EMFF 2014-2020 UK SWOT and Needs Assessment

European Maritime
and Fisheries Fund

(EMFF) 2014 - 2020
United Kingdom SWOT
and Needs Assessment
Analysis
July 2013
EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
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 Epsilon
Resource Management.
Sponsors
This report has been sponsored by the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra), Marine
Scotland and the Marine Management Organisation (MMO), and supported by the European Fisheries
Fund.
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this report are entirely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect
the view of the sponsor organisations, and the sponsor organisations are not liable for the accuracy
of 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 as
individuals or as Epsilon Resource Management, cannot be held responsible for any consequences
arising from the use of this report. Opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and
consultees.
Acknowledgments
Epsilon Resource Management would like to thank the following for their guidance and invaluable
contributions 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).
Epsilon Resource Management Limited, Briarlea Holmhead, Auldgirth, Dumfries DG2 0XL, Tel: 01387 740098, Email:
RichardSlaski@aol.com
CONTENTS
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... 4
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
Background .............................................................................................................................. 6
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 6
Objectives of the EMFF ....................................................................................................... 8
EMFF Title V Chapter Headings ........................................................................................... 8
Measures under Direct Management................................................................................ 10
Links between the CSF and the EMFF Programme ............................................................. 10
Other Strategies and Directives......................................................................................... 13
Linking with Other Activities and Processes ...................................................................... 13
Key Principles of SWOT Analysis........................................................................................ 14
2.1
2.2
EMFF Baseline and SWOT Methodology ................................................................................. 16

Baseline Review and UK Fisheries Sector Overview ........................................................... 16
SWOT Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................ 18
2.
3.
Overarching SWOT for the UKs 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 Shared
Management ......................................................................................................................... 43
Annex A: EMFF UK Baseline Review 2013 ........................................................................................ 46

A1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 46
A2. Objectives of EMFF ........................................................................................................... 46
A3. Priorities of EMFF (Danish Presidency compromise text)................................................... 46
A4. Sustainable Development of Fisheries............................................................................... 48
A5. Sustainable Development of Aquaculture ......................................................................... 67
A5.2
Production volume and values .................................................................................. 69
A6. Sustainable Development of Fisheries Areas ..................................................................... 76
A7. Marketing and Processing Related Measures .................................................................... 79
A8. Accompanying Measures for the Common Fisheries Policy under Shared Management ... 82
A9. Other Marine Industry Sectors .......................................................................................... 94
Annex B: Devolved Administration SWOT Analyses .......................................................................... 95
B1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 95
B2. England ............................................................................................................................ 97
B3. Scotland ........................................................................................................................... 99
B4. Wales ............................................................................................................................. 107
B5. Northern Ireland ............................................................................................................. 110
B6. UK FLAGS........................................................................................................................ 113
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 Unions (EU) Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and Integrated
Maritime Policy (IMP), and also from the perspective of where the EMFF fits into the European
Commissions (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 Commissions 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
EUs total production, respectively, since the mid 2000s
As with all EU Member States, CFP reform and regional management are key initiatives that
EMFF will support, as the UKs 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.
4
Background
1.1
Introduction
The current EU structural fund for the fisheries2 sector, the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) is likely to
close for new applications at the end of 2013. Work is already underway within the Commission and
amongst Member States (MS) to prepare for its successor, the EMFF3. Simplification and better
cohesion between all the so-called Common Strategic Framework (CSF) funds4 is seen as an essential
part of achieving the Europe 2020 strategy5. These funds are also referred to as the European
Structural and Investment Funds (ESI)6.
The CSF funds include: the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund
(ESF), the Cohesion Fund (CF), the EMFF, and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development
(EAFRD).
The CSF has four broad themes:
Multi-fund Approach better co-ordination and alignment between funds (ESF, ERDF, EAFRD
and EMFF) to ensure a more joined up approach to achieving the thematic objectives.
An integrated approach and partnership working - done at a strategic level through the
Partnership Contract/Agreement but also at a local/regional level through community led local
developments, Joint Action Plans and Integrated Territorial Investments.
Simplification through common provisions covering the four funds, particularly around the
management and control systems.
Harmonisation of eligibility rules and an extension of simplified cost options.
The Commission has produced various guidance documents for MS in terms of preparing for
(programming) the EMFF, including:
Draft template and guidelines on the content of the EMFF operational programme 2014-2020
Guidelines for the Ex-Ante Evaluation of 2014-2020 EMFF OPs7
For the avoidance of doubt, this report commonly uses the term fisheries to denote all parts of the industry: commercial
fisheries, aquaculture and processing. The terms may change on some occasions as a matter of emphasis or for increased
clarity.
3 See for example: ec.europa.eu/esf/BlobServlet?docId=233&langId=en
4
http://cor.europa.eu/en/news/forums/Pages/forum-common-strategic-framework.aspx
5
http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm
6 See for example: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/development-of-eu-structural-and-investment-fund-strategiespreliminary-guidance-to-local-enterprise-partnerships
2
7http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/reform/emff/emff-guidelines-for-ex-ante-evaluation_en.pdf

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

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

(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 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:
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 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
CHAPTER II Sustainable development of aquaculture

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
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 development
Article 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 measures
Article 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 UKs
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
10

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 innovation
2. 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 mobility
9. 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 readacross to many of the other objectives from a modern and innovative fisheries and aquaculture
sector.
11
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.
12

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 Directive9
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive10
The Habitats Directive11
Horizon 2020 and specifically the Adaptation Strategy package related to climate change12
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 programmes 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
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/marine/directive_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/
12 http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/adaptation/what/docs/com_2013_216_en.pdf
10
11
13

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 competent
regional, 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, the
Managing 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 environment13. SWOT is
commonly used as part of strategic planning and looks at:
13
Internal strengths
Internal weaknesses
Opportunities in the external environment
Threats in the external environment
See for example: http://www.tutor2u.net/business/strategy/SWOT_analysis.htm
14
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.
15
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.
16

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 201114.
Within the UKs 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-
17
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
18
A Stakeholder Group was established by Marine Scotland, and initially met on 18th 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
Opportunities for EMFF projects to collaborate with other CSF programmes summer
2012
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
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
A Stakeholder Group Workshop to consider both the emerging baseline review and the
initial approaches to formulating the EMFF SWOT analysis 18th January 2013
Written consultation with the Stakeholder Group in relation to EMFF SWOT February
2013
Background UK baseline statistics and devolved administration policies / issue analysis

May 2013
Consultation with UK FLAG organisations May 2013
Stakeholder workshops in Wales, England and Northern Ireland May and June 2013
Consultation on draft UK SWOT and Needs Assessment with devolved administrations

and heads of all teams relevant to the fisheries sector June / July 2013
Stakeholder consultation in Scotland July 2013
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
19

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.
20
3.
Overarching SWOT for the UKs 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 innovation
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 mobility
9 Promoting social inclusion and combating poverty
10 Investing in education, skills and lifelong learning
Table 3. SWOT Analysis for the Overall Fisheries Sector in the UK Not Ranked.
Strengths
Weaknesses
1. The UK has the longest coastline in Europe,

and produces a consistently (over time)
significant percentage of EU28s
commercial fisheries (11%) and aquaculture
(14%) output
2. UK purchases of seafood were worth 5.6
billion in 2011
3. Diversity of commercial species, many of
which are being fished at sustainable levels
with strong industry commitment to
recovery, and good profitability in some
sectors, although not in others
4. Experienced, flexible and adaptable
workforce in fishing, with young entrants
starting come through in the last 2-3 years
in some areas
5. There is capacity for capital investment /
growth in parts of the fishing and
aquaculture sectors
6. Willingness to consider diversification
within and out-with the fishing sector
7. Aquaculture delivers continuity of quality,
specification and price of supplies - the
ability to plan predictable production
1. Mixed fisheries make MSY management

difficult or impossible (a view from some
industry stakeholders)
2. Economic difficulties are being faced by
some parts of the fleet
3. There is a perception of overcapacity in
some sections of the fleet, although this
may be largely incorrect / doubtful over
different years, as fisheries stocks vary
4. The UK has an aging fleet, with fuel
inefficiencies
5. High costs in fisheries primarily fuel, but
also 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 new
production opportunities and sites
7. A perception of poor support from /
understanding by some public sector policy
and regulatory bodies with respect to
aquaculture variable regionally in the UK
8. Aquaculture is vulnerable to health /
disease / water quality challenges, as with
other animal protein production sectors
21

8. Good profitability and increasing
productivity in some aquaculture sectors
9. Global image and expectations: aquaculture
is widely seen as the main future source of
seafood security, as long as it can continue
to develop sustainably
10. Aquaculture has technically innovative, well
trained staff
11. Fisheries areas are located along a rich and
varied coastline, with many having
attractive towns and harbours, and rich and
varied natural coastline with excellent
wildlife and scenery / quality marine
wildlife, bio-diversity and environments
12. Strong entrepreneurship and self-reliance is
inherent in coastline communities
13. There is a strong international reputation in
some UK processing companies, and they
are increasingly providing high quality,
certified and traceable products to the UK
seafood market
14. The processing companies are technically
innovative, and there is further capacity for
the sector to modernise and consolidate.
Opportunities
1. There is a growing demand / need for
seafood in EU28 and in other key markets
such as Russia, India and China which can
take production from UK fisheries and UK
aquaculture
2. The vision for commercial fisheries is that it
can transition into a sector that can
sustainably supply the market, making use
of improved management through CFP
reform and other measures, based upon
good science, good regulations and upon
the inherent capacity of the marine
ecosystem to recover
3. Innovation and support, via EMFF, can
assist that transition including technical,
cost-reduction, value-adding and supply
chain efficiency developments
4. Diversification opportunities, both within
the fisheries industries and out-with the
industry, are seen as important
5. There may be more capacity to further
develop sustainable and well-managed
inshore fisheries
9. Economic challenges for some parts of the

aquaculture sector, therefore difficult to
obtain funding (e.g. match funding for
EMFF), including working capital
10. Fisheries areas face a decline of traditional
fishing industries and skills retention, an
ageing population, and residents tending to
out-migrate for work
11. Fisheries areas tend to be (but not always)
quite distant from markets and other
opportunities, and costs are high
12. There are challenges finding match-funding
for fisheries grants
13. The processing sector continues to include
a small number of large multi-unit
businesses, and a larger number of small,
single unit businesses
14. Costs are high in processing, especially
energy
15. The processing sector is dependent on
affordable and (locally / regionally)
available raw materials
16. The supply chain and transport logistics can
be difficult for some parts of the processing
sector, and transport costs can be
significant in some regions.
Threats
1. Stock declines are only a feature in some
sectors of commercial fisheries, but in
overall terms the UKs commercial fisheries
have declined 2.6% per annum on average
since 2004 (based on FAO statistics and
rolling 5-year averages). The threat is that
despite CFP reform and many other
measures, overall catches continue to
decline: the impact will be felt somewhere
within the sector
2. Costs could continue to increase faster than
prices increase, leading to decreased
profitability in the commercial fisheries
sector and equally applicable to
aquaculture
3. MSY targets and discard bans could prove
to be overly costly for parts of the UK
commercial fisheries, affecting profitability
and therefore economic sustainability
4. In the medium and longer terms,
competition for space in the marine
environment and climate change effects
could impair fishing opportunities for UK
vessels
22

6. The primary route for aquaculture
development in the UK relates to new
production opportunities and technologies
especially more exposed sites in the
marine environment. This requires coordinated support from regulatory
organisations
7. Working capital is a serious issue for SME
aquaculture businesses (compared with
fisheries), and the prospect of support via
EMFF financial engineering would help
unblock this constraint, i.e. is an
opportunity
8. Co-location with (or diversification into)
other marine industries is a potential route
forward for UK aquaculture businesses
9. High quality research can help unblock
constraints for UK aquaculture and in the
general development of a marine agronomy
10. Fisheries areas will benefit from stability /
profitability / growth in the commercial
fisheries (and to a degree aquaculture)
sectors
11. Beyond that, fisheries areas will benefit
from investment in other sector
development, including tourism
12. Fisheries areas can also be proactive in reskilling of workforces, and in investment in
facilities to support fisheries and nonfisheries developments.
5. The economic climate in market nations

could reduce sales prices for UK fisheries,
aquaculture and processed products
6. Beyond cost increases and price declines
(see above), the greatest immediate threat
to all parts of UK aquaculture is from
diseases, parasites, invasive non-native
species, and human health issues such as
norovirus
7. Growth in UK aquaculture production is
threatened by a) lack of technical
innovations allowing new profitable
business opportunities to be developed /
exploited, b) lack of policy and regulatory
support for (and understanding of) the
sector and its requirements, and c) lack of
investment capacity, especially for loan
capital
8. Fisheries areas, because of their very
nature, are subject to the threats that apply
to the fisheries and aquaculture sectors
9. Fisheries areas are geographically
widespread and some of them are
relatively isolated: increasing costs for
transport would be a threat
10. Processing is also challenged by threats
relevant to UK commercial fisheries and
aquaculture, but in addition is subject to
additional external threats such as cheaper
imports of processed seafood and
cheaper alternative proteins
11. Additional regulatory burdens may add to
costs.
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
23

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 resilience
begin 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 the
industry 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 and
collaborative 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
24
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 UKs 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.
25
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:

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.
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;
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 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:
26

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
sectors 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 UKs 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
Weaknesses
1. There is good fisheries science available to

the UK
2. There is a diversity of species, many of
which are being fished at sustainable levels
with strong industry commitment to
recovery
3. The UK has an experienced, flexible and
adaptable workforce, with young entrants
starting come through in the last 2-3 years
in some areas
4. Good heritage and good image
5. There is capacity to fully exploit available
resources
6. Some sectors are profitable pelagic,
scallop, some creelers
1. Economic difficulties faced by some parts of

the fleet
2. Diversity of species may itself be a
weakness, as under present management
rules, quota may not exist or equal the
opportunity
3. Data gaps exist, with science and resource
limitations and therefore potential
management challenges
4. By-catch and discards are improving but are
still a challenge
difficult or impossible (a view from some
industry stakeholders)
6. Some stocks are fished above fMSY or are
in decline or under threat
27

7. Some regional fisheries are quite targeted
not a real problem with by-catch
8. Strong fishermens organisations exist
9. An ability to collaborate for funding
10. Some capacity for capital investment
remains
11. A willingness to consider diversification
within and out-with the fishing sector.
7. A perception of overcapacity in some

sections of the fleet, although this may be
challenged in different sectors and over
different years, as fisheries stocks vary
8. Aging fleet, fuel inefficiencies
9. High costs primarily fuel, but also vessel
costs, days at sea, quota leasing costs
10. Aging crews and therefore crew retention
concerns
11. Under-resourced inshore fisheries
management and enforcement
12. A fragmented sector in some areas
13. Poor record on health and safety
14. Lack of confidence for industry to invest
15. Poor co-ordination and ability to build on
image, heritage and new opportunities.
Opportunities
Threats
1. Innovation, pilot trials and incentives to

adopt new gear (linked to discard reduction
and MSY)
2. Transition to sustainable fisheries and the
delivery of CFP targets on MSY and the
discarding of fish
3. Stocks have an inherent capacity to recover
and flourish, and good fisheries
management can assist this
4. Growing demand / need for seafood in
EU28 and more widely, especially Russia,
India, China etc.
5. Encourage improvements to marketing
organisations in the fisheries sector to drive
competitiveness, value adding and cooperation
6. Support opportunities which use
established and emerging marine
knowledge to diversify into emerging
sectors
7. More opportunities for inshore fisheries
for some segments of the industry
8. Marketing / processing locally
9. Broader engagement in data collection and
collaboration with scientists: CFP research,
MPA management, and the general
restoration of marine biodiversity and
ecosystems
10. Good marine science base in some regions
underutilised by the fisheries sector
currently
1. Critical mass to maintain local

infrastructure linked to rising costs, lower
profitability and failure to retain personnel
2. Continued stock declines, despite CFP
reforms only a problem in some segments
or areas
3. Difficulty for new entrants to obtain quota,
track record, etc.
4. Costs increase: fuel, but also leasing, both
of days and quota. New costs associated
with discard reduction
5. Long term impact of climate change
6. Negative publicity: impact on markets,
additional pressure on regulators for more
action
7. Market prices are declining (impact of large
multiple or continental buyers is cited)
8. Perception of competition for resources,
lack of sufficient involvement in marine
planning (MPAs, renewables, macroalgae,
leisure)
9. Vulnerable business model in some areas
reliance on few species and few market
niches
10. Regulation: MSY and discards ban are
challenging and possibly more costly. Mixed
fisheries will encounter large problems in
the search for MSY
11. Too much diversification risks loss of
experience from the workforce
12. Austerity measures affect ability to matchfund EMFF (whether public or private)
28

11. Knowledge transfer / exchange within the
industry
12. Investing in renewable resources; selfmanagement; closed areas; seasons, etc.
13. Use of IT linked to improved marketing
collaboration and value-adding: better
supply chain communications
14. Opportunities to maintain quality by
improved handling / systems
15. Diversification into other species, but also
other business sectors.
13. Poor management of change (e.g. discard

ban)
14. Sloping playing field compared to other EU
MS, 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
29
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.
30
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 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
31

continued sustainable growth of aquaculture. It is one of Scotlands key food production sectors and
helps to underpin sustainable economic growth particularly in Scotlands rural and coastal
communities and has significant potential to contribute further, investing to provide quality and
secure jobs. Scotlands draft Marine Plan makes explicit provision for aquaculture expansion with
the ambition of increasing marine finish production sustainably to 210,000 tonnes (159,269 tonnes
in 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 Scotlands 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 innovative
capability 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, 200816).
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 markets17 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. 9
16
http://www.easonline.org/files/JRC%20EmergingAquacultureSystems_II.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/market/com/index_en.htm
17
32

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. It should be noted that aquaculture
has 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.
Strengths
Weaknesses
1. Continuity of quality, specification and price

of supplies - the ability to plan predictable
production
2. Environmental footprint is low compared
with some other food production
3. Well regulated + traceability (assured
quality)
4. Global image: aquaculture is widely seen as
future source of seafood security
5. Technically innovative, well trained staff
6. Large companies in some areas, ability to
invest but limited to some parts of the
sector
7. Increasing research support for the sector
(Marine Scotland, Technology Strategy
Board, Scottish Funding Council, Scottish
Aquaculture Research Forum, Natural
Environment Research Council, etc.):
research to provide solutions to remaining
or new sustainability issues
8. The industry in Scotland has clear growth
targets to 2020, supported by Scottish
Ministers, which are attainable and
sustainable - with the right level of public
sector encouragement.
1. Lack of collaboration; no Producer

Organisation in some areas
sector, therefore difficult to obtain funding
(including match funding for EMFF)
3. Vulnerability to health / disease / water
quality challenges
4. Limitations on sites; offshore not proven;
need input to marine spatial planning
5. Industry perception of a lack of capacity
building by government, and unresponsive
planning / regulatory system, with limited
understanding of the key issues / needs of
the sector
6. Ability to access new medicines is restricted
due to the scale of the industry and high
development costs
7. Ability to meet future demand due to slow
rate of industry growth v. increasing
demand for seafood
8. Reliance on wild seed (mainly mussel
farming)
9. SME rule is a strategic weakness for the UK
10. Vulnerable to negativity from media and
others: environmental; wild salmonids;
food safety; feed sustainability.
Opportunities
Threats
1. Possibility of devolved administration

Producer Organisation (PO) or Inter-branch
Organisation (IBO
1. Costs of inputs rise too steeply (e.g. feed

ingredients, whether sustainable or
traditional; fuel and energy)
33

EU28 and wider; heavy dependence on
seafood imports from third countries,
therefore import substitution
3. Collaboration with other marine industries
(co-location; aquaculture in MPAs)
4. Diversification opportunities: IMTA; marine
renewables; marine agronomy
5. Potential for new species with national
provenance, e.g. charr
6. Blue bio-tech
7. R&D and innovation supports progress:
health; containment; feed sustainability
8. New technologies open up new production
opportunities (e.g. more exposed sites;
better seed supply; more environmentally
friendly juvenile production)
9. Collaboration with other marine industries,
e.g. using fishing sector skills in more
exposed locations and possible synergies
with renewables sector
10. Diversification prospects shellfish;
integrated multi-trophic aquaculture;
marine renewables, marine bio-fuels
11. World-leading expertise offers knowledge
export potential from industry and from
UKs academic institutions
12. Improvements in predator control.
2. Low-cost 3rd country imports distort market

opportunities
3. New diseases emerge or are introduced by
others; non-native species
4. Water quality issues, pollution and harmful
algal blooms
5. Negative publicity incidents that damage
image and investment opportunities
6. Unpredictable weather events increase and
damage infrastructure
7. Industry perception that there is slow,
unpredictable or over-burdensome
licensing and regulation, which discourages
investment: over use of precaution by
regulators unfamiliar with implications of
aquaculture. Resistance to change
8. Continuing exclusion of larger companies
from EMFF may stifle innovation,
development and investment
9. Norovirus: human health, understanding;
lack of science; monitoring
10. High start-up costs and performance of
MMO and EMFF delivery teams.
Statement of Needs:
UK aquaculture will continue to grow, particularly in Scotland in the first instance, but quite
possibly across other parts of the UK if new initiatives are supported. Such growth will contribute
to the needs of EU28 for sustainable seafood supplies to 2020 and beyond. Growth will be
facilitated by:
Innovation and research into reducing potential impacts on other sectors, e.g. sea lice and
escapes with respect to wild salmonids; use of licensed therapeutants; interaction with
predatory species
Constant innovation in development of sustainable (sometimes non-traditional) raw material

sources for fed aquaculture species
34
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.
35
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 Ranked
Strengths
Weaknesses
1. The UK has an extensive coastline, with
good catches of a varied range of fish
species
2. Rich and varied natural coastline with
excellent wildlife and scenery / quality
marine wildlife, bio-diversity and
environments
1. Decline of traditional fishing industries and

skills 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 the
market
36

3. Maritime expertise in traditional skills
4. Strong tourist areas are defined e.g.
Cornwall
5. Entrepreneurship inherent in coastline
communities
6. Good educational establishments (Colleges,
Universities, Centres of Excellence) linked
to Communities e.g. Newcastle University is
a Centre of Excellence for Fisheries
7. The interest in the production of locally
produced food is entrenched in UK
consumer minds.
8. Good port infrastructure
9. Attractive towns and harbours for tourism
and residential use (in some areas)
10. Strong maritime and cultural heritage.
3. Difficulty for Coastal Communities to

maximise 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 is
difficult
6. Lack of business advice is variable across
rural areas of the UK. Businesses need to
change / evolve and business advice needs
to be tailored to the Fishing Industry
7. There is an unwillingness within the
Industry to engage on Axis 4; reasons cited
were due to the complexity of form filling,
belief that EMFF monies should support
only the fishing sector itself disillusionment
in the system, and CFP
8. Tendency for parochialism and / or
community apathy
9. Lack of local awareness of local assets and
limited exploitation of coastal assets
10. Property: high cost residential property and
lack of suitable commercial premises near
harbours
11. Difficult to access match funding.
12. High levels of deprivation and need for
regeneration in many areas
13. Businesses: low rates of start-ups and
below average earnings
14. Lack of focus on niche markets.
Opportunities
Threats
1. There is growth and interest in food across

the UK, in particular a demand for fresh
seafood of local provenance
2. Getting young people into the Industry,
however this comes with a threat of how
do new entrants get access to available
quota
3. Skills development, modern
apprenticeships and re-skilling to meet new
sectoral and market needs and capitalising
on transferable skills whilst maintaining
traditional skills
4. Maximising benefits for the reliability of the
supply chain, also a weakness
5. Access to Financial Engineering Instruments
to assist businesses in working capital
6. A vision is needed for the Fisheries Sector
i.e. a package that addresses the inhibiting
1. Quota impacts
2. Increasing transport costs impacts
profitability of local economy given
distance to main markets
3. Protected Landscapes and Marine
Protected Zones i.e. a decline in amount of
the available environment for fishers and
communities. (This could also be seen as an
opportunity)
4. Higher entry costs in the future may
discourage new entrants into the Industry
5. Reduced fishing opportunities leading to
loss of employment opportunities - loss of
local services, infrastructure and employers
6. Processing jobs moving internationally
7. Impact of global warming and nonsustainable practices
8. Poor location of offshore wind farms
37
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
factors impacting the Industry e.g. Finance,

Advice, Diversification
Blue growth economy is a key opportunity
i.e. diversification into non-food activities
(offshore renewables). Benefits of
diversification should accrue to Coastal
Communities
Fisheries Local Action Groups to adjust and
take advantage of CFP opportunities and
the associated impact on Communities
Change to new income streams to maintain
/ develop harbours: higher value economic
sectors, including opportunities within the
marine economy focusing on matching
skills to business demand
Reimagining small harbours for alternative
uses
Public campaigns related to the maritime
economy, new niche markets and area
identity and USPs.
9. Lack of availability of public and private

sector match funding for investment
10. EU Referendum
11. Small scale nature of funding available
deters the number of projects that can
make a significant impact
12. Competition for land (for development),
labour (workforce) and capital (finance for
investment) from other sectors. [This is a
threat for the fisheries aspect, but not
necessarily for the areas]
13. An increasing mis-match between
community aspirations and private and
public sector capacity and resources.
Statement of Needs:
UK fisheries areas are potentially threatened by a reduction in the scale of the commercial
catching sector, yet remain vital for the provision of infrastructure, support services and the
workforce for the (sustainable) catching sector that remains. These communities are also vital in
their own right, yet are often located in remote coastal / rural areas where there has traditionally
been little other source of primary employment. Key needs are:
Ensuring access to match funding and co-finance
Clarify issues on complementarity of EU funds
Developing high quality local action plans
Support to provide professional input to FLAGs (Fisheries Local Action Groups)
Look for opportunities to merge FLAGs with LAGs, where appropriate and where efficiency
can be demonstrated
Investment in training and re-skilling
Infrastructure investment to create new economic opportunities capacity building
There will be multi-use infrastructure, training, education, natural heritage, cultural heritage
and tourism aspects to FLAG projects ensure that mechanisms exist to actively collaborate
38

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 and
developed
Define clear eligibility criteria for fisheries areas EMFF projects, in order to avoid case-bycase interventions by devolved administration Grants Team (refer to FARNET resource18).
18
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/cms/farnet/
39
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Strong international reputation for some

UK companies
Commitment of companies (families)
Technical skills and ability to innovate in
parts of the sector
Ongoing trend in improving skills and best
practices
Increasing trend towards sustainability and
traceability credentials certification /
accreditation
Weaknesses
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Continuity of supply; dependence on

seafood raw material supplies
Size of fish landed and limited outlets for
some products, e.g. small haddock
Supply of raw materials and high
vulnerability to a limited number of species
Transport infrastructure difficult in some
areas
Capacity issues for one species or another,
in different parts of the country
40

Seafood trade is increasingly global: the
ability to source from fishing, farming &
global imports but some caveats on
global competition
7. The capacity to consolidate and modernise
still exists
8. Good business support (SFIA, Seafood
Scotland, SDI, SE, HIE, SAOS, Scotland Food
& Drink, etc.).
6.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Apparent complexity of the organisational

structure within the fishing and fish
processing industry: there is rarely clarity of
communication between catcher and
processor (in wild fish) on the quantity,
quality and timing of stock that will be
landed when it is due for the open market
Logistics often uneconomic for small
processors to target small customers, and
smaller operators increasingly under
economic/structural pressures
Physical presence of the industry ranging
from large industrial units reaching their
waste maximum to tiny small businesses in
ramshackle premises scheduled for
redevelopment
Traffic congestion for deliveries and
despatch, conflict with retail and office
workers
Cost of complying with legislation
Business support not always optimal.
Seasonality of supply / matching capital
requirements
High energy costs
Low investment returns.
Opportunities
Threats
1. Innovative processing technology to

improve yield and productivity and reduce
costs (especially energy)
2. Promotion of regional Seafood Industry to
raise awareness of Local Wild Seafood
quality labels and assurance schemes
3. Supply chain improvements efficiency,
environmental footprint, knowledge about
products, driving competitiveness, value
adding and co-operation
4. Competition with other proteins if grain
prices rise
5. Development of new markets: China, India,
Russia, etc.
6. Additional supplies as a result of zero
discard rules, increases in aquaculture
7. Increasing focus on healthy diets
8. The food service sector as it starts to
rationalise
9. Shared premises to reduce overheads
10. Business Partnerships to offer range of
products
11. Training to assist companies comply with
EHO and exporting administration; training
1.
Cheap competition/other proteins

including cheaper imports of processed
seafood
2. Quota: traders displacing fish from UK; fish
quota transferred to large companies; large
companies controlling supply chain
3. Declining EU markets; state of the economy
in key market countries
4. More fixed weight products
5. Loans/ access to working capital become
more difficult
6. Competition for labour from other sectors
in some areas
7. Major suppliers of, for example, boxes,
transport and other supporting services
withdrawing from industry
8. Less processors and capacity
9. EU28 production (fishing and farming) not
keeping pace with demand, and raw
material imports from 3rd countries possibly
becoming more difficult / expensive
10. Increasing environmental costs / regulation
11. Food scares, resulting in image issues for
seafood
41

in areas such as quality, technology,
marketing.
12. Organic restructuring
13. Support for energy reduction initiatives
14. Collective purchasing (energy, transport,
packaging)
Zero discard policy may change fish

availability profile
13. Decommissioning.
12.
Statement of Needs:
Processing and marketing of UK-origin fisheries and aquaculture products is an essential

component of the seafood supply chain, from port to plate, and adds value and maintains
employment and economic activity in the UK. Continuity of operations also requires the ability to
access 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)
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.
42
8.
SWOT Analysis for Accompanying Measures for the Common Fisheries

Policy 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 studys 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.
Strengths
Weaknesses
Good tradition of high quality fisheries

science and data collection in UK
2. UK Government, its science advisers and its
policy makers have a reputation for
innovation and a keen understanding of the
1.
1.
19
The regional UK industry is dependent on

the Westminster Government for
leadership in negotiations with Brussels
and for setting at least some of the
parameters for domestic fisheries
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/329048/0106408.pdf
43
3.
4.
5.
6.
role the fishing sector plays in the UK

economy and way of life
Good examples of collaboration between
fishers and regulators in UK, e.g. real time
closures
Well-staffed and well-equipped regulatory /
inspection bodies in UK
World class fisheries science capability:
CEFAS, MSS
Establishment of collaborative bodies.
Opportunities
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Regional fisheries management, as

foreseen in CFP reform (RFOs), should
benefit UK commercial fisheries
Integrate scientific knowledge with the
fishers ecological knowledge in an
acceptable way, taking into account risk
assessment, integrated management
principles, and ecosystem- based
considerations
An integrated network of Marine
Conservation Zones by 2013
Maximum sustainable yield (MSY) for all
major commercial fisheries by 2015
Good environmental status for all
European seas by 2020.
2.
3.
4.
management which may be a weakness

for the regions
Uncertainty about the validity of scientific
advice on the part of fishers
Difficulties in implementing MSY approach
to some mixed fisheries
Difficult to fund inshore fisheries data
collection / science / management: an
important but fragmented sector.
Threats
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Availability of public expenditure to fund

reforms, data collection and management /
enforcement
Uncertainty about economic sustainability
issues (see SWOT for commercial fishing
sector) places risk on industrys ability /
willingness to collaborate on data collection
and with new management regimes
Continuing lack of agreement between
fishers and public sector scientists with
respects to fisheries management
requirements
Lack of acceptance of benefits / necessity
of spatial restrictions (e.g. MPA,
renewables, etc.) by fishers creating
tensions and undermining collaborative
efforts
A move towards a low F fishery to ensure
sustainable fishing and the possibility of
increased fishing opportunities in future
will have major consequences for current
levels of fishing activity across a large range
of commercial fisheries in UK waters
Developing tensions between traditional
fisheries science and emerging ecological
approach science; difficulties in
interpreting 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
44
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.
45
Annex A: EMFF UK Baseline Review 2013

A1.
Introduction
This baseline review provides a high level overview, based on the available statistical information, of
UKs 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:
46

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 efficient
aquaculture
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
transfer
b. 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
47
EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT

A4.
Sustainable Development of Fisheries
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 the
early 1990s to 45% in 2011.
The total allowable catch limits for the great majority of the fish stocks of key
importance 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 some
notable exceptions
Though significant progress has been made on reducing discards we are still some
distance 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 fluctuated
considerably over the last 50 years although landings of the species have increased
compared to 1960.
A large number of vessels in the UK fleet are quite old. Older vessels tend to be less
efficient at catching and have higher repair and maintenance costs. There is a negative
relationship between operating profit and vessel age. Profitability is such that, for many
segments, 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 have
risen in recent years, at least for some segments
Prices for key demersal and pelagic species have risen in real terms over the past decade
whereas shellfish prices have changed less
Productivity of the fleet appears to have increased overall although some segments may
have 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 require
a 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
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 United
Kingdom.
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
48

(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 reproductive
capacity 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
49

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
Fishing Mortality
0.50
Flim
Fpa
F(ages 4-8)
0.40
FMSY
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
1972
1977
1982
1987
1992
1997
2002
2007
Source: ICES Advice2012,CEFAS
Figure 8. Fish mortality: Haddock, North Sea

1.4
Fishing Mortality
1.2
Flim
Fpa
FMSY
F(ages 2-4)
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008
50
Figure 9. Fish mortality: Haddock, West of Scotland
Fishing Mortality
1.2
Fpa
FMSY
1.0
F(ages 2-6)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1978
1983
1988
1993
1998
2003
2008

Figure 10. Fish mortality: Cod, North Sea
Fmsy
Fpa
Flim
Fishing Mortality
1.2
1
F (ages 2-4)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008
Figure 11. Fish mortality: Cod, West of Scotland

Flim
Fpa
Fmsy
Fishing Mortality
1.8
1.6
1.4
F (ages 2-5)
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1981
1987
1993
1999
2005
2011
51
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 fuel
for 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
Mobile
Static
Total
0-6 miles
0.25
0.11
0.19
6-12
miles
0.35
0.18
0.30
>12 miles
0.23
0.13
0.21
Offshore
0.23
0.14
0.22
All areas
0.24
0.12
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 selected
fleet segments
Year NS Nephrops
WS Nephrops
Pots and Traps
NSWOS Demersal
2008
1,081
483
386
1,907
2009
1,118
464
286
2,423
2010
1,171
470
282
2,051
Source: Seafish
20
Data on fuel use is from Seafish 2011
52
Table 11. Average Fuel Consumed: Litres per tonne landed per vessel for selected
fleet segments
Year NS Nephrops
WS Nephrops
Pots and Traps
NSWOS Demersal
2008
1,282
1,278
1,324
1,111
2009
1,362
1,237
1,178
1,152
2010
1,511
1,262
1,255
1,098
Source: 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.
53

Table 12. Estimated discard rates (% of total catch weight discarded) by English metier and
area for 2009.
Area
Metier
4&7d
7a
7e
7fgh
Beam_trawl_DEF_o10m
32
35
Gill_Trammel_nets_o10m
25
15
Gill_Trammel_nets_u10m
15
8
5
Nephrops_trawl_o10m
39
57
Nephrops_trawl_u10m
26
66
Otter_trawl_o10m
6
38
34
Otter_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
fishermens 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.
54

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.
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Cod
TR1
9%
11%
12%
15%
43%
63%
41%
25%
20%
TR2
40%
30%
39%
51%
78%
67%
74%
70%
80%
Haddock
TR1
38%
20%
9%
18%
38%
21%
13%
14%
16%
TR2
56%
41%
36%
71%
85%
70%
64%
68%
72%
Whiting
TR1
42%
45%
29%
17%
19%
20%
21%
30%
13%
TR2
77%
72%
70%
61%
43%
57%
35%
68%
65%
55
Table 14. West of Scotland: discards as % of total catch Scottish vessels.

Cod
Haddock
Whiting
TR1
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).
Number sampled
trips
Mean discarded by weight (%)
Discard Range %
Cod
100-119
120+
70-99
2
12
43
13.59
4.53
20.18
0 - 27.18
0 - 21.79
0 - 100
Haddock
100-119
120+
70-99
2
12
33
0.31
2.68
9.80
0 - 0.62
0.29 - 7.44
0 - 100
Plaice
100-119
120+
70-99
3
12
47
17.34
23.05
56.24
0 - 34.59
1.81 - 51.91
0 - 100
1
2
36
0.00
0.59
14.93
0
0 - 1.84
0 - 100
Species
Sole
100-119
120+
70-99
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.
56
Figure 12. Landings Quantity into England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland by UK
vessels: 2007 to 2011.
Source: Based on MMO tables 3.2 a-d

http://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 fleet
landed 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
57
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-d

http://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 vessels23. 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
23

58
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 18
metres 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.
10m and Under

3,000
Number
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
England
Wales
Scotland
Northern Ireland
Administration
2008
2011
Over 10m
800
700
Number
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
England
Wales
Scotland
Northern Ireland
Administration
2008
2011
Source: MMO, based on

http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/fisheries/statistics/documents/ukseafish/2011/final/22.xls
59

Figure 15. Engine power of the UK fishing fleet, by country of administration: 2008 to 2011.
10m and Under

160000
Power (kW)
140000
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
England
Wales
Scotland
Northern Ireland
Administration
2008
2011
Over 10m
400000
Power (kW)
350000
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
England
Wales
Scotland
Northern Ireland
Administration
2008
2011
Source: MMO statistics, based on

http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/fisheries/statistics/documents/ukseafish/2011/final/22.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
60

Table 16. Age of UK vessels by country of administration: 2011.
Year of construction
Unknown
1960
or
earlier
19611970
19711980
19811990
19912000
20012010
2011
Total
190
57
164
100
7
58
202
9
134
614
71
418
860
142
628
582
90
387
552
87
295
20
2
10
3,120
465
2,094
27
453
9
178
44
409
95
1,271
102
1,833
60
1,222
42
1,039
39
379
6,444
Number
England
Wales
Scotland
Northern
Ireland
Total
Source: MMO - 2.4 Age of UK vessels by country of administration: 2011, UK Sea Fisheries Statistics
2011
Note: 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 vessels
changing 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 seaworthy24.
Figure 16. Profit by vessel age group: Example for Crab in N. Sea
<10m vessels, main species crab, main area N. Sea

average operating profit per vessel age group, 2009
under 10
(12 vessels)
10 to 19
(7 vessels)
Vessel age group (years)
24
Catch Rights Based Management (C-RBM) in English Fisheries. DEFRA and University of Portsmouth, August 2012
61
Figure 17. Profit by vessel age group: Example for Nephrops in N. Sea for over 10m vessels
NS nephrops trawl, >300kW, >10m

average operating profit per vessel age group, 2009
under 10
(22 vessels)
10 to 19
(9 vessels)
20 to 29
(35 vessels)
Vessel age group (years)
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.
Area VIIA demersal trawl over 10m
Area VIIA nephrops trawl over 250kW
Area VIIA nephrops trawl under 250kW
Area VIIb-k trawl 24-40m
Area VIIb-k trawl 10-24m
UK Gill netters over 10m
UK Longliners over 10m
North Sea beam trawl over 300kW
North Sea beam trawl under 300kW
North Sea nephrops trawl over 300kW
North Sea nephrops trawl under 300kW
North Sea and West of Scotland demersal trawl over 24m
South West beam trawl over 250kW
South West beam trawl under 250kW
West of Scotland nephrops trawl over 250kW
West of Scotland nephrops trawl under 250kW
2005
845
852
590
2,362
799
1,828
2,012
4,066
369
2,019
918
3,691
2,229
1,545
1,108
610
2007
1,194
1,300
811
2,112
996
1,681
1,346
4,750
1,438
2,853
1,360
5,194
2,582
1,586
1,527
942
2009
1,181
1,068
682
3,737
931
2,310
2,826
6,376
592
2,250
1,138
5,515
2,585
1,681
1,181
741
2012 2012-2005
1,199
355
1,828
976
1,160
571
5,709
3,348
1,502
703
2,965
1,137
3,701
1,689
15,924
11,857
1,236
867
2,836
816
1,414
496
7,108
3,417
3,359
1,130
2,416
872
1,980
872
1,145
536
Source: calculated as Average fishing income per vessel/ average days at sea using data from
http://www.seafish.org/about-seafish/news/seafish-publishes-multi-year-fleet-economicperformance-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.
62
Table 18. Average Earnings: per vessel per day at sea for
selected fleet segments (2011 prices).
NS
WS
Pots and
NSWOS
Year Nephrops Nephrops
Traps
Demersal
2005
1,718
831
923
3,107
2006
2,212
1,042
972
3,861
2007
2,305
1,195
964
3,837
2008
1,908
1,039
891
3,594
2009
1,705
860
852
4,359
2010
1,813
888
916
4,265
Source: 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)
1,200
11
20
10
20
09
20
08
20
07
20
06
20
05
20
04
20
03
20
20
02
1,000
800
600
400
200
-
63
Average Price per tonne of Cod, Haddock and

Monkfish 2002 - 2011 (2011 prices)
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
11
20
10
09
20
08
Monkfish
20
20
07
20
05
20
20
04
20
03
02
20
20
4,000
Haddock
06
Cod
Average price per tonne of nephrops and

scallops 2002-2011 (2011 prices)
3,000
2,000
Nephrops
Scallops
1,000
A4.9
11
20
10
20
09
20
08
20
07
20
06
20
05
20
04
20
03
20
20
02
Cost trends
Controlling costs is a key element of improving competitiveness. One of the key costs for fishing
vessels 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
13
2006
15
13
8
14
2007
16
14
9
17
2008
24
22
16
21
2009
22
18
11
22
2010
23
20
11
17
Source: Seafish
64
Table 20. Vessel Costs: % of Total Income for selected fleet segments.
Year NS Nephrops
WS Nephrops
Pots and Traps
NSWOS Demersal
2005
20
25
n/a
18
2006
21
33
29
17
2007
24
27
23
26
2008
24
26
23
23
2009
27
28
21
29
2010
30
26
24
22
Source: 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 Demersal
2005
18
22
n/a
14
2006
21
6
9
18
2007
15
13
18
7
2008
12
17
24
10
2009
14
19
32
12
2010
5
13
11
18
Source: 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 fishermen on vessels administered in Wales were part-time
65

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.
66
A5.
Sustainable Development of Aquaculture
Summary: Sustainable and Resource Efficient Aquaculture
A5.1
Increases in both the technical productivity (tonnes per person) and economic
productivity ( per person) of the farmed salmon sector have been impressive. Revenue
generated 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 production
and revenue per employee either falling or static
Productivity in shellfish production is estimated to have increased significantly, but
remains 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 interactions
with each other
Fish farm escapes have reduced on average over the past ten years but infrequent and
substantial evens may still occur
Wild fish comprises a significant but reducing share of aquaculture feed
Employment in Scotlands 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 salmon
sector
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 employment
and 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
67

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 or
emerging 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 as
Scotland. Scotland is the major player in the production of salmonid product (approx. 95%) which
dominates the UK finfish production figures. Scotlands industry is primarily marine based and also
incorporates a significant shellfish sector25.
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 penbased 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.pdf
http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/software/fishstatj/en
27 https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/9142/1/EP177CompetitivenessFinal.pdf
26
68
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), including
key 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.
England and
Wales
Scotland
Northern
Ireland
Total
Source: OECD
Number of aquaculture
sites active in 2010
Number
%
383
31%
Tonnes produced
(fish and shellfish)
Tonnes
%
22 200
11%
Number of employed
(full time equivalent)
Number
%
1165
37%
767
100
61%
8%
167 000
12 200
83%
6%
1845
1450
58%
5%
1250
100%
201 400
100%
3155
100%
69

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 industrys
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
Total
2002
1,509
362
1,871
2003
1,464
274
1,738
2004
1,393
239
1,632
2005
1,159
237
1,396
2006
1,111
178
1,289
2007
1,126
212
1,338
2008
1,165
188
1,353
2009
1,201
170
1,371
2010
1,275
207
1,482
2011
1,243
181
1,424
Source: Marine Scotland 28
28
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/topics/marine/fish-shellfish/FHI/surveys
70
Figure 20. Trout Production: total employment (full and part time)
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Source: Marine Scotland

Figure 21. Smolt Production: total employment (full and part time)
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Figure 22. Salmon Production: total employment (full and part time)
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
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
71

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 201029.
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 sectors 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 per
employee, 000s, 2011 prices)
Revenue per
Production
employee,
value, m
000s
2002
4.3
12
2003
4.7
13
2004
5.3
13
2005
5.1
13
2006
4.7
12
2007
4.9
13
2008
7.5
22
2009
7.7
22
2010
8.3
21
2011
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 is
to 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
72
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 have
even 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,
73

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).
000s fish
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
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 201230) 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 (Srensen 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 the
best 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
74

Fishmeal in the UK31
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 mainly
from 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
75

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
research32 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
32
Ports with greater total vessel power tend to have a higher number of fishermen
The Social Impacts of Englands Inshore Fishing Industry, Defra (2011)
76
Table 25. Number of fishermen by administration port ranked by highest reduction in total
fishermen: 2010 to 2011
England
Regular
2010
2011
687
592
530
469
360
274
671
514
534
563
67
72
405
434
517
536
415
477
631
762
4,817
4,693
Poole
Lowestoft
Brixham
Newlyn
Hastings
Blackpool
Grimsby
North Shields
Scarborough
Plymouth
Total
Milford
Wales
Haven
563
693
Total
563
693
Scotland Ullapool
274
217
Stornoway
350
320
Orkney
277
260
Aberdeen
94
70
Peterhead
400
370
Buckie
192
170
Oban
242
247
Shetland
231
236
Eyemouth
148
135
Mallaig
110
105
Portree
167
162
Scrabster
168
161
Kinlochbervie
44
41
Ayr
517
512
Fraserburgh
671
657
Lochinver
21
19
Pittenweem
120
123
Campbeltown
231
271
Total
4,257
4,076
N
Ireland
North Coast
24
22
Ardglass
110
111
Portavogie
176
191
Kilkeel
225
254
Total
535
578
United Kingdom
10,172 10,040
Source: MMO table 2.6b Annual Report 2011
Parttime
2010
2011
296
255
51
57
175
215
227
358
68
55
68
81
14
44
10
57
5
956
1,080
Total
2010
2011
983
847
581
526
535
489
898
872
602
618
135
153
405
434
531
580
415
487
688
767
5,773
5,773
+
+
+
+
+
+
553
553
11
73
132
58
24
51
23
217
45
9
34
42
118
1
43
28
909
298
298
24
62
113
48
28
48
197
48
7
32
45
131
2
51
41
877
1,116
1,116
285
423
409
152
424
243
265
448
193
119
201
168
44
559
789
22
163
259
5,166
991
991
241
382
373
118
398
218
247
433
183
112
194
161
41
557
788
21
174
312
4,953
+
+
-
30
6
15
62
113
2,531
29
9
17
55
110
2,365
54
116
191
287
648
12,703
51
120
208
309
688
12,405
+
+
+
+
-
77

A6.2
The tourism industry in coastal communities33
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 Englands Inshore Fishing Industry, Defra (2011)
78

A7.
Marketing and Processing Related Measures
Summary: Increasing employment and territorial cohesion seafood processing
A7.1
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.
Employment declines in sea fish processing were largely in the early part of the period
and have since stabilised. Declines in salmon processing have occurred more recently
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.
79

Table 26. UK seafood processing industry population: FTEs and processing units34
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
80
Figure 24. Number of sea fish processing units by region and processing type35.
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
81

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 EUs Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD).
Improving human health and food security through expertise on fish and shellfish. For
example, 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.
82

More than 80% of Cefass 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 rigorous scientific analysis, research papers, reports, reviews
and briefing notes.
Assessing fish stock
83

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 organisations
and 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.
84

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 mans activities. Cefas runs the extensive research vessel
survey, sampling, data handling and subsequent data collation and analytical programmes required
to 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.
85

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

Fishermens 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.
86
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.
87

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 management
measures.
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 EUs Data Collection Framework (DCF).
The market sampling component of the sampling programme samples the landed component of
catch. 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).
88

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 complete
picture 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 Scotlands 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,
89

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 towards
one 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.
90

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 decisionmaking 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 of
Energy 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
91
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 MMOs decision-making process.
A8.5
Adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change36
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 for
new 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 reported
here and projections. Additionally, there are few reliable measures of what this may
mean for fish stocks.
Non-climate change drivers of fish stocks and their distribution are important to
recognise and include fishing effort levels, fishing gear technology and other habitat
uses (such as at sea wind farms).
Rising sea temperatures, as projected by UKCP0937, are expected to impact marine fish stocks and
their distribution in the UK Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ38). 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)

Multi-level ocean projections are given in section 6.3.4 of the UKCP09. Generally shelf seas around the UK are projected to
be 1.4-4oC warmer by the end of the 21st century under a medium emissions scenario
38
EEZ is the maritime zone adjacent to the territorial sea within which the coastal state has sovereign rights for the purpose of
exploring, exploiting, conserving, and managing natural resources, both living and non-living, of the seabed, subsoil, and the
subjacent waters and, with regard to other activities, for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone (e.g., the production
of energy from the water, currents, and winds).
37
92
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 yields
estimates 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 species39 (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 fish
stocks and their distribution; and, the impacts of non-climate change drivers on habitat suitability40.
39
40
These opportunities include a variety of pelagic and demersal species, which could be fished by a broad section of UK vessels.
These include: bathymetry, salinity; ice; primary productivity and distance to coast
93

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 lifetime 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.
94
Annex B: Devolved Administration SWOT Analyses

B1.
Introduction
The SWOT Analysis and Needs Assessment for EMFF programming is for the whole of the UK. While
the EMFF will have a single Managing Authority, as with the current EFF, there is the capacity in the
(draft) Regulation to allow for Intermediary Bodies (IBs) in each of the devolved administrations
within the UK. It is anticipated that each IB will be allocated an element of EMFF budget, and will use
that to address its particular fisheries sector needs. The Managing Authority, supported by a
Programme Monitoring Committee (PMC) will oversee pan-UK effective delivery of the entire
programme, and the Certifying and Auditing Authorities will also act at a UK level.
Whilst there is likely to be a large degree of commonality across the UK in terms of fisheries sector
needs, each area does have its own unique aspirations or challenges. This prompts several
considerations:
1. The overarching UK SWOT Analysis and Needs Assessment should reflect, as much as
possible, elements that capture the unique requirements of regions within the UK
2. In order to ensure that, it is important to create a suite of SWOT analyses for each devolved
administration
3. The UK can choose to restrict the number of measures (i.e. enabling Articles within the
Regulation) it will adopt for the overall programme, but in doing so it needs to take account
of measures that might be specifically required for one or other devolved administration.
This section of the UK SWOT Analysis and Needs Assessment paper presents a SWOT analysis and
needs assessment for each devolved administration. With the exception of Scotland, the SWOT
elements discussed at stakeholder workshops were mostly ranked, and only the highest-ranking
elements are presented in the tables, in order of ranking. As discussed in Section B3, the number of
SWOT elements presented for Scotland is higher but largely unranked and most of the Scotland
elements were used as discussion points in the other devolved administration workshops, and also
appeared in one form or another in the lower-ranked regional workshop outputs. Overall UK
consideration of fisheries issues was therefore wide-ranging and detailed.
There is no attempt to match regional SWOT analyses with other CSF issues, since this is best
achieved within the main paper, at a UK strategic level. There is also no consideration of CFP under
DRAFT EMFF UK Consolidated Baseline and SWOT

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.
96

B2.
England
The SWOT and Needs Assessment for England is based on outcomes from a stakeholder working
group held in London on the 4th 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
Weaknesses
Sustainable Fisheries
1. Good fisheries science
2. Diversity of species, and most stocks are
healthy/recovering with strong industry
commitment to recovery
3. Experienced, flexible and adaptable
workforce
4. Better image for small scale
5. Capacity to fully exploit available resources.
1. Data gaps, with science and resource
limitations
2. By-catch and discards improving but still a
challenge
3. Under-resourced inshore fisheries
management and enforcement
4. Fragmented sector
5. Poor record on health and safety.
Sustainable Aquaculture
production
quality)
4. Aquaculture in England is closer to main
markets in EU
5. Diversity of species in England.
1. Lack of collaboration; no Producer
Organisation
2. Difficult to obtain funding (including match
funding for EMFF)
quality challenges
(mainly shellfish)
5. Poor support from / understanding by
some public sector policy and regulatory
bodies.
Opportunities
Threats
1. Innovation, pilot trials and incentives to
adopt new gear (linked to discard reduction
and MSY)
2. Broader engagement in data collection and
collaboration with scientists
3. Knowledge transfer / exchange within the
industry
4. Investing in renewable resources; selfmanagement; closed areas; seasons, etc.
1. Austerity measures affect ability to matchfund EMFF (whether public or private)
2. Poor management of change (e.g. discard
ban)
3. Critical mass to retain infrastructure and,
especially, knowledge within the sector
4. Sloping playing field compared to other EU
MS, e.g. on fuel subsidies
5. Continued overfishing despite CFP reform.
97

5. Use of IT linked to improved marketing
collaboration and value-adding.
1. Possibility of an England Producer
Organisation (PO) or Inter-branch
Organisation (IBO
3. Collaboration with other marine industries
(co-location; aquaculture in MPAs)
4. Diversification opportunities: IMTA; marine
renewables; marine agronomy
5. Blue bio-tech.
2. Low-cost 3rd country imports distort market
opportunities
3. Over use of precaution by regulators
unfamiliar with implications of aquaculture
development in England. Resistance to
change
others; non-native species
algal blooms.
Statement of Needs (England):

Investment in technology and practices relating to meeting (and financially surviving) key CFP
reform 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.
Support 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. large
scale shellfish farms and pen-based marine farms.
Financial engineering to assist with total investment packages in collaboration with existing
and new commercial investors.
Innovation projects into diversification: non-food and collaboration with other marine industry
sectors.
98

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 highestranking 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
Weaknesses
1. Experienced and skilled workforce, with
good local knowledge. Lower
unemployment rates reflect Scotlands
adaptable workforce
2. Diversity of species, many of which are
being fished at sustainable levels
3. Some sectors profitable pelagic, scallop,
some creelers
5. Average landed value exceeded RPI in the
period 2006-2010
6. Strong fishermens organisations
7. Closely regulated industry
8. Sustainability ability to collaborate for
funding
9. Some capacity for capital investment
10. Willingness to consider diversification.
1. Economic difficulties faced by Scottish Fleet
(SFF 2012). Price volatility is so endemic to
the industry that value cannot be
guaranteed
2. Diversity of species may itself be a
weakness, as under present management
rules, quota may not exist or equal the
opportunity. Underinvestment has
impacted on productivity &
competitiveness
difficult
4. Some stocks fished above fMSY
5. A perception of overcapacity in some
sections of the fleet, although this is largely
incorrect / doubtful over different years as
fisheries stocks vary
6. Aging fleet, fuel inefficiencies
7. Aging crews and therefore crew retention
concerns
8. Costs include; oil, days at sea, quota,
regulatory possible cost of discards
restrictions
9. Unclear science / data
99

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Continuity of quality, specification and

price of supplies - the ability to plan
predictable production
Well regulated and good internal discipline
operating to high health and welfare
standards further enhanced by industry
CoGP and recent passing of Aquaculture &
Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2013.
Technically innovative, well trained staff
Large companies in Scotland, ability to
invest but limited to some parts of the
sector
Global image: aquaculture is widely seen as
future source of seafood security, provided
some sustainability issues are addressed.
Increasing research support for the sector
(Marine Scotland, Technology Strategy
Board, Scottish Funding Council, Scottish
Aquaculture Research Forum, Natural
Environment Research Council, etc.):
research to provide solutions to remaining
or new sustainability issues
The industry has clear growth targets to
2020, supported by Scottish Ministers,
which are attainable and sustainable with the right level of public sector
encouragement.
Sustainable Fisheries Areas

2. Local colleges provide a resource to build
capacity in service delivery
3. Economic activity around main ports is
significant and export orientated
4. Strong track record of the local fisheries
food industry.
excellent wildlife and scenery
6. Quality marine wildlife, bio-diversity and
environments
7. Growth of tourism markets
8. Rich cultural and maritime heritage
9. Attractive towns and harbours for tourism
and residential use.
10.
Bycatch and discards improving but still a

problem.
1. Ongoing vulnerability to health / disease /
water quality challenges similar to any
animal farming system
sector, therefore difficulty in finding
investment finance: capital and working
capital
food safety; feed sustainability
4. Finite growth opportunities in inshore
waters; offshore technologies still unproven
5. Impossible to domesticate a wide range of
species: limited to current species
(Scotland)
6. Ability to access new medicines due to scale
of industry and development costs
7. Ability to meet future demand due to slow
rate of industry growth v. increasing
demand for seafood
8. Reliance on wild seed (mussel farming)
9. SME rule is a strategic weakness for
Scotland.

residents tend to out-migrate for work
although not relevant to all areas
2. Mixed quality of infrastructure and lack of
quality service sector offerings
4. High cost residential property and lack of
suitable commercial premises near
harbours.
5. Poorly maintained harbours which limit the
potential for tourism
6. Lack of local awareness of local assets and
limited exploitation of coastal assets
below average earnings
100

Tendency for parochialism and / or
community apathy
10. Lack of capitalisation of niche markets
11. Difficult to access match funding and cofinance.
9.
Processing and Marketing

1. Strong international reputation for Scottish
companies (If you are good enough to
supply M&S , etc.)
2. Technical skills and ability to innovate in
parts of the sector
3. Ongoing trend in improving skills and best
practices
4. Increasing trend towards sustainability and
traceability credentials - certification
5. Seafood trade is increasingly global: the
ability to source from fishing, farming &
global imports but some caveats on
global competition
6. The capacity to consolidate and modernise
still exists
7. Good business support (SFIA, Seafood
Scotland, SDI, SE, HIE, SAOS, Scotland Food
& Drink).

1. Continuity of supply; dependence on
seafood raw material supplies
2. Size of fish landed and limited outlets for
some products, e.g. small haddock
3. Transport infrastructure difficult in some
areas
4. Capacity issues for one species or another,
in different parts of the country
5. Apparent complexity of the organisational
structure within the fishing and fish
processing industry: there is rarely clarity of
communication between catcher and
processor (in wild fish) on the quantity,
quality and timing of stock that will be
landed when it is due for the open market
6. Logistics often uneconomic for small
processors to target small customers, and
smaller operators increasingly under
economic/structural pressures
7. Physical presence of the industry ranging
from large industrial units reaching their
waste maximum to tiny small businesses in
ramshackle premises scheduled for
redevelopment
8. Traffic congestion for deliveries and
despatch, conflict with retail and office
workers (Note: similar issues for old
Billingsgate, and now for new Billingsgate)
9. Cost of complying with legislation
10. Business support not always optimal.
Opportunities
Threats
1. Stocks have an inherent capacity to recover
and flourish, and good fisheries
management can assist this
EU28, Asia and more widely
organisations in the fisheries sector to drive
competitiveness, value adding and cooperation
4. Support opportunities which use
established and emerging marine
reforms although in reality most of the
stocks utilised by the Scottish fleet are
improving
3. Difficulty for new entrants to obtain quota,
track record, etc.
4. Costs increase: fuel, but also leasing, both
of days and quota
101
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
knowledge to diversify into emerging

sectors
Transition to sustainable fisheries and the
delivery of CFP targets on MSY and the
discarding of fish
Opportunities to collaborate in science: CFP
research, MPA management, and the
general restoration of marine biodiversity
and ecosystems
More opportunities for inshore fisheries
for some segments of the industry
Collaboration with processors to promote
industry and products: better supply chain
communications
Opportunities to maintain quality by
improved handling / systems.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Long term impact of climate change

Negative publicity: impact on markets,
additional pressure on regulators for more
action
Regulation: MSY and discards ban are
challenging and possibly more costly. Mixed
fisheries will encounter large problems in
the search for MSY
Too much diversification risks loss of
experience from the workforce.
others
image and investment opportunities
algal blooms continue to cause problems
damage infrastructure
6. In the future, slow, unpredictable or overburdensome licensing and regulation might
discourage further investment in Scotland
7. Continuing exclusion of larger companies
from EMFF may stifle innovation,
development and investment
8. Diversification opportunities (e.g. non-food)
are hampered because of existing industry
focusing on core-business: lack of
commercial champions for new
developments.
1. Growing demand / need for seafood in EU28
and wider: the market for Scottish
production continues to grow.
2. Scotland has the second longest coastline
(next to Norway) in Europe and a Scottish
sea area of 470,000 km2
health; containment; feed sustainability
4. New technologies open up new production
opportunities (e.g. more exposed sites;
better seed supply; more environmentally
friendly juvenile production)
5. Collaboration with other marine industries,
e.g. using fishing sector skills in more
exposed locations and possible synergies
with renewables sector
6. Diversification prospects shellfish;
integrated multi-trophic aquaculture;
marine renewables, marine bio-fuels
7. World-leading expertise offers knowledge
export potential from industry and from
Scotlands academic institutions
8. Possibilities for development of additional
aquaculture producer organisations (POs),
or possibly Inter-Branch Organisations41
(IBOs).
1. Decline in the scale and value of fishing and
fish processing
1. Re-skilling to meet new sectoral and
2. Loss of local services, infrastructure and
market needs and capitalising on
employers
transferable skills whilst maintaining
traditional skills
41
See for example: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0416:FIN:EN:HTML
102

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Maintaining working harbours and

knowledge locally
Diversification into higher value economic
Provision of facilities and infrastructure for
harbour users to create new economic
opportunities
Scope for greater use of coast and sea for
leisure, tourism and business
Reimagining small harbours for alternative
uses
Support for skills development in
agriculture, aquaculture and forestry; for
quality apprenticeship places among SMEs
and social enterprises, and for higher level
apprenticeships and sandwich courses,
particularly in growth sectors and low
carbon sectors
Public campaigns related to the maritime
economy, new niche markets and area
identity and USPs.

improve yield and productivity.
2. Promotion of Scottish Seafood Industry to
raise awareness of Local Wild Seafood
quality labels and assurance schemes
3. Supply chain improvements efficiency,
environmental footprint, knowledge about
products, driving competitiveness, value
adding and co-operation
4. Competition with other proteins if grain
prices rise
5. Development of new markets: China, India,
Russia, etc.
6. Additional supplies as a result of zero
discard rules, increases in aquaculture
7. Increasing focus on healthy diets
8. The food service sector as it starts to
rationalise
9. Shared premises to reduce overheads
10. Business Partnerships to offer range of
products
11. Training to assist companies comply with
EHO and exporting administration; training
in areas such as quality, technology,
marketing.
Increasing transport costs impacts

profitability of local economy given
distance to main markets
4. Skills mis-match, increase use migrants to
fill jobs, processing jobs moving
internationally and fisheries communities
becoming commuter areas
5. Impact of global warming and nonsustainable practices.
7. Lack of availability of public sector match
funding for investment
8. Lack of capacity of community groups to
capitalise on opportunities
9. Lack of private sector involvement in
community events and activities
10. Lack of willingness for collaboration
between sectors and groups
Competition for land (for development),
labour (workforce) and capital (finance for
investment) from other sectors.
3.

1. Cheap competition/other proteins
including cheaper imports of processed
seafood
2. Quota: traders displacing fish from
Scotland; fish quota transferred to large
companies; large companies controlling
supply chain
3. Declining EU markets; state of the economy
in key market countries
4. More fixed weight products
5. Loans/ access to working capital difficult
6. Competition for labour from other sectors
in NE & Shetland
7. Major suppliers of, for example, boxes,
transport and other supporting services
withdrawing from industry
8. Less Scottish boats. Boats sold out of
Scotland
9. Less processors and capacity
10. EU28 production (fishing and farming) not
keeping pace with demand, and raw
material imports from 3rd countries possibly
becoming more difficult / expensive
11. Increasing environmental costs / regulation
12. Food scares, resulting in image issues for
seafood
103

12. Support for energy reduction initiatives
Export guarantees.
Zero discard policy may change fish

availability profile.
Statement of Needs (Scotland):

Commercial fisheries will remain an important sector in Scotland as CFP reform and improved
management 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 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
Improve sector viability during transition phase to discard free eligible for using loan finance
during this transition.
Scottish aquaculture will continue to grow, meeting the expectations of Scottish Ministers and
also contributing in large part 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
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
104
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 standards
prescribed in Aquaculture & Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2013.

Scottish fishery 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
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 collaborate
with other CSF and national funding programmes
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 and
developed
Define clear eligibility criteria for fisheries areas EMFF projects, in order to avoid case-bycase interventions by Marine Scotland Fisheries Grants Team (refer to FARNET resource42).
Processing and marketing of Scottish-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 Scotland. Continuity of operations also requires the ability
to access 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 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 of
fishery 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/
105

Staff training in emerging quality / environmental health issues.
106

B4.
Wales
The SWOT and Needs Assessment for Wales is based on outcomes from a stakeholder working group
held in Aberystwyth on the 31st 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
Weaknesses
good local knowledge
3. Diversity of species which could be caught
(freshwater and marine inshore based)
5. Welsh fisheries are quite targeted not
much by-catch.
1. Data deficiency
2. Lack of appropriate management
3. Some stocks are in decline or under threat
4. Lack of confidence for industry to invest
5. Poor co-ordination and ability to build on
image, heritage and new opportunities.
1. Continuity of supply, prices, portions with
healthy products
2. Technically innovative, with a good
research capability in Wales
3. Aquaculture is an important future source
of food: underpin resilience in food security
4. Environmental footprint is low compared
with some other food production
5. Availability of funds (EMFF) to support
sectoral development.
1. Vulnerable to health, water quality,
invasive species, etc.
2. Limitations on sites for large scale
expansion
3. Economic challenges high input costs
4. Reliance on wild mussel seed supply
5. Lack of capacity building by government,
and an unresponsive planning / regulatory
system, with limited understanding of the
key issues / needs of the sector.

environments
3. Maritime expertise
4. Cohesive communities
5. Established tourism sector
6. Economic activity around main ports is
significant.
Opportunities

residents tend to out-migrate for work, and
reliance on immigrant labour in commercial
fishing sector
2. Difficult to access match funding
3. Lack of community capacity; mixed quality
of infrastructure and collaboration
4. Businesses: below average earnings
regeneration in many areas.
Threats
107

1. Improved management will result in
sustainable fisheries
2. Growing demand for sustainable local
fisheries products
3. Diversification into other species, but also
other business sectors
4. Technical improvements to management
5. Good science base in Wales underutilised
by the fisheries sector currently
6. Marketing / processing locally.
1. Growing demand for seafood
2. Potential for new species with national
provenance, e.g. charr
3. Growth of non-food sector e.g. bio-fuels
general collaboration with other marine
industries; co-location
4. New technologies open up new sites /
production methods
5. Potential for a Welsh Aquaculture PO or
IBO.

1. Cooperation between FLAG areas
2. Promoting Welsh fishing industries
3. Provision of facilities and infrastructure for
opportunities
4. Re-skilling to meet new sectoral and market
needs and capitalising on transferable skills
whilst maintaining traditional skills
5. Diversification into higher value economic
skills to business demand.
1. Market prices are declining (impact of large
multiple or continental buyers)
2. Competition for resources, lack of sufficient
involvement in marine planning
3. Vulnerable business model reliance on
few species and few market niches
4. Critical mass declines; skill retention; career
paths, etc.
5. Wider fisheries management fails to
protect some migratory species from effort
out-with the Welsh fleet.
1. Land use policy and slow / unsympathetic /
poorly informed regulation limits
applications for expansion. Several orders
and leases
2. New diseases and invasive species; water
quality issues (possibly more in the future)
3. Norovirus: health, understanding; lack of
science; monitoring
4. High start-up costs and performance of
MMO and EMFF delivery teams
5. Cost of inputs rise too steeply.
1. EU Referendum
3. Lack of availability of public sector match
funding for investment
4. Lack of capacity of community groups to
capitalise on opportunities
5. Lack of private sector involvement in
community events and activities.
Statement of Needs (Wales):

Need to develop and evidence a framework for diversification opportunities
Need stronger representative bodies
Need accreditation for Welsh fisheries e.g. MCS
Engage with marine spatial planning re. access to resources
Innovation in cost reduction strategies.
Innovation in value-adding strategies.
108

Support for the creation of a Welsh Aquaculture PO or IBO.
More efficient delivery of EMFF compared with EFF
Innovation and pilot scale developments in new production techniques / opportunities e.g. large
scale shellfish farms and pen-based marine farms.
Financial engineering to assist with total investment packages in collaboration with existing
and new commercial investors.
Innovation projects into diversification: non-food and collaboration with other marine industry
sectors.
Invest 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.
109

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 11th 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
Weaknesses
1. Diversity of species, and most stocks are
healthy
young entrants starting come through in
the last 2-3 years
4. Ability to diversify activity within and outwith the fishing sector
5. Some capacity for further investment.
impossible
2. Some stocks fished above f MSY
3. Discards improving but still a problem
4. High costs primarily fuel
5. Unclear science / data.
production
quality)
4. Well trained staff
5. Increasing research support for the sector.
quality challenges
3. Reliance on wild seed (mussel farming)
4. Poor support from / understanding by
public sector policy and regulatory bodies
food safety; feed sustainability.

environments
4. Ability to tap into tourism market
5. Good port infrastructure.

2. Property : High cost residential property
and lack of suitable commercial premises
near harbours
3. Difficult to access match funding.
below average earnings.

1. Sustainability accreditation
2. High Quality Products

1. Supply of raw materials and high
vulnerability to a limited number of species
2. Cost of legislation and bureaucracy
110

3. Commitment of companies
(families) 10
4. Capacity to consolidate
5. Organic restructuring.
3. Seasonality of supply / matching capital

requirements
4. High energy costs
5. Low investment returns.
Opportunities
Threats
1. There are more opportunities for inshore
fishing
2. Opportunities to maintain quality by
improved handling / systems
3. Stocks can recover or be sustained
EU28, Asia and more widely
organisations and collaboration in the
fisheries sector to drive competitiveness,
value adding and co-operation.
2. Regulation: MSY and discards ban are
challenging and possibly more costly
reforms
4. Competition for resources / fishing
opportunity (MPAs, renewables,
macroalgae, leisure) Marine Planning.
new production sites; environmental
sustainability (SMILE model)
3. Integrate with marine spatial planning,
collaboration with other marine industries
4. Possibility of an NI Producer Organisation
(PO) or Inter-branch Organisation (IBO)
5. Improvements in predator control.
others
image and investment opportunities + lack
of a single voice for the NI industry
algal blooms.
damage infrastructure.

12. Re-skilling to meet new sectoral and market
needs and capitalising on transferable skills
13. Change to new income streams to maintain
harbours
14. Diversification into higher value economic
15. Provision of facilities and infrastructure for
opportunities
16. Reimagining small harbours for alternative
uses.

1. Reduced fishing opportunities leading to
loss of employment opportunities
2. Processing jobs moving internationally
3. Impact of global warming and nonsustainable practices
4. Poor location of offshore wind farms
5. Lack of availability of public and private
sector match funding for investment.

1. Cheap competition (e.g. prawns from Asia)
2. Poor access to loan and capital funding
3. Competition for space (wind farms)
111

1. Reduce energy costs through innovation:
energy costs in NI are very high; industry
has a high energy demand
2. Collective purchasing (energy transport
packaging)
improve yield and productivity.
4. Development of Asian markets and
markets in general
5. Increasing focus on healthy diets.
4. Labour competition
5. Decommissioning.
Statement of Needs (Northern Ireland):

(Note: most issues as per other devolved administrations. Some specific ideas here for NI)
Need inshore management and enforcement.
POs with an increased role in marketing.
EMFF- gear selectivity funding / vessel improvement.
Research into discard survival.
Need research into the regulatory framework in NI.
Need innovation in ensuring aquaculture limits its impacts on the environment, and also improving
its resilience to external environmental facts such as disease ad pollution.
Review of Public Administration planning
Improving capacity building
Complementarity of EU funds
Rationalise delivery bodies (e.g. FLAGS and LAGS)
112

B6.
UK FLAGS
The SWOT analysis project took advantage of an invitation from the MMO to attend and host a subsession at a FARNET FLAG meeting in Whitehaven on the 30th 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
Weaknesses
1. The UK represents a huge coastline, with

good 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 Industry
4. Entrepreneurship inherent in coastline
communities
5. Good educational establishments (Colleges,
Universities, Centres of Excellence) linked
to Communities e.g. Newcastle University is
a Centre of Excellence for Fisheries
6. The interest in the production of locally
produced food is entrenched in UK
consumer minds.
1. Quota impacts, which has a substantial

impact on the under 10 metre fleet and on
Coastal Communities
2. Remoteness of Coastal Communities e.g.
high transport costs of getting catch to the
market
3. Difficulty for Coastal Communities to
maximise benefits of the supply chain e.g.
gaining access into key markets
4. Cash flow management and obtaining
access to investment Finance / Capital
5. Lack of business advice is variable across
rural areas of the UK good in Wales and
Northern Ireland but not so in England.
Businesses need to change / evolve and
business advice needs to be tailored to the
Fishing Industry
6. There is an unwillingness within the
Industry to engage on Axis 4; reasons cited
were due to the complexity of form filling,
disillusionment in the system, and CFP.
Opportunities
Threats
1. There is growth and interest in food across

the UK, in particular a demand for fresh
seafood
2. Getting young people into the Industry,
however this comes with a threat of how
do new entrants get access to available
quota
3. Maximising benefits for the reliability of the
supply chain, also a weakness, see below
4. Access to Financial Engineering Instruments
to assist businesses in working capital
5. A vision is needed for the Fisheries Sector
i.e. a package that addresses the inhibiting
1. Quota impacts
2. Competition for space, its not just for
fishing
3. Protected Landscapes and Marine
Protected Zones i.e. a decline in amount of
the available environment for fishers and
communities. This could also be seen as an
opportunity
4. High entry costs are a problem to
encourage new entrants into the Industry
5. A career in fishing is perceived to be
dangerous.
113
6.
7.
8.
9.
factors impacting the Industry e.g. Finance,

Advice, Diversification
More funding is needed for Development
Officers
There is a growing market for Seafood and
for local prominence
Blue growth economy is a key opportunity
i.e. diversification into non-food activities
(offshore renewables). Benefits of
diversification should accrue to Coastal
Communities
Fisheries Local Action Groups to adjust and
take advantage of CFP opportunities and
the associated impact on Communities.
114

EMFF 2014-2020 UK SWOT and Needs Assessment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EMFF 2014-2020 UK SWOT and Needs Assessment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

European Maritime

and Fisheries Fund

EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT

The report has been prepared by Epsilon Resource Management Limited.

Matt Sowrey, Arif Al-Mahmood & colleagues Defra

EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT

EMFF Baseline and SWOT Methodology ................................................................................. 16

Overarching SWOT for the UKs EMFF Programme................................................................ 21

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

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

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

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

Annex A: EMFF UK Baseline Review 2013 ........................................................................................ 46

EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT

EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT

EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT

The CSF has four broad themes:

Harmonisation of eligibility rules and an extension of simplified cost options.

Guidelines for the Ex-Ante Evaluation of 2014-2020 EMFF OPs7

EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT

The document has three main structural components:

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

EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Objectives of the EMFF

EMFF Title V Chapter Headings

EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT

improving size selectivity or species selectivity of fishing gear;

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

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

CHAPTER II Sustainable development of aquaculture

EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT

CHAPTER III Sustainable development of fisheries areas

CHAPTER IV Marketing and processing related measures

Measures under Direct Management

Links between the CSF and the EMFF Programme

EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT

EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Figure 2. Considerations when undertaking the EMFF SWOT analysis.

EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Other Strategies and Directives

The Water Framework Directive9

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive10

The Habitats Directive11

Linking with Other Activities and Processes

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

EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Key Principles of SWOT Analysis

Opportunities in the external environment

Threats in the external environment

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

EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Additional key features of SWOT are:

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

EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT

EMFF Baseline and SWOT Methodology

Baseline Review and UK Fisheries Sector Overview

The four EMFF Article 5 priority objectives

Figure 3. Coastline lengths in Europe.

EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT

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

EMFF 2014 - 2020 UK SWOT ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT

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