Post on 06-Jul-2018
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 2/114
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:RichardSlaski@aol.com
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 3/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 4/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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.
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 5/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
5
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 6/114
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 7/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 8/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 9/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 10/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 11/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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.
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 12/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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.
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 13/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 14/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 15/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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.
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 16/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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.
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 17/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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-
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 18/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 19/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 20/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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.
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 21/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 22/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 23/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 24/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 25/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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.
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 26/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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:
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 27/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 28/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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)
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 29/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 30/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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.
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 31/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 32/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 33/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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)
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 34/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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:
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.
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 35/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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.
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 36/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 37/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 38/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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:
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.
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 39/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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/
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 40/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 41/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 42/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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:
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.
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.
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 43/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 44/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 45/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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.
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 46/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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:
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 47/114
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 48/114
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 49/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 50/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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
Source: ICES Advice2012,CEFAS
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 51/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
51
Figure 9. Fish mortality: Haddock, West of Scotland
Source: ICES Advice2012,CEFAS
Figure 10. Fish mortality: Cod, North Sea
Source: ICES Advice2012,CEFAS
Figure 11. Fish mortality: Cod, West of Scotland
Source: ICES Advice2012,CEFAS
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 52/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 53/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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.
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 54/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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.
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 55/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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%
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 56/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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.
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 57/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 58/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 59/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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
England Wales Scotland Northern Ireland
Number
Administration
Over 10m
2008 2011
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 60/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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
England Wales Scotland Northern Ireland
Power (kW
)
Administration
10m and Under
2008 2011
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
England Wales Scotland Northern Ireland
Power (kW)
Administration
Over 10m
2008 2011
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 61/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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)
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 62/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 63/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 64/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 65/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 66/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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.
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 67/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 68/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 69/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 70/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 71/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
71
Figure 20. Trout Production: total employment (full and part time)
Source: Marine Scotland
Figure 21. Smolt Production: total employment (full and part time)
Source: Marine Scotland
Figure 22. Salmon Production: total employment (full and part time)
Source: Marine Scotland
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 72/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 73/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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,
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 74/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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).
Source: Marine 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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 75/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 76/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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)
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 77/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 78/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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)
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 79/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 80/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 81/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 82/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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.
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 83/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 84/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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.
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 85/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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.
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 86/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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.
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 87/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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.
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 88/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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).
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 89/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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,
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 90/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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.
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 91/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 92/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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).
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 93/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 94/114
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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.
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 95/114
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 96/114
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.
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 97/114
DRAFT EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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
of supplies - the ability to plan predictableproduction
2. Well regulated + traceability (assuredquality)
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
Sustainable Fisheries
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.
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 98/114
DRAFT EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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.
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 99/114
DRAFT EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 100/114
DRAFT EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 101/114
DRAFT EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 102/114
DRAFT EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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.
Sustainable Aquaculture
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 103/114
DRAFT EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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
deters the number of projects that canmake a significant impact
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 104/114
DRAFT EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
104
12. Support for energy reduction initiativesExport guarantees.
Zero discard policy may change fishavailability profile.
Statement of Needs (Scotland):
Sustainable Fisheries
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 105/114
DRAFT EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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/
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 106/114
DRAFT EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
106
· Support for independently assessed fishery certification· Staff training in emerging quality / environmental health issues.
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 107/114
DRAFT EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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
excellent wildlife and scenery2. Quality marine wildlife, bio-diversity and
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 108/114
DRAFT EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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
deters the number of projects that canmake a significant impact
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.
Sustainable Aquaculture
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 109/114
DRAFT EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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.
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 110/114
DRAFT EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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
of supplies - the ability to plan predictableproduction
2. Well regulated + traceability (assuredquality)
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
excellent wildlife and scenery3. Quality marine wildlife, bio-diversity and
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
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 111/114
DRAFT EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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)
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 112/114
DRAFT EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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)
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 113/114
DRAFT EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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.
8/17/2019 SWOT Analysis European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swot-analysis-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund 114/114
DRAFT EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT
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.