involvement of the SSPO in range of research and innovation projects·

Moves to further exposed sites through adherence to equipment technical standardsprescribed in Aquaculture & Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2013.

Sustainable Fisheries Areas

Scottish fishery areas are potentially threatened by a reduction in the scale of the commercialcatching sector, yet remain vital for the provision of infrastructure, support services and theworkforce for the (sustainable) catching sector that remains. These communities are also vital intheir own right, yet are often located in remote coastal / rural areas where there has traditionallybeen little other source of primary employment. Key needs are:· Ensuring access to match funding and co-finance· Developing high quality local action plans· Support to provide professional input to FLAGs (Fisheries Local Action Groups)· Look for opportunities to merge FLAGs with LAGs, where appropriate and where efficiency

can be demonstrated· There will be multi-use infrastructure, training, education, natural heritage, cultural heritage

and tourism aspects to FLAG projects – ensure that mechanisms exist to actively collaboratewith other CSF and national funding programmes

· Consider a national network of FLAGS (or some co-ordination mechanism) whereby bestpractice can be shared, and where national strategic initiatives can be explored anddeveloped

· Define clear eligibility criteria for ‘fisheries areas ’ EMFF projects, in order to avoid case-by-case interventions by Marine Scotland Fisheries Grants Team (refer to FARNET resource 42).

Processing and Marketing

Processing and marketing of Scottish-origin fisheries and aquaculture products is an essentialcomponent of the seafood supply chain, from ‘port to plate ’, and adds value and maintainsemployment and economic activity in Scotland. Continuity of operations also requires the abilityto access imported raw materials in some circumstances. The sector has geographic, logistical andinfrastructure challenges, some of which must be met by normal business evolution and some ofwhich could be assisted through EMFF-funded activities. Key EMFF issues are:·

Improved communications and collaboration throughout the supply chain· Improved co-ordination of marketing and promotion activities for Scottish products· Technical / market innovations in: processing technology; opportunities for utilising by-catch

and unfamiliar species; improved utilisation of less than perfectly-sized fish; stabilisation offishery products landed in locations remote from processing capacity

· Technical innovation in environmental footprint reduction and energy consumption

42 https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/cms/farnet/




106

· Support for independently assessed fishery certification· Staff training in emerging quality / environmental health issues.




107

B4. Wales

The SWOT and Needs Assessment for Wales is based on outcomes from a stakeholder working group

held in Aberystwyth on the 31 st May 2013. There was not sufficient representation to mount a

Processing & Marketing group, but these areas are covered at a UK level by Annex A information and

by other stakeholder engagement.

Table 29. SWOT Analysis for the Overall Fisheries Sector in Wales.

Strengths

Sustainable Fisheries1. Experienced and skilled workforce, with

good local knowledge2. Good heritage and good image3. Diversity of species which could be caught

(freshwater and marine –

inshore based)4. Strong fishermen ’s organisations5. Welsh fisheries are quite targeted – not

much by-catch.

Sustainable Aquaculture1. Continuity of supply, prices, portions – with

healthy products2. Technically innovative, with a good

research capability in Wales3. Aquaculture is an important future source

of food: underpin resilience in food security4. Environmental footprint is low compared

with some other food production5. Availability of funds (EMFF) to support

sectoral development.

Sustainable Fisheries Areas1. Rich and varied natural coastline with


environments3. Maritime expertise4. Cohesive communities5. Established tourism sector6. Economic activity around main ports is

significant.

Weaknesses

Sustainable Fisheries1. Data deficiency2. Lack of appropriate management3. Some stocks are in decline or under threat4. Lack of confidence for industry to invest

5. Poor co-ordination and ability to build onimage, heritage and new opportunities.

Sustainable Aquaculture1. Vulnerable to health, water quality,

invasive species, etc.2. Limitations on sites for large scale

expansion3. Economic challenges – high input costs4. Reliance on wild mussel seed supply5. Lack of capacity building by government,

and an unresponsive planning / regulatorysystem, with limited understanding of thekey issues / needs of the sector.

Sustainable Fisheries Areas1. Decline of traditional fishing industries and

skills retention, an ageing population,residents tend to out-migrate for work, andreliance on immigrant labour in commercialfishing sector

2. Difficult to access match funding3. Lack of community capacity; mixed quality

of infrastructure and collaboration4. Businesses: below average earnings5. High levels of deprivation and need for

regeneration in many areas.

Opportunities Threats




108

Sustainable Fisheries1. Improved management will result in

sustainable fisheries2. Growing demand for sustainable ‘local ’

fisheries products3. Diversification into other species, but also

other business sectors4. Technical improvements to management5. Good science base in Wales – underutilised

by the fisheries sector currently6. Marketing / processing locally.

Sustainable Aquaculture1. Growing demand for seafood2. Potential for new species with national

provenance, e.g. charr3. Growth of non-food sector e.g. bio-fuels –

general collaboration with other marine

industries; co-location4. New technologies open up new sites /production methods

5. Potential for a Welsh Aquaculture PO orIBO.

Sustainable Fisheries Areas1. Cooperation between FLAG areas2. Promoting Welsh fishing industries3. Provision of facilities and infrastructure for

harbour users to create new economicopportunities

4. Re-skilling to meet new sectoral and marketneeds and capitalising on transferable skillswhilst maintaining traditional skills

5. Diversification into higher value economicsectors, including opportunities within themarine economy focusing on matchingskills to business demand.

Sustainable Fisheries1. Market prices are declining (impact of large

multiple or continental buyers)2. Competition for resources, lack of sufficient

involvement in marine planning3. Vulnerable business model – reliance on

few species and few market niches4. Critical mass declines; skill retention; careerpaths, etc.

5. Wider fisheries management fails toprotect some migratory species from effortout-with the Welsh fleet.

Sustainable Aquaculture1. Land use policy and slow / unsympathetic /

poorly informed regulation limitsapplications for expansion. Several orders

and leases2. New diseases and invasive species; waterquality issues (possibly more in the future)

3. Norovirus: health, understanding; lack ofscience; monitoring

4. High start-up costs and performance ofMMO and EMFF delivery teams

5. Cost of inputs rise too steeply.

Sustainable Fisheries Areas1. EU Referendum2. Small scale nature of funding available


3. Lack of availability of public sector matchfunding for investment

4. Lack of capacity of community groups tocapitalise on opportunities

5. Lack of private sector involvement incommunity events and activities.

Statement of Needs (Wales):

Sustainable FisheriesNeed to develop and evidence a framework for diversification opportunitiesNeed stronger representative bodiesNeed accreditation for Welsh fisheries e.g. MCSEngage with marine spatial planning re. access to resourcesInnovation in cost reduction strategies.Innovation in value-adding strategies.





109

Support for the creation of a Welsh Aquaculture PO or IBO.More efficient delivery of EMFF compared with EFFInnovation and pilot scale developments in new production techniques / opportunities e.g. largescale shellfish farms and pen-based marine farms.Financial engineering to assist with ‘total ’ investment packages – in collaboration with existingand new commercial investors.

Innovation projects into diversification: non-food and collaboration with other marine industrysectors.

Sustainable Fisheries AreasInvest in better collaboration between FLAG areas (and potentially other CSF delivery bodies).Investment in training and re-skilling.Infrastructure investment to create new economic opportunities.Solutions to match funding issues.




110

B5. Northern Ireland

The SWOT and Needs Assessment for Northern Ireland is based on outcomes from a stakeholder

working group held in Belfast on the 11 th June 2013. All four key ‘chapter ’ groups were represented,

and these areas are also covered at a UK level by Annex A information and by other stakeholder

engagement.

Table 30. SWOT Analysis for the Overall Fisheries Sector in Northern Ireland.

Strengths

Sustainable Fisheries1. Diversity of species, and most stocks are

healthy2. Experienced and skilled workforce, with

young entrants starting come through inthe last 2-3 years

3. Strong fishermen ’s organisations4. Ability to diversify activity within and out-

with the fishing sector5. Some capacity for further investment.

Sustainable Aquaculture1. Continuity of quality, specification and price



3. Global image: aquaculture is widely seen as

future source of seafood security4. Well trained staff5. Increasing research support for the sector.

Sustainable Fisheries Areas1. Maritime expertise in traditional skills2. Rich and varied natural coastline with


environments4. Ability to tap into tourism market5. Good port infrastructure.

Processing and Marketing1. Sustainability accreditation2. High Quality Products

Weaknesses

Sustainable Fisheries1. Mixed fisheries make MSY management

impossible2. Some stocks fished above f MSY3. Discards improving but still a problem4. High costs – primarily fuel

5. Unclear science / data.

Sustainable Aquaculture1. Vulnerability to health / disease / water

quality challenges2. Limitations on sites; offshore not proven;

need input to marine spatial planning3. Reliance on wild seed (mussel farming)4. Poor support from / understanding by

public sector policy and regulatory bodies

5. Vulnerable to negativity from media andothers: environmental; wild salmonids;food safety; feed sustainability.

Sustainable Fisheries Areas1. Lack of collaboration efforts: supply-chains

& marketing and public campaigns2. Property : High cost residential property

and lack of suitable commercial premisesnear harbours

3. Difficult to access match funding.4. High levels of deprivation and need for

regeneration in many areas5. Businesses: low rates of start-ups and

below average earnings.

Processing and Marketing1. Supply of raw materials and high

vulnerability to a limited number of species2. Cost of legislation and bureaucracy




111

3. Commitment of companies(families) 10

4. Capacity to consolidate5. Organic restructuring.

3. Seasonality of supply / matching capitalrequirements

4. High energy costs5. Low investment returns.

Opportunities

Sustainable Fisheries1. There are more opportunities for inshore

fishing2. Opportunities to maintain quality by

improved handling / systems3. Stocks can recover or be sustained4. Growing demand / need for seafood in

EU28, Asia and more widely5. Encourage improvements to marketing

organisations and collaboration in thefisheries sector to drive competitiveness,value adding and co-operation.

Sustainable Aquaculture1. Growing demand / need for seafood in

EU28 and wider; heavy dependence onseafood imports from third countries,therefore import substitution

2. R&D and innovation supports progress:new production sites; environmentalsustainability (SMILE model)

3. Integrate with marine spatial planning,

collaboration with other marine industries4. Possibility of an NI Producer Organisation

(PO) or Inter-branch Organisation (IBO)5. Improvements in predator control.

Sustainable Fisheries Areas12. Re-skilling to meet new sectoral and market

needs and capitalising on transferable skills13. Change to new income streams to maintain

harbours14. Diversification into higher value economic

sectors, including opportunities within the

marine economy focusing on matchingskills to business demand

15. Provision of facilities and infrastructure forharbour users to create new economicopportunities

16. Reimagining small harbours for alternativeuses.

Processing and Marketing

Threats

Sustainable Fisheries1. Critical mass to maintain local

infrastructure – linked to rising costs, lowerprofitability and failure to retain personnel

2. Regulation: MSY and discards ban arechallenging and possibly more costly

3. Continued stock declines, despite CFPreforms

4. Competition for resources / fishingopportunity (MPAs, renewables,macroalgae, leisure) – Marine Planning.

Sustainable Aquaculture1. New diseases emerge or are introduced by

others2. Costs of inputs rise too steeply (e.g. feed

ingredients, whether sustainable ortraditional; fuel and energy)

3. Negative publicity incidents that damageimage and investment opportunities + lackof a single voice for the NI industry

4. Water quality issues, pollution and harmfulalgal blooms.

5. Unpredictable weather events increase anddamage infrastructure.

Sustainable Fisheries Areas1. Reduced fishing opportunities leading to

loss of employment opportunities2. Processing jobs moving internationally3. Impact of global warming and non-

sustainable practices4. Poor location of offshore wind farms

5. Lack of availability of public and privatesector match funding for investment.

Processing and Marketing1. Cheap competition (e.g. prawns from Asia)2. Poor access to loan and capital funding3. Competition for space (wind farms)




112

1. Reduce energy costs through innovation:energy costs in NI are very high; industryhas a high energy demand

2. Collective purchasing (energy transportpackaging)

3. Innovative processing technology to

improve yield and productivity.4. Development of Asian markets – andmarkets in general

5. Increasing focus on healthy diets.

4. Labour competition5. Decommissioning.

Statement of Needs (Northern Ireland):

(Note: most issues as per other devolved administrations. Some specific ideas here for NI)

Sustainable FisheriesNeed inshore management and enforcement.

POs with an increased role in marketing.EMFF- gear selectivity funding / vessel improvement.Research into discard survival.

Sustainable AquacultureNeed research into the regulatory framework in NI.Need innovation in ensuring aquaculture limits its impacts on the environment, and also improvingits resilience to external environmental facts such as disease ad pollution.

Sustainable Fisheries AreasReview of Public Administration planningImproving capacity building

Complementarity of EU fundsRationalise delivery bodies (e.g. FLAGS and LAGS)




113

B6. UK FLAGS

The SWOT analysis project took advantage of an invitation from the MMO to attend and host a sub-

session at a FARNET FLAG meeting in Whitehaven on the 30 th May 2013. Whilst the main purpose of

the meeting was to discuss progress under Axis 4 of the EFF, the experience within the group was of

relevance to the consideration of Fisheries Areas under EMFF.

Table 31. SWOT Analysis from FLAG Practitioners.

Strengths

1. The UK represents a huge coastline, withgood catch of a varied range of fish species

2. Strong tourist areas are defined e.g.Cornwall

3. Diversification across the whole UK

coastline and Fishing Industry4. Entrepreneurship inherent in coastlinecommunities

5. Good educational establishments (Colleges,Universities, Centres of Excellence) linkedto Communities e.g. Newcastle University isa Centre of Excellence for Fisheries

6. The interest in the production of locallyproduced food is entrenched in UKconsumer minds.

Weaknesses

1. Quota impacts, which has a substantialimpact on the under 10 metre fleet and onCoastal Communities

2. Remoteness of Coastal Communities e.g.high transport costs of getting catch to the

market3. Difficulty for Coastal Communities tomaximise benefits of the supply chain e.g.gaining access into key markets

4. Cash flow management and obtainingaccess to investment Finance / Capital

5. Lack of business advice is variable acrossrural areas of the UK – good in Wales andNorthern Ireland but not so in England.Businesses need to change / evolve andbusiness advice needs to be tailored to theFishing Industry

6. There is an unwillingness within theIndustry to engage on Axis 4; reasons citedwere due to the complexity of form filling,disillusionment in the system, and CFP.

Opportunities

1. There is growth and interest in food acrossthe UK, in particular a demand for freshseafood

2. Getting young people into the Industry,

however this comes with a threat of howdo new entrants get access to availablequota

3. Maximising benefits for the reliability of thesupply chain, also a weakness, see below

4. Access to Financial Engineering Instrumentsto assist businesses in working capital

5. A vision is needed for the Fisheries Sectori.e. a package that addresses the inhibiting

Threats

1. Quota impacts2. Competition for space, it ’s not just for

fishing3. Protected Landscapes and Marine

Protected Zones i.e. a decline in amount ofthe available environment for fishers andcommunities. This could also be seen as anopportunity

4. High entry costs are a problem toencourage new entrants into the Industry

5. A career in fishing is perceived to bedangerous.




factors impacting the Industry e.g. Finance,Advice, Diversification

6. More funding is needed for DevelopmentOfficers

7. There is a growing market for Seafood andfor local prominence

8. Blue growth economy is a key opportunityi.e. diversification into non-food activities(offshore renewables). Benefits ofdiversification should accrue to CoastalCommunities

9. Fisheries Local Action Groups to adjust andtake advantage of CFP opportunities andthe associated impact on Communities.

Documents

SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund