SFC WORKSHOPS - SUMMARY
1. The primary aim of the workshops is to address a number of strategic
questions under each pillar heading. These are;



Where do we want to be in 2015 and beyond and what do we want the sea
fishing industry to look like.
What actions are needed to make that vision a reality?
What are the resource implications of these actions?
2. Within each pillar more specific questions are raised to help participants
address key issues in developing a vision and designing actions. The papers are
summarised below.
Pillar 1
Improving the wider, international framework for fisheries
management
The first paper considers the international framework under which fisheries
management in Scotland operates. The emphasis is on the EU’s Common
Fisheries Policy and the paper briefly describes its evolution with particular
focus on the current reform and the major themes relating to fisheries
governance.
The paper explores the 3 paradigm nature of fisheries policy and asks where
stakeholders believe Scottish policies should be positioned in relation to these
paradigms (conservation, profitability and communities).
The paper then examines the major themes within the European
Commission’s Green Paper on CFP reform. It identifies regionalisation and
market based approaches as the most radical proposals and asks if these
themes are complimentary or antagonistic, and which approach is more
appropriate for Scotland.
The paper then considers the Scottish Government’s own response, and
identifies 4 priority elements of reform. It asks how well these elements fit
with stakeholders’ vision for Scotland’s fisheries, what changes or additions
they would make and how these should be pursued.
Particular emphasis is given to regionalisation of the CFP, as promoted by the
Scottish Government response. Stakeholders are asked how best the model
can be developed and promoted.
Pillar 2
Managing our own current fishing quota and effort allocations to
promote sustainability and profitability
The second paper describes briefly the way in which the management of
fishing opportunities has evolved through the CFP, and the domestic
1
arrangements in place to implement EU obligations. It then goes on to set out
the ways in which the Scottish Government has sought to improve fisheries
management in Scotland since 2007.
Thereafter, noting the recognised failings of the CFP described in Chapter 1,
the paper explores in outline form alternative methods of domestic
management that may better support sustainable and profitable fisheries.
The paper includes elements of proposals that can be delivered under the
present regime and others that would require more fundamental reform of EU
policies.
The paper poses a number of questions which it is hoped will shape
discussion and consideration of the detail and merits of the alternatives
available.

Is there support among fishermen, fishing communities and interested
parties for fisheries management to be based on the principle of no
discards, so that vessels may land all that they catch but, equally, face
penalties if they do discard fish?

How should the allocation and management of fishing opportunities be
reformed? Are there fisheries where single species quotas can be a rational
and sustainable management tool? How could an ‘effort only’ system or a
multi-species quota work in practice?

To what extent should the allocation of fishing opportunities be
designed to advance the potential objectives described in Chapter 4, in
relation to fleet structure? Should the allocation system (regardless of
whether it allocates quota, effort or a combination of the two) provide a
minimum level of access of the fishery, with trade between vessels correcting
for individual businesses’ needs? Alternatively, should the allocation method
reflect more closely vessels’ share of Scottish fishing activities, and also
permit businesses to transfer fishing opportunities more freely, in a way that is
likely to promote consolidation?
Pillar 3 Working with the industry to maximise the value of the catch
For a profitable future, it is essential that the fishing industry knows its
markets, and can take the action needed to build reputation and secure
premium prices. The Scottish Government recognises that consumer
behaviour is but one part of the entire supply chain and that there is a need to
better understand behaviours from catcher to retailer. To this end the Scottish
Government has commissioned SA Partners to identify and demonstrate the
behaviours and practices that maximise the delivery of whitefish value to all
stakeholders in the supply chain. This will be a key building block for this pillar
of the overall plan.
2
The purpose of the workshop is to engage with the key stakeholders on SFC
so that they can input into the exercise, and comment on the emerging
conclusions of the work.
Pillar 4
Making sure we have a resilient fleet which is crewed by a skilled
workforce
The fourth paper reviews the existing structure and financial performance of
the Scottish fleet. The paper categorises vessels according to the value of
their landings, creating ten fleet sectors. It then uses a number of charts to
illustrate how the shape, size, geographic distribution, fishing patterns, fishing
method and age profile of each sector has evolved over the last 12 years,
cross referenced with Seafish’s economic survey findings.
The charts provide a context in which the resilience of the Scottish fleet may
be considered. The paper asks what the future objectives of each fleet sector
should be, offering potential options which could focus on maximising the
operating profits from fishing, regardless of the impact on vessel numbers or
location; maximising the number of vessels that each fishery could sustain,
perhaps at the expense of vessel efficiency and leading to the fleet’s
concentration across less ports; or ensuring that the fleet sustains the
maximum number of coastal communities and onshore businesses.
The paper suggests that existing licensing categories, entitlements and/or the
associated regulations, such as capacity penalties, give Marine Scotland the
opportunity to create more or less flexibility for vessel owners to adjust to
fisheries dynamics and/or to give fisheries managers more or less control to
help deliver the desired outcomes of each fleet sector. It offers four principal
policy choices, or combinations thereof, for stakeholder consideration.
The paper then considers how the Scottish Government currently supports
vessel safety and the provision of training across the catching sector and asks
stakeholders to consider what further action is required.
SFC Secretariat
18 January 2010
3
1.
IMPROVING THE INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR FISHERIES
MANAGEMENT
Preamble
1. This document considers the international framework under which fisheries
management in Scotland operates. The emphasis is on the EU’s Common
Fisheries Policy and the paper briefly describes its evolution with particular
focus on the current reform and the major themes relating to fisheries
governance. It poses a number of questions which will help prepare
participants for the forthcoming Scottish Fisheries Council on 19 January
2010.
Introduction
2. Scotland is an island nation and has deep historic roots in fishing. Fisheries
have played a vital role in the development of coastal and island communities
with fishermen adapting to changes in the marine environment, market
opportunities and technology. A stroll round the new museum in Lerwick, for
example, provides an insight of how fisheries have changed over the years
from the herring boom of the early 20th Century, through the growth of
whitefish fisheries in the post-war years and the more recent pre-eminence of
shellfish fisheries.
3. The establishment of the Common Fisheries Policy in 1983 following the UK’s
accession to the European Union introduced greater regulation and control to
fisheries in Scottish waters, but also restricted the adaptability of the fleet and
the responsiveness of fisheries management.
The Common Fisheries Policy - origins
4. Fisheries Policy originated as an extension of the Common Market to
agricultural products. It was formally adopted in 1983. Although the legal
provisions of the CFP were revised in 1992 and 2002 (and will be again in
2012), they remain based on the same principles as when the CFP was
adopted in 1983.
5. Two important principles with far reaching implications for fisheries
management in EU waters are Equal Access and Relative Stability.
Equal access – When negotiations for the accession of the UK,
Ireland and Norway began in 1970, existing Member States agreed
that fisheries management should be based on the principle of equal
access. That is, Member States should enjoy fishing rights within all
EU waters, including the territorial waters of all other Member States.
The agreement was clearly to the advantage of existing EU Members.
Ireland and Norway were very critical of this decision. The UK was
also critical although such access was important to elements of the UK
distant water fleet fishing within Faroese and Icelandic territorial
waters.
4
The principle of equal access demonstrates how EU fisheries policy
can be shaped, not by rational overarching management, but by a
collective of Member States seeking politically advantageous
outcomes.
By 1983 the establishment of 200 nautical mile Exclusive Fishing
Zones put a different complexion on territorial waters. A temporary
derogation to the principle of equal access was agreed establishing the
6 and 12 nautical mile limits which exist today. This derogation has
been upheld in previous reforms of the CFP.
Relative Stability - The most sensitive piece of political negotiation
leading to the establishment of the CFP in 1983 was over the allocation
of fisheries resources between Member States. It is no surprise that
TACs and quotas were used as the means of quantifying resources
given the familiarity of these to fisheries managers with previous
experience from TAC orientated Regional Fisheries Organisations such
as NEAFC.
The negotiations on allocation resulted in the current Relative Stability
arrangement, giving Member States a fixed percentage of different
stocks. The Relative Stability keys comprise 3 elements:
 Historical catch records for that stock
 Community dependency on fisheries (The Hague Preferences)
 Compensation for removal of distant water opportunities
following establishment of Exclusive Fishing Zones.
The CFP in operation
6. From its establishment, the CFP was not well managed. Today we are living
with the legacy of that management failure. TACs were generally set above
scientific limits in order to broker deals and allow the institutionalisation of the
CFP within the EU. The 1970s were also characterised by abnormally high
recruitment levels of some stocks, North Sea Herring being a notable
exception, reinforcing the outdated view that the seas were inexhaustible.
7. The scope of the CFP extended greatly in 1985 with the accession of Spain
and Portugal. Already the CFP was being overextended beyond the
intentions or ability of a centralised authority to manage.
8. Overcapacity was belatedly recognised and tackled ineffectively through
Multi-Annual Guidance Programmes. MAGP targets were modest in the
extreme, and less than capacity increases through technological creep.
Simultaneously, the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Grant (FIFG) was
providing funding for the commissioning and modernisation of vessels. Much
of today’s overcapacity problems stem from this period.
9. The failure of MAG Programmes to reduce fishing capacity and pressure led
to increased interest in effort management. The first reform of the CFP led to
the option of use of days at sea as a management tool. However, the option
5
was generally ignored due to fishermens’ and managers’ opposition to
operating both a quota and effort system in parallel. Similarly tools were
established to allow the development of multi-annual recovery plans but the
lack of scientific data hampered adoption. It was not until the 2002 reform
that these elements came to the fore as management tools. The 2002 reform
was a much more significant event than previous reform due to the increased
acknowledgement that the CFP was failing to sustain stocks. Other significant
elements of the 2002 reform included greater integration of fisheries policies
with environmental issues and increased stakeholder involvement through the
establishment of Regional Advisory Committees (RACs).
Friend of Fish or Friend of Fishing?
10. The 2002 reform divided Member States into 2 broad groups. The Friends of
Fish (FoF) and the Friends of Fishing (or AdIP – from the French Amis de la
Peche). The former group promoted fisheries conservation policies while the
AdIP group argued in favour of policies with strong social and community
elements.
11. The FoF and AdIP groups help illustrate the 3 Paradigm model of fisheries
management (Charles, 1992)1. The model considers that conflict in fisheries
policy emerges from 3 different fisheries paradigms. These are conservation,
(policy focusing on resource conservation), rationalisation (policy focusing on
economic productivity); and social/community (policy focusing on community
welfare). This is shown diagrammatical below:
Conservation
Commission
FoF
AdIP
Rationalisation
(profitability)
1
Social /
Community
Charles, A.T. (1992). Fishery conflicts: A unified framework. Marine Policy, 16(5), 379-393.
6
12. The figure above also shows the relative positions of the Commission, and the
FoF and AdIP groups at the time of the 2002 reform.
13. There are some interesting differences between Member States in the FoF
and AdIP groups. Firstly, there is something of a geographical trend between
northern and southern Member States. Also, AdIP countries tend to be more
reliant on fisheries than FoF states, and often have older fleets. At the time of
the 2002 reform, FoF countries were generally net contributors to the EU
while AdIP countries tended to support subsidies as net benefitters.
14. The model remains relevant today and for future reform of EU fisheries policy.
Question
 Is the model a useful tool in considering Scottish objectives? If so, where in
your opinion should Scotland be placed in this triangle?
The 2012 Review of the CFP
15. The issues highlighted by the pyramid model remain relevant to the current
review of the CFP. The EC Green Paper on CFP reform specifically proposes
that biological/ecological objectives should take precedence. The Green
Paper further argues that market based approaches, such as ITQs provide a
means of achieving both biological sustainability and profitability. This shifts
the centre of gravity away from the community/social corner of the pyramid. A
quick alignment of Green Paper themes against the 3 paradigms gives a
somewhat unbalanced picture.
Conservation
Biological/ecological conservation objectives as primary
objectives for fisheries policies
Moving towards longer term management
Integration of fisheries policies with other marine policies
Improving the knowledge basis for management decisions
Developing a culture of compliance
Rationalisation
Tackling overcapacity
Making the most of our fisheries though
MSY approach
Structural policy and financial support
Greater responsibility for fishermen in
developing, implementing and paying for
fisheries management
Review of relative stability
Social - Community
Protection of small scale fisheries
7
16. The Green Paper proposes 2 novel approaches to help realise management
goals:
The use of Rights Based Management to allow market forces to shape
EU fleet structure. By establishing a system of tradable fishing rights,
market forces might be expected to lead to the retraction and
consolidation of the EU fleet. Relative Stability and public subsidies act
to distort or diminish market effects and consequentially, it is argued,
such barriers should be removed. The system shifts fisheries policies
strongly in the direction of rationalisation. It is often assumed that
longer term investment by fewer, larger players will also result in
resource conservation as investors seek to maximise long term returns
through harvesting the resource at maximum sustainable yield.
Moving towards management based on regional cooperation by
Member States, is the second radical option proposed by the Green
Paper. The Commission recognise that current governance
arrangements are distant, bureaucratic and insensitive to regional
circumstances. It proposes that delegating decision making to allow
member States and stakeholders a greater say in implementation of
policies can address some of the current failings of the existing system.
17. In some ways the two systems appear incompatible. A market based
approach opens up fisheries to fishers of all Member States with the market
as the main driver of fishing behaviour. Regionalisation seeks to develop a
governance framework involving only those Member States and stakeholders
with an existing interest in the fishery working cooperatively together.
Questions:
 Is a market based approach compatible with a regionalised EU fisheries
policy?
 Which approach, market or regional Member State cooperation, or a
combination, is more compatible with where you have placed Scotland on the
pyramid?
Scottish Government position
18. The Scottish Government published its response to the CFP Green Paper
on 21st December. The response reflected the views of many stakeholders
across Scotland, including SFC members. That consultation revealed the
continued real and perceived importance of fishing to rural coastal
communities. It also underlined the frustration of many with the failures and
bureaucracy associated with the CFP.
8
19. In the response the Scottish Government highlighted 4 elements of a
successful fisheries policy;




sustainable fisheries management arrangements that will bring an end
to discards;
co-management with industry and marine stakeholders, with scope to
incentivise conservation measures;
fisheries management arrangements which are aligned with marine
environmental and marine planning objectives; and
fisheries policies which recognise and which are sensitive to the needs
of our fisheries-dependent communities and respect their historic
fishing rights.
20. The response argues that these can best be achieved through delegation
of decision making from Brussels down to Member State levels and rejects
Rights Based Management approaches to fisheries.
Questions
 How do these elements co-incide with your own vision for Scotland’s
fisheries? What changes or additions you would make?
 How should we pursue this vision?
Regional cooperation
21. Both the Scottish and UK Governments promote the benefits member
States cooperating on regional fisheries policies of a means of integrating and
democratising fisheries management. The key benefit would be to introduce
flexibility into the system to allow different regimes to be established in
different regions of Europe, more appropriate to the regional circumstances.
However there are a number of challenges that such a model faces. If we are
serious about developing regional cooperative management then those issues
must be addressed.

Circumventing Treaty restrictions – under the EU treaties it is not
possible for powers to be devolved to regional bodies. At best the
treaties allow the delegation of functions from the EU to Member
States. Therefore a regionalised model will require the delegation of
functions from the EU to Member States who then work collaboratively
in a region to manage a fishery. How fisheries plans can be
developed, agreed and monitored needs to be developed as part of a
regional model.

Migratory stocks – certain important stocks, such as mackerel and
herring, migrate through different sea regions. How should such stocks
be managed under a regionalised CFP?
9

Third country agreements – The European Commission has exclusive
competence to negotiate on behalf of Member States regarding jointly
managed fish stocks. How would regional cooperative management of
North Sea stocks, for example, allow for Norwegian involvement?
Questions
 How do we develop a model of cooperative regional management between
Member States to address these points?
 What other points need to be addressed? How do we address these?
Sea Fisheries Policy January 2010
10
2.
MANAGING
OUR
FISHING
OPPORTUNITIES
SUSTAINABILITY AND PROFITABILITY
TO
PROMOTE
Preamble
1.
This document considers the way in which Scotland manages its fishing
opportunities, and how alternative methods of management might better promote
sustainability and profitability. It sets out the background of how management has
developed and poses a number of questions which will help prepare participants for
the forthcoming Scottish Fisheries Council on 19 January 2010.
History
2.
Fishing Opportunities in the EU are regulated by allocating to Member States
catching opportunities (Total Allowable Catches: TACs), known as quotas; and, (in
respect of some fleets) effort opportunities, known as days at sea.
3.
TACs for species of fish were established as part of the CFP in the early
1980s, following protracted negotiations about the shares to be allocated to Member
States. There are now over 100 TACs for individual species, including stocks in
Community waters and elsewhere. TACs have traditionally been set for one year
only, at the December Fisheries Council, for the coming calendar year; although
there are now an increasing number of multi-annual plans for certain stocks. There
are also negotiations that also involve external parties, where the European
Commission negotiates on behalf of all the EU Member States.
4.
Effort management was established primarily as a response to diminishing
stocks of Cod in Community waters. A Cod Recovery Plan (CRP) was agreed by the
EU in 2004 to limit the effort of vessels considered to be involved in the catching of
Cod. This first CRP gave the EU power to limit the number of days in a year that
vessels using particular types of fishing gear were permitted to be absent from port
in the Cod Recovery Zone (CRZ). A successor CRP was then agreed in November
2008, which sought to limit the overall effort of Member States’ fleets, rather than
setting allocations for individual vessels. The 2008 CRP also involves automatic
reductions in Member States’ effort limits while mortality caused by fishing remains
above specified levels.
Domestic arrangements
5.
UK quotas are managed by the UK Fisheries Administrations (FAs), according
to a common set of management rules. Quotas are allocated to ‘groups’, consisting
of Fish Producer Organisations (POs), vessels over 10 metres not in membership of
a PO and all vessels 10 metres and under. Quotas are distributed on the basis of
the Fixed Quota Allocation (FQA) held by members of each group. FQA units are
based on vessels’ landings of species as a proportion of UK landings during the
period 1994-96.
11
Effort is also managed by the UK Fisheries Administrations, but with variations in
management approaches. Days at Sea are allocated directly to eligible vessels and
FAs aim to keep their fleets’ collective efforts within ‘control totals’ that represent an
appropriate portion of UK limits.
Initiatives by the Scottish Government since 2007
6.
Since its election in 2007, the Scottish Government has – with the limited
powers at its disposal forced on it by the current CFP and Scotland’s constitutional
position within the UK – sought to evolve and improve the management of Scotland’s
fisheries.
7.
It has undertaken this work with a clear view about Scotland’s fishing rights.
The Scottish Government regards fishing rights as a national resource that should
bring benefits to Scottish fishermen, their businesses and communities. In particular,
the Government wishes fishing opportunities to be held by and allocated to those
who can fish them, and to prevent them from becoming a speculative asset.
8.
The Government has concentrated on two important areas of reform:


The evolution of new approaches that empower Scotland to deliver solutions
focussed on and tailored for the priorities of Scottish fleets and fishing
communities; and,
In this context of focus on Scottish priorities, the further promotion of comanagement that involves industry, scientists and environmentalists with
Government, as partners in decision-making.
Quota management and licensing
9.
The Government published, in May 2008, a consultation paper, Safeguarding
Our Fishing Rights: The Future of Quota Management and Licensing in Scotland,
which set out a range of proposals to improve quota management and licensing
systems. The Government proposed to grant ‘stewardship rights’ to quota holders,
offering them more certainty in respect of their share of annual quota allocations;
and, to define, identify and register “Scottish Quota”. In addition, fishermen that
acquired Scottish FQA units would be required to demonstrate a genuine and direct
economic benefit to Scotland in the pursuit of their business.
10.
A period of consultation followed, involving discussions across the country.
The Government published a follow up paper in February 2009, Interim Outcome of
Consultation Report, reporting issues discussed in the consultation and further
developments of the proposals in response to these discussions. Following this
second publication, it was agreed between UK FAs that there should be established
a quadrilateral Ministerial Working Group on Quota Management and Licensing to
deliver proposals for reform on these issues. The remit of the group, whose work is
now under way, was set out in a Joint Ministerial Statement of 13 May 2009.2
2
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Fisheries/Sea-Fisheries/17681/SQMLS
12
Effort management – Scottish Conservation Credits Scheme
11.
In relation to effort management, Scotland has played a leading role in
developing new, more flexible regionalised approaches. With the UK, we proposed
to the EU that the CRP be reformed to allow Member States to manage the
collective effort of their fleets (rather than have the EU set in regulations permitted
numbers of days at sea for different categories of vessels, across the EU). We also
argued for Member States to have power to allocate fishing vessels additional time
at sea as a reward for the adoption of new conservation measures.
12.
These improvements were secured in the reformed CRP, but were
unfortunately accompanied by reductions in fishing effort for some fleets, particularly
the whitefish fleet. Nonetheless, the Conservation Credits Scheme, and its steering
group (which includes Government, industry, marine scientists and environmental
organisations) is viewed across the EU and beyond as a successful and ground
breaking example of co-management in fisheries. The group has shown itself to be
both creative in devising and improving conservation initiatives that divert effort away
from stocks at risk; and, importantly, ready when necessary to agree measures to
restrain fleets’ efforts, to ensure that Scotland fulfils its international obligations.
A need for urgent and radical change
13.
Chapter 1 described the failings of the CFP, and in particular the ways in
which the CFP has led to discarding of valuable fish while making normal business
planning next to impossible. Chapter 1 went on to discuss a range of possible
approaches to a new international framework for fisheries management that takes a
regionalised approach to management and rejects entirely supranational micromanagement.
14.
This Chapter builds on those possibilities and is concerned with how Scotland
can better manage the fishing opportunities that result from that new management
framework. It is concerned principally with ‘life after the CFP’; thinking afresh, rather
than with trying to push at the boundaries of what is possible under the present
regime. It may be possible to implement some aspects of the alternatives
investigated under the present regime. It should also be noted that the alternatives
described here are necessarily speculative and not yet worked though fully in all their
details, but are offered by officials to assist debate.
15.
It does appear to officials that, with the considerable majority of Scotland’s
fishermen carrying on their business in mixed fisheries; it is accordingly quite illogical
to centre management on single species quotas. That approach leads inexorably to
the lunacy of discards on the industrial scale that we see today.
16.
In this context, we offer a number of questions for discussion, the
consideration of which we think might assist development of alternative
management approaches:

Is there support among fishermen, fishing communities and interested
parties for fisheries management to be based on the principle of no
13
discards of fish, so that vessels may land all that they catch but, equally,
face penalties if they do discard fish?

How should the allocation and management of fishing opportunities be
reformed? Are there fisheries where single species quotas can be a rational
and sustainable management tool? How could an ‘effort only’ system or a
multi-species quota work in practice?

To what extent should the allocation of fishing opportunities be
designed to advance the potential objectives described in Chapter 4, in
relation to fleet structure? Should the allocation system (regardless of
whether it allocates quota, effort or a combination of the two) provide a
minimum level of access of the fishery, with trade between vessels correcting
for individual businesses’ needs? Alternatively, should the allocation method
reflect more closely vessels’ share of Scottish fishing activities, and also
permit businesses to transfer fishing opportunities more freely, in a way that is
likely to promote consolidation?
No discards
17.
One of the major causes of discarding of marketable fish is the mismatch
between single species quota held by a skipper, and the mix of fish that is found in
the net. The problem is magnified in the mixed demersal fishery, where a single haul
is likely to contain half a dozen or more quota species.
18.
The Scottish Government is working with the industry to explore the potential
for new technologies, such as on-board cameras, to improve information about catch
composition. These new technologies also have potential as building blocks in new,
more sustainable, methods of fisheries management.
19.
Within the present system of single species quotas, combined with days at
sea controls for some fleets, the reduction of discards has to be pursued as part of
an attempt to mitigate the damaging effects of the present CFP. There is potential,
however, for a radically different and much more positive approach that establishes
no discards as one of the designing principles of a new regime, beyond the CFP. Is
there support in the industry to agree ‘no discards’ as one of the starting points of a
different approach to fisheries management?
Reforming the allocation of fishing opportunities
20.
The European Commission’s Green Paper on reform of the CFP raises the
possibility of managing fishing opportunities based on the allocation and control of
effort. We can see some advantages in this approach in mixed fisheries, particularly
in terms of reducing discards. But there would also be risks to be tackled. An effort
only system would involve incentives to fish intensively (and could discourage
avoidance of at risk stocks).
21.
Technology and innovation could help to address these risks. One possibility,
which the Scottish Government has already proposed to the EU, involves the control
of actual fishing time (‘soak time’), as opposed to time absent from port. Technology
14
has advanced in ways that allows the activities of fishing vessels to be monitored (for
example, by satellite tracking of their position in the sea) accurately and at a low unit
cost. Accordingly, it is a realistic prospect to seek to design a control system that
manages vessels’ actual fishing time, and thus maintain incentives for vessels to
undertake avoidance of at risk stocks.
22.
Innovation could help to protect the position of recovery stocks in an effort
only system by, for example, adjusting the consumption of a vessel’s allocation of
time at sea to reflect its landings of recovery stocks. In this approach a vessel
making landings of a recovery stock reduces its allocation of time at sea more
quickly than if it landed stocks in a better position. Such an innovation would have to
be accompanied by an effective ban on discards.
23.
Another alternative model, of particular relevance to mixed fisheries, would be
to deliver management by way of multi-species quotas. In this model, scientists
would focus themselves on establishing a Maximum Sustainable Yield for a sea area
and would also establish the state of key stocks. A single quota for the fishery would
be set. Single species quotas would be set only for recovery stocks. Vessels would
land all that they catch and fishers would be able to continue fishing until they hit
their (or their PO’s) share of the multi-species catch quota. In this model, there may
of course be stocks, for example pelagic fisheries, where single species quotas
remain valid and sustainable.
Aligning the management of fishing opportunities with an approach to fleet structure
24.
Chapter 4 invites views on appropriate objectives in terms of the structure of
fleet sectors. The alternatives explored there include approaches that aim to
maximise vessel operating profits, regardless of whether this reduces the number of
vessels in each fishery and / or concentrates the fleet across fewer ports. Other
approaches include seeking to maximise the number of coastal communities and
onshore businesses that can be sustained by fishing activity.
25.
The conclusions the Council reaches on the questions posed in Chapter 4
have implications for the design of the system for allocating (and transferring) fishing
opportunities among vessels. At present it is possible, in some circumstances, for
vessels and businesses to transfer permanently their quota (in the form of FQA
units) to other businesses. Even where transfer is at present barred (it is not
possible, for example, to transfer FQA units from an active licence) private
arrangements between individuals can achieve the same effect. Transfers of effort
between vessels can be affected only temporarily, but there is a vigorous trade over
the course of the fishing year.
Sea Fisheries Policy
January 2010
15
3.
Working with the industry to maximise the value of the catch
Scotland’s National Food and Drink Policy
Since May 2007 the Scottish Government has made food and drink a priority and
last year published the next steps in the policy, Recipe for Success.
Recipe for Success supports the sustainable economic growth of Scotland’s food
and drink industry. It also recognises that food relates to wider issues such as our
health and wellbeing and our environment. These wider agendas are equally
important and are reflected in the Scottish Food and Drink Industry’s’ Strategy
Refresh which is currently being developed by the Industry led body, Scotland Food
and Drink. The Industry Strategy Refresh places an emphasis on the growth
potential in consumer trends in health, provenance and premium that will facilitate
industry growth to £12.5 Billion by 2017, with more value added to primary products
such as fish and greater collaboration in the supply chain.
Contribution of Seafood
The Seafood sector is well placed to contribute to the continued success of
Scotland’s food and drink economy, with fish and shellfish already making up the
largest proportion of food exported overseas.
Scotland has about 230 seafood processors, most of which are primary. There are
also a few secondary processors in Scotland who concentrate on foodservice and
retail supply. Between them they employ approximately 7,000 people with the
majority of the employment in the shellfish sector.
Relationship with the catching sector
All seafood processing is directly affected by changes in the catching sector due to
quota restrictions and limits on days at sea. The volume of raw materials available
and inconsistent supply for processing affects processors business on a day to day
basis.
16
Government support for the Scotland’s seafood sector
The Scottish Government, Seafish and Seafood Scotland support the Scottish
seafood supply chain, from catching and processing, through to retail, food service
and consumption., and encourages and facilitates those sectors to co-operate
together. Scottish Government administers schemes such as the European Fisheries
Fund (EFF), formally FIFG. In the most recent awards announced late last year the
Scottish Government awarded 13 processors total grant assistance of £3.6m to
support £11.7m of new development in the industry and safeguard or create in
excess of 1,000 jobs.
The Scottish Government also supports seafood promotion through local food
festivals as part of homecoming, health and educational initiatives and national as
well as international promotions of Scottish seafood. Much of this has been made
possible by national and European funding that has been made available through the
IBO Seafood Scotland and the Industry body Scotland Food and Drink.
Activities in the past year include:

Funded the award winning Eat More Fish Campaign (launched May 2009),
which promotes fish as healthy, simple and environmentally friendly. The
campaign is a joint venture between the Scottish Government and various
Scottish fishing and seafood organisations. Since the launch tens of
thousands have read or heard about the campaign or have directly engaged
in the campaign. The campaign is already having a positive effect on seafood
sales in Scotland.

Continued to support (through Scottish Development International) Scotland’s
presence at the annual European Seafood Exposition in Brussels. The
Scottish Government part funded Seafood Scotland’s Seafood Bar and the
Scottish pavilion used the "Scotland - Land of Food & Drink” branding. The
Seafood Bar hosted many meetings for companies and their buyers,
acquaintances and new business contacts. Companies appreciated the
opportunity for their guests to enjoy a Scottish seafood tasting meal, with
more than 250 meals served. Around 15,000 portions of Scottish seafood
were prepared for international visitors by a team of chefs from the Federation
of Chefs Scotland. Lesser known species such as hake, megrim, brown crab,
and king scallops were used in 2009.
17
Future seafood consumption in Scotland
Consumers are key to the growth of the seafood industry. However consumer
attitudes and behaviours vary. Some consumers know about the health benefits of
eating fish but are put off eating fish because they perceive them as being
expensive. There is also a lack of knowledge about how to prepare and cook the
fish. There is also a general awareness of the sustainability, origin and catch
methods for fish, but these are generally not factors in purchasing behaviour.
In terms of who actually consumes the fish, younger and less affluent consumers
tend to consume fewer fish less frequently than more affluent consumers.
Consumers in Britain also tend to stick to a limited number of species – haddock in
Scotland, cod in England, with species such as salmon are perceived as more every
day than species such as monkfish or bass.
Work is ongoing to support the consumer engagement and to raise the profile of
seafood more generally in Scotland. Work over the coming year will include:




Young Scottish Seafood Chef Competition
Extended Eat More fish Campaign, delivered by Seafood Scotland – with
schools, retailers and the food service sector
Seafood presence at events and festivals in Scotland and further afield.
Promotion work on PGIs – specifically for Scottish farmed salmon and
Arbroath Smokies
Catching for the Market
For a profitable future, it is essential that the fishing industry knows its markets, and
can take the action needed to build reputation and secure premium prices. The
Scottish Government recognises that consumer behaviour is but one part of the
entire supply chain and that there is a need to better understand behaviours from
catcher to retailer. To this end the Scottish Government has commissioned SA
Partners to identify and demonstrate the behaviours and practices that maximise the
delivery of whitefish value to all stakeholders in the supply chain. This will be a key
building block for this pillar of the overall plan.
The purpose of the workshop is to engage with the key stakeholders on SFC so that
they can input into the exercise, and comment on the emerging conclusions of the
work. Further information about the project is attached overleaf.
Catching for the
Market.pdf
18
MAKING SURE WE HAVE A RESILIENT FLEET WHICH IS CREWED BY A
SKILLED WORKFORCE
Introduction
The structure, size, vessel design and crewing of the Scottish fleet has evolved as a
result of a multitude of factors, such as the available fishing opportunities, market
demand, technological advances, EU and domestic regulations and the
entrepreneurial spirit of fishermen.
In order to help identify what further actions the industry and the Scottish
Government could take to make sure we have a resilient fleet which is crewed by a
skilled workforce, this chapter will review the structure and financial performance of
the Scottish fleet and how the Scottish Government currently supports vessel safety
and the provision of training across the catching sector.
The Structure of the Scottish Fleet
The Scottish fleet was split into six fleet sectors in the Profitable Futures for Fishing
Report – the pelagic, demersal, scallop, crab & lobster and North Sea and West of
Scotland Nephrops sectors. However, to help better understand and specifically
focus on the structure of the fleet, we have chosen to categorise the fleet more finely
using landings data from 1997 to 2008. The result of this methodology creates ten
fleet sectors, which can be further segmented according to gear type used and
vessel length. (These criteria are outlined in detail at Annex A). This fleet breakdown
allows us to better understand the shape, size, geographic distribution, fishing
patterns, fishing method and age profile of Scottish vessels in each fishery and to
cross reference the outputs with the Sea Fish Industry Authority’s economic survey
findings.
The following charts illustrate how the fleet has evolved in recent years. A more
detailed analysis of each fleet sector is provided at Annex D.
Shape of the fleet
Distribution of Scottish administered vessels of over
10 metres by sector: 1997
Distribution of Scottish administered vessels of over
10 metres by sector: 2008
1%
0%
2%
3%
1%
3%
2%
9%
23%
13%
38%
5%
9%
Demersal
Pelagic
Demersal Pelagic
Nephrops
Scallop
Crab and Lobster
Nep Demersal
Nephrops and Scallops
Nephrops and C&L
Scallops and C&L
10%
4%
0%
Demersal
Pelagic
Demersal Pelagic
Nephrops
Scallop
Crab and Lobster
Nep Demersal
Nephrops and Scallops
Nephrops and C&L
Scallops and C&L
4%
25%
47%
1%
Chart 1
Chart 2
The over-10m charts clearly illustrate the contraction in the proportion of vessels
participating in the demersal fishery and the growth in the number of vessels
19
participating in the Nephrops fishery. It appears that for over 50% of the Scottish
fleet, Nephrops make an important contribution to fishing income.
Distribution of Scottish administered vessels of 10
metres and under by sector: 2008
Distribution of Scottish administered vessels of 10
metres and under by sector: 2003
0%
1%
0%
0%
2%
0%
5%
0%
0%
0%
5% 0%
31%
Demersal
Pelagic
Demersal Pelagic
Nephrops
Scallop
Crab and Lobster
Nep Demersal
Nephrops and Scallops
Nephrops and C&L
Scallops and C&L
41%
45%
6%
Demersal
Pelagic
Demersal Pelagic
Nephrops
Scallop
Crab and Lobster
Nep Demersal
Nephrops and Scallops
Nephrops and C&L
Scallops and C&L
3%
61%
Chart 3
Chart 4
The 10m and under fleet charts illustrate a growth of in the number of vessels
participating in the crab & lobster fishery. However, this could be indicative of an
increase in declared landings through ‘Net1 forms’, rather than a real growth in
numbers.
Size of the fleet
The charts below illustrate the change in the number of vessels participating in each
fishery.
Scottish administered Pelagic vessels > 10m
450
400
350
300
250
Demersal > 10m
200
150
100
50
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
Number of vessels at 31 December
Number of vessels at 31 December
Scottish administered Demersal vessels > 10m
35
30
25
15
10
5
0
1997 1998 1999 2000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
2008
Year
Scottish administered Nephrops vessels > 10m
Chart 6
Scottish administered Nephrops vessels <= 10m
300
250
200
All Nephrops > 10m
Nephrops > 10m Mobile
Nephrops > 10m Static
150
100
50
Number of vessels at 31 December
300
0
250
200
All Nephrops <= 10m
Nephrops <= 10m Mobile
Nephrops <= 10m Static
150
100
50
0
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Year
1997
Chart 7
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Year
Chart 8
Scottish administered Crab and Lobster vessels
Scottish administered Scallops vessels
600
90
80
70
60
Scallops <= 10m
Scallops > 10m
50
40
30
20
10
Number of vessels at 31 December
100
Number of vessels at 31 December
Pelagic
20
Chart 5
350
Number of vessels at 31 December
40
500
400
C&L <= 10m
C&L > 10m
300
200
100
0
0
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Chart 9
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Chart 10
Year
20
Scottish administered > 10m vessels in mixed
fisheries
Number of vessels at 31 December
160
140
120
100
Nep Dem > 10m
Nep C&L > 10m
Nep Scall > 10m
Scall C&L > 10m
80
60
40
20
0
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Chart 11
Year
Chart 5 shows that the number of vessels participating in the demersal fishery has
remained relatively stable since the end of 2003. Chart 6 confirms the consolidation
of the pelagic fleet. Charts 7 and 8 illustrate the steady growth in the number of
vessels participating in the Nephrops fishery, with mobile gears dominating this
growth for over-10m vessels and static gear for those 10m and under. Chart 9
shows that the number of vessels participating in the scallop’s fishery has declined.
Chart 10 indicates a significant increase in the number of 10m and under vessels
participating in the crab & lobster fishery. However, as noted with regard to the
increased proportion of vessels operating in this fishery, the change could be the
result of an increase in declared landings through ‘Net1 forms’, rather than a real
growth in numbers. Chart 11 illustrates the low levels of over-10m vessels for which
no single fishery contributes to 70% or more of the value of their landings.
Fishing patterns of the fleet
Scottish administered vessels 10 metres and under,
by area fished: 2003
Scottish administered vessels 10 metres and under,
by area fished: 2008
4% 1%
6% 0%
30%
North Sea only
West of Scotland only
Both NS and WoS
Neither NS nor WoS
44%
North Sea only
West of Scotland only
Both NS and WoS
Neither NS nor WoS
51%
64%
Chart 12
Chart 13
Scottish administered vessels over 10 metres,
by area fished: 2008
Scottish administered vessels over 10 metres,
by area fished: 1997
3%
1%
27%
27%
37%
North Sea only
West of Scotland only
Both NS and WoS
Neither NS nor WoS
North Sea only
West of Scotland only
Both NS and WoS
Neither NS nor WoS
45%
27%
Chart 14
33%
Chart 15
The above pie charts illustrate that a higher proportion of the Scottish fleet now fish
in the North Sea.
21
Geographical distribution of the fleet
The maps below illustrate the changes over recent years in the port of administration
(at district level) of the Scottish fleet. The data for Arbroath, Lossiemouth and
MacDuff has been aggregated with Aberdeen, Buckie and Fraserburgh respectively.
In the past Portree data was aggregated with Mallaig, but the latest maps separate it.
22
The maps give some indication of change in size, shape of the fleet sectors
operating from each coastal community. The maps illustrate, for example, that
Eyemouth’s over-10m fleet has reduced by over 50% and now comprises
predominantly Nephrops vessels. Meanwhile, the number of 10m and under vessels
appears to have doubled, with more crab & lobster now located at Eyemouth. Once
again, however, this may be a feature of a higher instance of landing declarations
rather than a genuine change in numbers.
Financial performance of the fleet
Comparison between UK quayside fuel price,
crude oil and red diesel in Amsterdam
160
55
50
140
$ per barrel
45
120
40
100
35
80
30
60
25
Jul-09
£3,500
Monkfish
£3,000
Cod
Haddock
£2,500
Nephrops
£2,000
Brown
Crab
Herring
£1,500
£1,000
Mackerel
£500
Sep-09
Jan-09
Mar-09
May-09
Nov-08
Jul-08
Europe Brent Crude ($ per barrel)
Sep-08
Jan-08
Mar-08
May-08
Jul-07
Nov-07
Sep-07
Jan-07
Mar-07
May-07
Jul-06
Rotterdam (ARA) Gasoil ($ per barrel)
Nov-06
Sep-06
Jan-06
Mar-06
May-06
Jul-05
Nov-05
Sep-05
Jan-05
Mar-05
May-05
15
Nov-04
20
Sep-04
20
Jul-04
40
Nephrops, Demersal, Pelagic, Scallops and Crab
Prices Since 1999 in 2008 Prices
Price Per Tonne
60
Price of Fuel (pence per litre)
180
Scallops
Megrims
£0
1999
Average UK fuel price (ppl)
2000
2001
2002
2003
Chart 16
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Chart 17
Year
Demersal Fleet Average Profit (before depreciation
and interest)
Lobster Prices Since 1999 in 2008 Prices
£14,000
£180,000
NS WoS over
24m Single Rig
£160,000
£140,000
£10,000
£8,000
Lobster
£6,000
Average Profit
Price Per Tonne
£12,000
£4,000
NS WoS <24m
>300kw Single
Rig
£120,000
NS WoS Pair
Trawl/Seine
£100,000
£80,000
NS & WoS
Demersal Seine
Netters >10m
£60,000
£40,000
NS & WoS
Demersal Twin
Rig Trawl
£20,000
£2,000
£0
£0
2004
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2006
2007
Year
Chart 18
Scallops >10m, Potters & Creelers >12m Fleet Average
Profit (before depreciation and interest)
Chart 19
Nephrops Fleet Average Profit (before depreciation
and interest)
£60,000
£140,000
£50,000
£120,000
NS Nephrops SingleRig
£100,000
£40,000
NS & WoS Scallopers
£30,000
Potters and Creelers
10m -12m
£20,000
Average Profit
Average Profit
2005
2009
Year
NS Nephrops TwinRig
£80,000
£60,000
WoS Nephrops
Single-Rig
£40,000
£10,000
WoS Nephrops TwinRig Vessels
£20,000
£0
2004
2005
2006
2007
£0
Year
2004
Chart 20
2005
2006
Year
2007
Chart 21
Pelagic Fleet Total Earnings
£4,500,000
Average Total Income
£4,000,000
£3,500,000
£3,000,000
£2,500,000
Pelagic
£2,000,000
£1,500,000
£1,000,000
£500,000
£0
2004
2005
2006
Year
2007
Chart 22
23
Chart 16 illustrates the real term increase in the price of fuel. Chart 17 shows that
cod, haddock and brown crab prices in 2009 are similar, in real terms, to that
achieved in 1999. Monkfish prices have fluctuated but have been higher in 2009.
Mackerel, herring and megrim prices show a healthy upward trend, while Nephrops
and scallop prices show an opposite downward trend. Chart 19 shows that the
financial performance of the majority of the demersal segments has declined since
2004. The Seafish 2009 mid-year financial review estimates that the operating
profits of the key segments will be lower this year than in 2007. Chart 21 illustrates
that the North Sea Nephrops twin rig operating profits have risen since 2004. This
may have encouraged vessels to join the fishery. However, the Seafish 2009 mid–
year financial review estimates that this segment’s profits will be 60% lower this year
than in 2007. The other Nephrops segments have seen a decline or relatively stable
profits in 2007 compared with 2004, but lower prawn prices this year will clearly
impact 2009 performance for these segments. Chart 20 shows that scallop and crab
& lobster operating profits have declined year on year from 2004. Chart 22 shows
that pelagic fleet earnings have increased over the period.
Scottish Licence numbers
The table below illustrates the potential for Scottish licences to be used to allow
vessels to join each fishery:
Fleet sector
Number
of Additional licensed
participating
vessels eligible to
vessels in 2008 by join each sector
Annex A criteria
Demersal
over- 150
10m
Demersal 10m and 0
under
Pelagic over-10m
23 + 3 fishing
outside ‘EU waters’
Pelagic 10m and 1
under
Nephrops
over- 316
10m
Nephrops 10m and 234
under
Scallop over-10m
65
Scallop 10m and 26
under
Crab & Lobster 61
over-10m
Crab & Lobster 454
10m and under
183
Additional
entitlements
eligible to licence
vessels
in
the
sector
34 + 7 restricted
1467
113
0
2
1466
113
162
1233
47 NS of which
41 WoS only
113
108
147
5
113
110
11
774
61
24
Consideration
The preceding charts and the more detailed analysis of each fleet sector at Annex D,
including the age profile of vessels, provide a context in which the resilience of the
fleet may be considered. The recent trends which they illustrate may help predict
future fleet evolution and the existing potential for more radical structural changes to
occur which might jeopardise or enhance the resilience of some or all fleet sectors.
What do you believe the objectives of each fleet sector should be? Do you
want to create resilient fleet sectors which, for example:

Maximise vessel operating profits from sustainable fishing
opportunities, regardless of whether this reduces the number of vessels
in each fishery and/or concentrates the fleet across less ports;

Maximise the number of financially viable vessels which can participate
in a sustainable fishery, regardless of whether vessels are operating
efficiently and/or are concentrated across less ports; or

Maximise the number of coastal communities and onshore businesses
which are dependent on fishing which can be sustained by financially
viable vessels participating in sustainable fisheries.
The existing licensing categories, entitlements and/or the associated regulations,
such as capacity penalties, give Marine Scotland the opportunity to create more or
less flexibility for vessel owners to adjust to fisheries dynamics and/or to give
fisheries managers more or less control of the shape, size, geographic distribution
and fishing patterns in order to deliver the desired outcomes of each fleet sector.
There appear to be four principal policy choices, or combinations thereof, which
could help deliver the outcomes desired:
Option A
Amend the licensing regulations to give vessel owners more or less flexibility to
adjust to fisheries dynamics, such as the available fishing opportunities, market
demand, technological advances and the operational costs of fishing.
Option B
Amend the licensing regulations to give fisheries managers more or less control of
the shape, size, geographic distribution and/or fishing patterns of each fleet sector.
Option C
Provide public aid to facilitate fleet restructuring, such as through decommissioning,
vessel sharing and re-engining.
Option D
Do nothing, maintaining the existing licensing arrangements so that each fleet sector
can continue to evolve, the direction of which may be forecast by historic trends.
25
Annex B outlines some ideas of what options A and B could mean in practice, whilst
Annex C considers the benefits and risks of option C.
Vessel Safety
Fishing at sea is one of the most dangerous occupations in the world. The
Department for Transport’s Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Marine
Accident and Investigation Branch play a pivotal and lead role across the UK in
establishing and maintaining vessel surveys and inspections.
Whilst vessel safety is currently devolved, the Scottish Government actively supports
the work of these bodies and the contribution of the Sea Fish Industry Authority, who
together work in partnership to create a safer working environment at sea and to
reduce the number of accidents and injuries suffered by fishermen.
A key rationale behind the Scottish Government’s introduction of hours at sea under
the Conservation Credits Scheme was that it would help mitigate any pressure effort
regulations may place on skippers to increase safety risks by staying longer at sea in
bad weather to avoid losing unproductive days and/or steaming ‘flat out’ to minimise
the duration of each trip.
Through both FIFG and now EFF funding, the Scottish Government has awarded
grants for investments which improve the safety on board vessels. Over £2.1m of
safety awards have made under Axis and 1 and 3 to date (value includes EFF and
SG matched funding). This represents 52% of the EFF element of Axis 1 funding
awarded and 3% of Axis 3.
Consideration
Do you believe that EFF funding for vessel safety measures continues to be an
appropriate priority?
What additional and/or alternative policy interventions would support vessel
safety?
The Sea Fish Industry Authority’s 2006 publication, ‘Options for Improving Fuel
Efficiency in the UK Fishing Fleet’, highlights that some vessels are designed to
comply with specific rules relating to their length, often at the expense of safety and
efficiency. It suggests that ‘length and breadth ratios of between 3 and 4.1 minimise
resistance when free running and enhance se-keeping performance.’
The
introduction of a single, generic licence as described in Annex B, rather than the
existing split between 10m and under and over-10m licenses, might allow more
vessels to achieve this ratio.
Employment across the Catching Sector
The number of fishermen regularly employed on Scottish based vessels has risen by
11% between 2004 and 2008, from 4,124 to 4,585. The results of a recent crew
survey, commissioned by the New Entrants Working Group, indicated that the fleet
has a well balanced crew age profile, with 66% of deckhands 40 years old or
younger and 34% of skippers over 50. However, some Scottish fleet sector
segments are currently heavily reliant on non-EEA labour. A recent assessment by
26
Fishery Offices suggests that approximately 420 non-EEA crew are employed on
around 180 over-10m vessels. On balance, we consider that a move to the use of
local fishermen is the only way to secure sustainable community benefit in the
medium term. Differential employment conditions between the West Coast and
North Sea are also likely to be a source of constant tension and lead to a competitive
advantage for those replacing Scottish with non-EEA fishermen. A suitable period of
adjustment to coincide with the prospective economic recovery therefore seems to
be the best way forward.
The New Entrants Working Group has been asked to deliver proposals to enhance
and sustain new entrants to the fishing industry. It has recommended the design
and implementation of a coherent single career pathway which all new entrants into
the catching sector should follow, with appropriate exit and re-entry points depending
on an individual’s career aspirations. The Group believes that such a pathway,
supported by the Scottish Government’s modern apprenticeship funding and
potentially concluding with an HNC in Nautical Science, could help to attract new
entrants into the catching sector.
In parallel with this activity, the Group is exploring how the industry might establish a
single body which could pull together all the information regarding access to and
training across the fishing industry, so that it is easy to understand and readily
accessible for those wishing to explore the career opportunities available and the
associated career paths. The Group hopes that such a body could also lead on
marketing the career paths available in the fishing industry, including establishing
links with schools and career services, in order to promote and enhance the
attractiveness of joining the fishing industry.
The Scottish Government continues to support training initiatives through EFF
funding. In the latest round of funding, announced in November 2009, the
successful EFF awards included £200,000 to help eight young fishermen purchase a
share in vessels and £360,000 to support training across the catching sector.
Consideration
What further action do you think can be taken to enhance the supply of skilled
crew to the catching sector?
27
Annex A
Fleet Sector Categorisation
Fleet
Sector
Sector Segment
1.
Demersal
Value
of
landings
criteria
> = 70% whitefish (Note
1)
15
15
15
> = 70% pelagic (Note 2)
Length of vessel
10
20
2.1 Pelagic <= 10
2.2 Pelagic > 10
3.
Demersal/
Pelagic
Segment criteria
> = 70% fishing trips
using gear type then
length of vessel, then
power
7.5
15
15
1.1 Dem <= 10
1.2 Dem > 24 trawl
1.3 Dem <= 24 >
300kW trawl
1.5
Dem
>
10
pair_seine/trawl
1.6 Dem > 10 seine
1.7 Dem > 10 other
2. Pelagic
Sufficiently
active
by
landing weight
threshold
–
tonnes
Not fleet sector 1 or 2 and
> = 70% (whitefish +
pelagic)
7.5
15
3.1 Dem Pel <=10
3.2 Dem Pel > 10
4.
Nephrops
> = 70% Nephrops or if
not assigned to other
segments and > = 50%
Nephrops
1
2
2
2
4.1 Nep <= 10 Static
4.2 Nep <= 10 Mobile
4.3 Nep > 10 Static
4.4 Nep > 10 Mobile
5. Scallop
> = 70% fishing trips
using pots = static, else
= mobile, then length of
vessel
> = 70% Scallops
6. Crab &
Lobster
Length of vessel
1
2
5.1 Scallop <= 10
5.2 Scallop > 10
> = 65% C&L
1.5
1.5
3
3
6.1 C&L < 9
6.2 C&L > 9 <= 10
6.3 C&L > 10 <= 12
6.4 C&L > 12
7.
Nephrops/
Demersal
Length of vessel
Not fleet sector 1 or 4 and
> = 70% (Nephrops +
whitefish)
7.1 Nep Dem <= 10
7.2 Nep Dem > 10
7.5
10
28
Fleet
sector
8.
Nephrops/
Scallop
Sector segment
Value
of
landings
criteria
Not fleet sector 4 or 5 and
> = 70% (Nephrops +
Scallops)
Not fleet sector 4 or 6 and
> = 70% (Nephrops +
C&L)
1.5
3
9.1 Nep C&L <= 10
9.2 Nep C&L > 10
91.
Scallop/
C&L
Not fleet sector 5 or 6 and
> = 70% (Scallops +
C&L)
91.1 Scall C&L <= 10
91.2 Scall C&L > 10
92.
Not
Assigned
93.
Insuffic.
Active
94.
Not
Active
Segment criteria
1
2
8.1 Nep Scall <= 10
8.2 Nep Scall > 10
9.
Nephrops
/C&L
Insufficiently
active
by
landing weight
– tonnes
1.5
3
Not
assigned
to
segment and > = 50
days
on
fishing
voyages.
Not
assigned
to
segment and < 50 days
on fishing voyages.
No recorded landings
value.
29
Annex B
AMENDING THE LICENSING REGULATIONS TO BETTER PROMOTE
SUSTAINABILITY AND PROFITABILITY ACROSS EACH FLEET SECTOR
Introduction
The existing licensing categories, entitlements and/or the associated regulations,
such as capacity penalties, give Marine Scotland the opportunity to create more or
less flexibility for vessel owners to adjust to fisheries dynamics and/or to give
fisheries managers more or less control of the shape, size, geographic distribution
and fishing patterns of each fleet sector. This annex outlines some initial ideas.
A Single, Generic Licence
Scottish Category A, B, C and 10m and under licenses and entitlements could be
replaced with a single, generic licence which principally limited the kW engine
capacity and tonnage (GT) of the vessel.
The generic licence could allow their utilisation across all types of Scottish fishing
vessel, their aggregation and disaggregation, with or without capacity penalty. This
freer movement across the Scottish fleet, combined with the potential to reduce
capacity penalties, would allow the availability and affordability of licenses to be
significantly improved, thereby facilitating vessel modernisation, adaptation and/or
renewal, as well as helping to reduce the cost of entry to new entrants.
Whilst these outcomes should increase the ability vessel owners to adjust quickly
to market conditions and to remain competitive, there is a risk that individual
investment decisions could lead to the development of unsustainable fleet
structures and/or to fleet consolidation which damages many fragile coastal
communities which are highly dependent on fishing – communities without fishing
which are hard to imagine.
New Fleet Sector Permits
Existing ‘fishery’ entitlements, such as Scallop and Shellfish Entitlements, could be
extinguished and new fleet sector permits re-issued to vessel owners which have
actively participated in each fishery over a designated reference period or where
owners can demonstrate an enforceable financial commitment, entered into prior to
an agreed retrospective date, with the intention of joining the fishery.
The sector permits would remain Scottish Government assets, removing the
ability for sale or transfer by permit holders so that a market value cannot be
established.
The sector permits would be assigned for use on a specific vessel, with a
designated kW capacity and tonnage (GT). Permit holders would therefore need to
be issued with a replacement permit by Marine Scotland should they wish to
continue to participate in the fisheries when the assigned vessel has been modified
or replaced.
30
The vessel specific assignment of sector permits would give Marine Scotland and
industry greater ability to co-manage the structure of the fleet and to steer a path
through the dichotomy of the local economic benefit of maintaining a diverse
Scottish fleet, versus ensuring that at the macro-economic level the catching sector
as a whole remained viable, competitive and sufficiently confident to invest in its
future. Participants, including fishing crew, should be better informed and have
greater input into the future of each fleet sector, thereby promoting better long-term
business and career planning.
However, the introduction of sector permits and co-management arrangements
regarding their on-going issue and amendment would reduce the flexibility of
vessel owners to diversify into other fleet sectors. Although the costs associated
with vessel modernisation, adaptation and/or renewal and entry for new entrants
might be lower, these individual decisions would be subject to communal
consultation and Marine Scotland’s authorisation where owners wished to continue
to participate in and/or join a permit controlled fishery.
Fleet Sector Segment Permits
Fleet sector segment permits would allow the concept of sector permits to be
refined to create segments within each fishery. Such segments could be defined
by a variety of criteria, or combinations thereof, such as:







the spatial boundaries of local fisheries to protect them from nomadic fleets,
such as the Orkney crab fishery;
distinct fisheries stocks, such as Nephrops functional units;
historic fishing patterns, such as North Sea, West of Scotland or both;
vessel length, capacity and/or tonnage, which would enable, for example,
the ability to exclude large vessels from fisheries where the market impact of
high volume landings would severely impact viability of other participants;
creel limits, perhaps by area and/or vessel length;
port of administration, in order to try to mitigate against further consolidation
of the fleet at fewer Scottish ports; and/or
fishing method, such as static or mobile.
The creation and control of segments within each fleet sector might allow fisheries
managers to better support the desired outcomes of each fleet sector.
New Capacity Penalties
The removal of capacity penalties would reduce the financial cost of vessel
adaptation and modernisation. However, technological advances mean that the
capability of vessels to target and catch the available quota will steadily improve. It
is therefore important that there are appropriate measures in place to ensure that
the fleet is ‘right sized’ with the available fishing opportunities. The introduction of
fleet sector permits, with or without segment permits, might deliver adequate
safeguards.
31
Annex C
PUBLIC AID TO FACILITATE FLEET RESTRUCTURING
Introduction
The operating profits of the demersal, Nephrops, scallop and crab & lobster fleet
segments could all potentially benefit from state aid to reduce the number of
vessels participating in each fishery. This Annex considers the potential rationale
for each fleet sector.
Demersal fleet sector
The 2010 TAC scenarios used in the Seafish economic impact assessment show
that, without any further reduction in effort from 2009, the North Sea (NS) & West
of Scotland (WoS) demersal trawl single rig >24m and the pair trawl/seine
segment’s average operating profits would increase by 11% and 26% respectively
on 2009’s estimated profit. This is primarily due to the 17% increase in cod TAC
anticipated for 2010.
However, the study suggests that days at sea restrictions in 2010 would result in an
18% reduction and 1% increase respectively on 2009’s estimated operating profit
(an opportunity loss of 29% and 25% respectively). For the NS & WoS demersal
trawl single rig >24m the model shows that this would result in a net accounting
loss for the segment average. The situation would be exacerbated by any increase
in fuel and oil costs, particularly for the single trawl sectors. The cash flow impact
on individual vessel operators will depend on their level of indebtedness.
This significant reduction in estimated operating profit reflects the model’s
prediction, based on 2008 landing per unit effort rates, that the 10m and over
demersal fleet segment will not have enough days at sea in 2010 to land all their
quotas.
A 10m and over demersal decommissioning scheme could be designed to reduce
the number of vessels seeking days at sea from Scotland’s whitefish (TR1) effort
pots, thereby minimising any required reduction in days at sea allocations to the
remaining whitefish fleet. There is a risk however that maximising the ‘flat rate’
allocation to those that notify TR1 gear does not necessarily mean that vessels can
access the same number of days they acquired in 2009 and therefore land the
same proportion of the UK’s quota.
If the quota (FQA) associated with the decommissioned vessels was redistributed
across the remaining whitefish and/or other fleet segments, it could provide
additional economic benefits. It is possible, however, that despite mitigating any
required reduction in days at sea allocation, this will only allow vessels to land a
higher proportion rather than all of their original quota share, so that any additional
allocation will not increase their profit.
32
Nephrops fleet sector
The Seafish economic impact assessment illustrates that the operating profits of
the Nephrops fleet are adversely impacted, albeit comparatively marginally, by both
effort restrictions and assumed reductions in TAC in 2010.
The modelling suggests that, if effort levels in 2009 were the same as in 2008, the
NS and WoS Nephrops twin rig segment’s average operating profits forecast for
2009 would have increased by 6% and 14% respectively.
Nephrops fleets should not, however, face a further reduction in effort ceilings in
2010. The 2010 TAC scenario which assumes a 15% reduction in both NS and
WoS TACs (scenario 2) predicts that, without a further reduction in effort from
2009, the NS and WoS Nephrops twin rig segment’s average operating profits
would reduce by 6% and 9% respectively from 2009.
The Seafish study clearly shows that it is the low price of prawns which is the key
factor causing the fleet’s financial fragility. The average price for Nephrops in the
period January to September 2009 is 12% lower, in real terms, compared with the
same period in 2008. The average price achieved for prawns year to date is lower,
in real terms, compared with the same period in the last decade.
Seafish’s latest financial performance modelling estimates that total fishing
expenses across the Nephrops fleet has increased by an average of 19% from
2005 to 2009. In many instances, therefore, reduced profitability is primarily a
consequence of market prices which cannot support many of the vessels’ operating
costs.
Given the limited financial impact of current effort and quota restrictions, it appears
highly unlikely that any effort or quota benefits resulting from decommissioning
across the Nephrops fleet – benefits which themselves are also difficult to deliver –
would generate an adequate increase in the operating profits of the remaining
vessels to secure their long term financial viability.
It is possible that decommissioning could reduce supply and result in higher market
prices. There is a risk, however, that any such movement would be marginal and
temporary. Reduced supply can lead to product substitution and loss of market
share. The Seafish ‘Profitable Futures for Fishing’ report concluded that ‘the likely
benefit in relation to cost does not appear attractive and there is a fairly high risk
that the required price increases to deliver a benefit to the remaining vessels would
not arise sufficiently. Benefit to the vessels which are decommissioned is not
counted as the test is to improve profit for the fleet.’
Scallop fleet sector
The economic viability of the Scallop fleet has been impacted by lower market
prices. The financial performance of those vessels which dredge for Scallops is
particularly sensitive to fuel and oil costs as they represent a higher percentage of
earnings than most fleets. Their fishing patterns and earnings are also jeopardised
by recent and prospective closures.
33
As is the case for the Nephrops fleets, it is possible that decommissioning across
these fleet segments could reduce supply and result in higher market prices.
There is a high risk, however, that any such movement would be marginal and
temporary. Reduced supply can lead to product substitution and loss of market
share. This is re-iterated in the Seafish ‘Profitable Futures for Fishing’ report.
Crab & Lobster fleet sector
Seafish’s 2007 financial performance data for Scottish pots and creel vessels over
12m and between 10 and 12m show operating and net profits in both segment
averages.
Despite this, at the stakeholder workshop hosted by Seafish as part of their
consultative study to identify the most appropriate interventions to improve the
profits of each fleet segment, the Crab & Lobster group called for decommissioning
‘to improve the balance of effort to stocks and markets.’
The Seafish ‘Profitable Futures for Fishing’ report concluded that the ‘cost-benefit
analysis is negative. Benefits to remaining vessels may not arise and could be
much lower than the cost of the scheme.’
Vessel Sharing
Utilising the same fishing vessel, while retaining existing licences, might allow
some fishing operations to reduce their fixed and, potentially, some variable costs,
(e.g. harbour dues, insurance, repairs and other owner expenses) so that each
business generated sufficient operating profit to be financially viable over the short
and long term.
Withstanding any SG funding arrangements to encourage ‘vessel sharing’, it is
possible to amend existing licensing arrangements to allow the rights and
entitlements associated with two or more licences and/or permits to be utilised by
a single vessel.
Each licence entitlement would continue to generate a quota allocation associated
with its FQAs. Days at sea could also be allocated where the entitlement was
placed on an over-10m vessel which had eligibility to fish in the Cod Recovery
Zone. What this would mean in practice is that we would facilitate the transfer of
days at sea alongside FQAs, so that active fishermen could deploy the days at sea
allowed to two or more separate vessels whilst tying up all bar one which would be
used to go fishing.
The concept of vessel sharing, through which fishing operations reduce their fixed
and, potentially, some variable costs to generate sufficient operating profits to
become and/or remain financially viable, appears particularly attractive, in theory,
to many vessels in the Nephrops fleet. Approximately 70 single rig prawn vessels,
for example, have averaged less than 150 days at sea over the last nine years.
Using Seafish’s latest financial performance modelling, and assuming that the total
vessel owner expenses would increase by 50% for the vessel retained, the forecast
operating profits for NS and WoS single rig vessels are illustrated in the table
below:
34
Fleet
segment
Individual
expenses
totalled
for
both
businesses
NS
WoS
£414,000
£306,000
Individual
operating
profit
totalled
for
both
businesses
£10,000
(£22,000)
Shared
expenses
Shared
operating
profit
£383,500
£277,000
£40,500
£7,000
It is possible that combined crews could also lead to reduced costs and/or
increased productivity and that an increased continuity of landings across the
week, as more fishing operations, through sharing, are forced to break the
traditional pattern of working Monday to Friday, could lead to better prices.
An increase or return to profitability could also allow the owners to reinvest and
modernise their vessels, leading to further cost reductions (such as lower repair
costs and greater fuel efficiency).
35
Annex D
Demersal Fleet
Size of Fleet by Segment
Scottish administered Demersal vessels > 10m
Scottish administered Demersal vessels > 10m
Number of vessels at 31 December
450
400
350
300
250
Demersal > 10m
200
150
100
Number of vessels at 31 December
120
Dem trawl > 24m
Dem pair
100
Dem trawl <= 24m > 300Kw
Dem seine
80
Dem other
60
40
20
50
0
0
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
1997
2008
1998
1999
2000
2001
Chart 23
Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Chart 24
Year
Shape of Fleet
Shape Of Demersal Fleet In 1997
Shape Of Demersal Fleet In 2008
0%
0%
22%
26%
23%
24%
Demersal <= 10
Demersal <= 10
Demersal > 24m Trawl
Demersal <= 24m > 300Kw Trawl
Demersal > 10m Pair Trawl/Seine
Demersal > 10m Seine
Demersal > 10m Other
16%
Demersal > 24m Trawl
Demersal <= 24m > 300Kw Trawl
Demersal > 10m Pair Trawl/Seine
Demersal > 10m Seine
13%
15%
Demersal > 10m Other
16%
20%
25%
Chart 25
Chart 26
Geographical Distribution of Fleet by Segment
Port Of Administration For >24m Demersal Trawlers In
2008
Port Of Administartion For >10m Pair Seiners In 2008
5%
13%
3%
9%
3%
17%
Eyemouth
Aberdeen
Peterhead
Fraserburgh
Buckie
Peterhead
Fraserburgh
23%
Buckie
26%
Orkney
Shetland
Ullapool
28%
56%
Ayr
14%
Chart 27
3%
Port Of Administration For <24m >300kw Demersal
Trawlers In 2008
5%
5%
Chart 28
Port Of Administration For >10m Seine Vessels In
2008
9%
5%
5%
Pittenweem
31%
Peterhead
16%
18%
Aberdeen
Peterhead
Fraserburgh
Fraserburgh
Buckie
Buckie
Scrabster
Shetland
36%
Shetland
Lochinver
Kinlochbervie
11%
21%
11%
27%
Chart 29
Chart 30
36
Port Of Administration For >10m Demersal Other In
2008
3%
30%
27%
Aberdeen
Peterhead
Buckie
Scrabster
Shetland
6%
25%
3%
3%
3%
Kinlochbervie
Ullapool
Ayr
Chart 31
Fishing Patterns of Fleet by Segment
Demersal >24m Trawl Vessels Fishing Patterns
Demersal >24m Trawl Vessels Fishing Patterns
100%
80
90%
70
80%
Percentage
60%
50%
40%
30%
Demersal >24m trawl:
Both NS and WoS
60
Number
Demersal >24m trawl: Neither NS
nor WoS
Demersal >24m trawl: West of
Scotland only
Demersal >24m trawl: North Sea
only
Demersal >24m trawl: Both NS and
WoS
70%
50
Demersal >24m trawl:
West of Scotland only
30
20%
20
10%
10
0%
Demersal >24m trawl:
North Sea only
40
Demersal >24m trawl:
Neither NS nor WoS
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
0
Year
Chart 32
Chart 33
Year
Demersal Pair/Seine Trawl Fishing Patterns
Demersal Pair/Seine Fishing Patterns
100%
70
60
80%
Demersal >10m pair/seine: Both NS
and WoS
Demersal >10m pair/seine: North
Sea only
40%
Number
Percentage
50
60%
Demersal >10m pair/seine: North
Sea only
Demersal >10m pair/seine: Both
NS and WoS
40
30
20
20%
10
0%
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
0
Year
Chart 34
<=24m >300kW Demersal Trawl Fishing Patterns
60
80%
50
40%
40
Number
Demersal <=24m >300kW trawl:
West of Scotland only
Demersal <=24m >300kW trawl:
North Sea only
Demersal <=24m >300kW trawl:
Both NS and WoS
Demersal <=24m >300kW trawl:
Both NS and WoS
Demersal <=24m >300kW trawl:
North Sea only
Demersal <=24m >300kW trawl:
West of Scotland only
30
20
20%
10
0%
Year
Chart 36
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
0
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
Percentage
<=24m >300kW Demersal Trawl Fishing Patterns
100%
60%
Chart 35
Year
Year
Chart 37
37
Demersal >10m Seine Fishing Patterns
Demersal >10m Seine Fishing Patterns
100%
45
40
35
Demersal >10m seine: Both NS and
WoS
Demersal >10m seine: West of
Scotland only
Demersal >10m seine: North Sea
only
60%
40%
30
Number
Percentage
80%
Demersal >10m seine: North Sea
only
Demersal >10m seine: West of
Scotland only
Demersal >10m seine: Both NS
and WoS
25
20
15
20%
10
5
0%
0
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08
19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Year
Chart 38
Other >10m Demersal Fishing Patterns
Other >10m Demersal Fishing Patterns
100%
60
50
80%
60%
40%
Demersal >10m other: Both NS
and WoS
Demersal >10m other: North Sea
only
Demersal >10m other: West of
Scotland only
Demersal >10m other: Neither
NS nor WoS
40
Number
Demersal >10m other: Neither NS
nor WoS
Demersal >10m other: West of
Scotland only
Demersal >10m other: North Sea
only
Demersal >10m other: Both NS and
WoS
30
20
20%
10
0%
0
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
Percentage
Chart 39
Year
Year
Chart 40
Chart 41
Year
Fleet Age Profile by Segment
Scottish administered Demersal vessels > 24m by age:
1997
Scottish administered Demersal vessels > 24m by age:
2008
6%
9%
28%
22%
< 5 years
>= 5 < 15 years
>= 15 < 25 years
>= 25 years
>= 5 < 15 years
>= 15 < 25 years
>= 25 years
34%
60%
Chart 42
41%
Scottish administered Demersal vessels > 10m pair,
by age: 1997
Chart 43
Scottish administered Demersal vessels > 10m pair,
by age: 2008
5%
13%
21%
25%
18%
>= 5 < 15 years
>= 15 < 25 years
>= 25 years
62%
Chart 44
< 5 years
>= 5 < 15 years
>= 15 < 25 years
>= 25 years
Chart 45
56%
38
Scottish administered Demersal trawl vessels
<= 24m > 300Kw, by age: 1997
Scottish administered Demersal trawl vessels
<= 24m > 300Kw, by age: 2008
3%
9%
15%
23%
< 5 years
>= 5 < 15 years
>= 15 < 25 years
>= 25 years
29%
< 5 years
>= 5 < 15 years
>= 15 < 25 years
>= 25 years
36%
32%
Chart 46
53%
Scottish administered Demersal vessels > 10m seine,
by age: 1997
Chart 47
Scottish administered Demersal vessels > 10m seine,
by age: 1997
2%
5%
19%
11%
< 5 years
>= 5 < 15 years
>= 15 < 25 years
>= 25 years
29%
< 5 years
>= 5 < 15 years
>= 15 < 25 years
>= 25 years
58%
26%
Chart 48
50%
Scottish administered other Demersal trawl vessels
> 10m, by age: 1997
Chart 49
Scottish administered other Demersal trawl vessels
> 10m, by age: 2008
1%
6%
8%
24%
29%
< 5 years
>= 5 < 15 years
>= 15 < 25 years
>= 25 years
< 5 years
>= 5 < 15 years
>= 15 < 25 years
>= 25 years
53%
33%
Chart 50
Chart 51
46%
Fish Prices by Segment
Demersal Fish Prices Since 1999 in 2008 Prices
£3,500
Price Per Tonne
£3,000
£2,500
Monkfish
Cod
Haddock
Megrims
£2,000
£1,500
£1,000
£500
£0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Chart 52
39
Financial Performance by Segment
Demersal Fleet Average Profit (before depreciation
and interest)
Demersal Fleet Percentage Of Operating Profit Against
Total Earnings
35
£180,000
NS WoS over
24m Single Rig
Average Profit
£140,000
NS WoS <24m
>300kw Single
Rig
£120,000
NS WoS Pair
Trawl/Seine
£100,000
£80,000
NS & WoS
Demersal Seine
Netters >10m
£60,000
£40,000
NS & WoS
Demersal Twin
Rig Trawl
£20,000
£0
2004
2005
2006
Year
2007
NS WoS over 24m
Single Rig
30
Operating Profit %
£160,000
25
NS WoS <24m
>300kw Single Rig
20
NS WoS Pair
Trawl/Seine
15
NS & WoS Demersal
Seine Netters >10m
10
5
NS & WoS Demersal
Twin Rig Trawl
0
2004
Chart 53
2005
2006
Year
2007
Chart 54
40
Nephrops Fleet
Size of Fleet by Segment
Scottish administered Nephrops vessels <= 10m
Scottish administered Nephrops vessels > 10m
350
250
200
All Nephrops <= 10m
Nephrops <= 10m Mobile
Nephrops <= 10m Static
150
100
50
0
Number of vessels at 31 December
Number of vessels at 31 December
300
300
250
200
All Nephrops > 10m
Nephrops > 10m Mobile
Nephrops > 10m Static
150
100
50
0
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Chart 55
Year
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Chart 56
Year
Shape of Fleet
Shape Of Nephrops Fleet In 1997
9%
Shape Of Nephrops Fleet In 2008
7%
15%
13%
6%
Nephrops <= 10m Mobile
Nephrops > 10m Mobile
Nephrops <= 10m Static
Nephrops > 10m Static
Nephrops <= 10m Mobile
Nephrops > 10m Mobile
Nephrops <= 10m Static
Nephrops > 10m Static
29%
51%
70%
Chart 57
Chart 58
Geographical Distribution of Fleet by Segment
Port Of Administration For <10m Nephrops Mobile
Gear Vessels In 2008
Port Of Administration For >10m Nephrops Mobile
Vessels In 2008
Eyemouth
11%
13%
13%
14%
3%
1%
6%
6%
3%
3%
1%
3%
4%
16%
3%
Pittenweem
Eyemouth
Pittenweem
Aberdeen
Peterhead
Fraserburgh
Buckie
Scrabster
Orkney
Kinlochbervie
Ullapool
Mallaig
Oban
Campbeltown
Ayr
Portree
5%
Aberdeen
8%
8%
Peterhead
6%
3%
3%
11%
Fraserburgh
Buckie
Scrabster
Orkney
Stornoway
3%
Lochinver
Kinlochbervie
24%
10%
Mallaig
Oban
5%
1%
0%
Chart 59
Port Of Administration For <10m Nephrops Static Gear
Vessels In 2008
Ullapool
Campbeltown
1%3%
1%
10%
Ayr
Portree
Chart 60
Port Of Administration For >10m Nephrops Static Gear
Vessels In 2008
Aberdeen
1%
1%
1%
11%
17%
3% 3%
Shetland
Peterhead
Buckie
33%
5%
1%
Stornoway
11%
Shetland
Stornoway
33%
Lochinver
Kinlochbervie
Lochinver
Ullapool
Ullapool
10%
Mallaig
Oban
19%
Oban
4%
10%
Campbeltown
Campbeltown
3%
Portree
17%
Chart 61
17%
Portree
Chart 62
41
Fishing Patterns of Fleet by Segment
Nephrops <=10m Mobile Gear Fishing Patterns
Nephrops <=10m Mobile Gear Fishing Patterns
100%
45
40
Nephrops <=10m
mobile gear: West of
Scotland only
Nephrops <=10m
mobile gear: North
Sea only
Nephrops <=10m
mobile gear: Both NS
and WoS
60%
40%
35
Nephrops <=10m
mobile gear: Both
NS and WoS
30
Number
Percentage
80%
Nephrops <=10m
mobile gear: North
Sea only
25
20
Nephrops <=10m
mobile gear: West
of Scotland only
15
20%
10
5
0%
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Chart 63
Year
Nephrops >10m Mobile Gear Fishing Patterns
Nephrops >10m Mobile Gear Fishing Patterns
100%
180
90%
160
80%
140
Nephrops >10m
mobile gear:
West of Scotland
only
Nephrops >10m
mobile gear:
North Sea only
60%
50%
40%
30%
100
Nephrops
>10m mobile
gear: North
Sea only
80
60
Nephrops >10m
mobile gear: Both
NS and WoS
20%
Nephrops
>10m mobile
gear: Both NS
and WoS
120
Number
70%
Percentage
Chart 64
Nephrops
>10m mobile
gear: West of
Scotland only
40
10%
20
0%
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Chart 65
Chart 66
Year
Nephrops <=10m Static Gear Fishing Patterns
Nephrops <=10m Static Gear Fishing Patterns
100%
200
180
Nephrops <=10m
static gear: West
of Scotland only
140
60%
Nephrops <=10m
static gear: North
Sea only
40%
Nephrops <=10m
static gear: Both
NS and WoS
20%
Nephrops
<=10m static
gear: Both NS
and WoS
160
Number
Percentage
80%
120
Nephrops
<=10m static
gear: North
Sea only
100
80
Nephrops
<=10m static
gear: West of
Scotland only
60
40
20
0%
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
Chart 67
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Chart 68
Year
Nephrops >10m Static Gear Fishing Patterns
Nephrops >10m Static Gear Fishing Patterns
100%
40
90%
Nephrops >10m
static gear: West
of Scotland only
Percentage
70%
Nephrops >10m
static gear: North
Sea only
60%
50%
Nephrops >10m
static gear: Both
NS and WoS
40%
35
Nephrops
>10m static
gear: Both NS
and WoS
30
Number
80%
Nephrops
>10m static
gear: North
Sea only
25
20
Nephrops
>10m static
gear: West of
Scotland only
15
30%
20%
10
10%
5
0%
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
Chart 69
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Chart 70
Year
42
Fleet Age Profile by Segment
Scottish administered Nephrops vessels <= 10m
Mobile, by age: 1997
Scottish administered Nephrops vessels <= 10m
Mobile, by age: 2008
1%
6%
14%
< 5 years
>= 5 < 15 years
>= 15 < 25 years
>= 25 years
32%
39%
< 5 years
>= 5 < 15 years
>= 15 < 25 years
>= 25 years
41%
39%
Chart 71
Scottish administered Nephrops vessels > 10m
Mobile, by age: 1997
Chart 72
28%
Scottish administered Nephrops vessels > 10m
Mobile, by age: 2008
2%
4%
16%
13%
< 5 years
>= 5 < 15 years
>= 15 < 25 years
>= 25 years
< 5 years
>= 5 < 15 years
>= 15 < 25 years
>= 25 years
24%
57%
59%
25%
Chart 73
Scottish administered Nephrops vessels <= 10m
Static, by age: 1997
Chart 74
Scottish administered Nephrops vessels <= 10m
Static, by age: 2008
5%
7%
20%
30%
< 5 years
>= 5 < 15 years
>= 15 < 25 years
>= 25 years
19%
43%
31%
Chart 75
45%
Scottish administered Nephrops vessels > 10m Static,
by age: 1997
< 5 years
>= 5 < 15 years
>= 15 < 25 years
>= 25 years
Chart 76
Scottish administered Nephrops vessels > 10m Static,
by age: 2008
8%
10%
3%
>= 5 < 15 years
>= 15 < 25 years
>= 25 years
< 5 years
>= 5 < 15 years
>= 15 < 25 years
>= 25 years
39%
45%
45%
50%
Chart 77
Chart 78
43
Fish Prices by Segment
Nephrops Prices Since 1999 in 2008 Prices
£3,500
Price Per Tonne
£3,000
£2,500
£2,000
Nephrops
£1,500
£1,000
£500
£0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Chart 79
Year
Financial Performance by Segment
Nephrops Fleet Percentage Of Operating Profit
Against Total Earnings
Nephrops Fleet Average Profit (before depreciation
and interest)
£140,000
30
NS Nephrops SingleRig
£120,000
NS Nephrops
Single-Rig
Average Profit
NS Nephrops TwinRig
£80,000
£60,000
WoS Nephrops
Single-Rig
£40,000
WoS Nephrops TwinRig Vessels
£20,000
Operating Profit %
25
£100,000
20
NS Nephrops
Twin-Rig
15
WoS Nephrops
Single-Rig
10
5
WoS Nephrops
Twin-Rig Vessels
0
2004
£0
2004
2005
2006
Year
2007
2005
2006
2007
Year
Chart 80
Chart 81
44
Scallop, Crab & Lobster
Size of Fleet by Segment
Scottish administered Scallops vessels
Scottish administered Crab and Lobster vessels
600
90
80
70
60
Scallops <= 10m
Scallops > 10m
50
40
30
20
Number of vessels at 31 December
Number of vessels at 31 December
100
500
400
Crab & Lobster
<= 10m
300
Crab & Lobster
>10m <=12m
200
Crab & Lobster
>12m
100
10
0
0
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Year
Chart 82
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Year
Chart 83
Shape of Fleet
Shape Of Scallop Fleet In 1997
Shape Of Scallop Fleet In 2008
15%
29%
Scallop <= 10m
Scallop <= 10m
Scallop > 10m
Scallop > 10m
71%
85%
Chart 84
Chart 85
Shape Of Crab & Lobster Fleet In 1997
Shape Of Crab & Lobster Fleet In 2008
3%
8%
9%
22%
Crab & Lobster <=
10m
Crab & Lobster <=
10m
Crab & Lobster
>10m <=12m
Crab & Lobster
>10m <=12m
Crab & Lobster
>12m
Crab & Lobster
>12m
70%
88%
Chart 86
Chart 87
Geographical Distribution of Fleet by Segment
Port Of Administration For <10m
Scallop Vessels in 2008
4%
4%
Port Of Administration For >10m Scallop Vessels In
2008
8%
15%
Aberdeen
5%
Orkney
Peterhead
3%
Shetland
3%
33%
Stornoway
4%
Pittenweem
2%2%2%
3%
Scrabster
12%
Buckie
Scrabster
Ullapool
Orkney
Mallaig
14%
Oban
15%
Shetland
Stornoway
Campbeltown
Ullapool
Portree
4%
Fraserburgh
34%
5%
2%
11%
Chart 88
15%
Oban
Campbeltown
Ayr
Chart 89
45
Port Of Administration For >10m <12m Crab & Lobster
Vessels In 2008
Port Of Administration For <10m Crab &
Lobster Vessels In 2008
4%
3%
Eyemouth
5%
Pittenweem
8%
8%
Aberdeen
9%
Peterhead
4%
1%
1%
2% 5%
5%
2%
5%
Fraserburgh
7%
Buckie
Scrabster
3%
14%
9%
Orkney
Shetland
6%
15%
Stornoway
Kinlochbervie
3%
9%
Mallaig
Oban
2%
Campbeltown
11%
9%
Eyemouth
Aberdeen
Fraserburgh
Buckie
Scrabster
Orkney
Shetland
Stornoway
Oban
Campbeltown
Ayr
Ayr
12%
38%
Portree
Chart 90
Chart 91
Port Of Administration For >12m Crab & Lobster
Vessels in 2008
6%
6%
18%
Scrabster
12%
Orkney
Stornoway
Ullapool
Oban
Campbeltown
12%
46%
Chart 92
Fishing Patterns of Fleet by Segment
<=10m Crab & Lobster Fishing Patterns
<=10m Crab & Lobster Fishing Patterns
100%
350
90%
Crab & Lobster
<=10m: Both NS
and WoS
60%
50%
Crab & Lobster
<=10m: West of
Scotland only
40%
30%
Crab & Lobster
<=10m: North Sea
only
20%
Crab & Lobster
<=10m: North Sea
only
250
Number
70%
Percentage
300
Crab & Lobster
<=10m: Neither
NS nor WoS
80%
Crab & Lobster
<=10m: West of
Scotland only
200
Crab & Lobster
<=10m: Both NS
and WoS
150
100
Crab & Lobster
<=10m: Neither NS
nor WoS
50
10%
0%
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
Chart 93
>10m <=12m Crab & Lobster Fishing Patterns
>10m <=12m Crab & Lobster Fishing Patterns
100%
35
Crab & Lobster
>10m <=12m: North
Sea only
30
80%
Crab & Lobster >10m
<=12m: Neither NS nor
WoS
Crab & Lobster >10m
<=12m: Both NS and
WoS
Crab & Lobster >10m
<=12m: West of
Scotland only
Crab & Lobster >10m
<=12m: North Sea only
60%
40%
20%
25
Number
Percentage
Chart 94
Year
Crab & Lobster
>10m <=12m: West
of Scotland only
20
Crab & Lobster
>10m <=12m: Both
NS and WoS
15
10
Crab & Lobster
>10m <=12m:
Neither NS nor
WoS
5
0%
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Chart 95
Year
Chart 96
46
>12m Crab & Lobster
>12m Crab & Lobster
100%
12
10
60%
Crab & Lobster
>12m: Neither NS
nor WoS
40%
Crab & Lobster
>12m: Both NS and
WoS
Crab & Lobster
>12m: West of
Scotland only
20%
Crab & Lobster
>12m: North Sea
only
8
Number
Percentage
80%
Crab & Lobster
>12m: North Sea
only
6
Crab & Lobster
>12m: West of
Scotland only
4
Crab & Lobster
>12m: Both NS
and WoS
Crab & Lobster
>12m: Neither NS
nor WoS
2
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
0
12
1
Year
2
Chart 97
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Chart 98
Year
Scallop <=10m Vessel Fishing Patterns
Scallop <=10m Vessel Fishing Patterns
100%
30
90%
25
80%
Percentage
60%
50%
40%
30%
Scallop <=10m:
North Sea only
15
Scallop <=10m:
West of Scotland
only
10
Scallop <=10m:
Both NS and WoS
20%
Scallop <=10m:
Both NS and
WoS
20
Number
Scallop <=10m:
Neither NS nor
WoS
Scallop <=10m:
West of Scotland
only
Scallop <=10m:
North Sea only
70%
Scallop <=10m:
Neither NS nor
WoS
5
10%
0%
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
Chart 99
Chart 100
Year
Scallop >10m Vessel Fishing Patterns
Scallop >10m Vessel Fishing Patterns
100%
45
40
Scallop >10m
Neither NS nor
WoS
Scallop >10m
West of Scotland
only
Scallop >10m
North Sea only
60%
40%
35
Scallop >10m
Both NS and
WoS
Scallop >10m
North Sea only
30
Number
Percentage
80%
25
20
Scallop >10m
West of
Scotland only
Scallop >10m
Neither NS nor
WoS
15
Scallop >10m Both
NS and WoS
20%
10
5
0%
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
Chart 101
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
Chart 102
Fleet Age Profile by Segment
Scottish administered Crab and Lobster vessels
<= 10m, by age: 1997
Scottish administered Crab and Lobster vessels
<= 10m, by age: 2008
8%
9%
< 5 years
>= 5 < 15 years
>= 15 < 25 years
>= 25 years
31%
37%
22%
< 5 years
>= 5 < 15 years
>= 15 < 25 years
>= 25 years
30%
30%
Chart 103
33%
Chart 104
47
Scottish administered Crab and Lobster vessels
> 10 <= 12m, by age: 1997
Scottish administered Crab and Lobster vessels
> 10 <= 12m, by age: 2008
5%
7%
25%
11%
< 5 years
>= 5 < 15 years
>= 15 < 25 years
>= 25 years
< 5 years
>= 5 < 15 years
>= 15 < 25 years
>= 25 years
46%
50%
20%
36%
Chart 105
Scottish administered Crab and Lobster vessels
> 12m, by age: 1997
Chart 106
Scottish administered Crab and Lobster vessels
> 12m, by age: 2008
13%
24%
< 5 years
>= 5 < 15 years
>= 15 < 25 years
>= 25 years
33%
< 5 years
>= 5 < 15 years
>= 15 < 25 years
>= 25 years
35%
34%
29%
20%
12%
Chart 107
Scottish administered Scallops vessels <= 10m, by
age: 1997
Chart 108
Scottish administered Scallops vessels <= 10m, by
age: 2008
6%
8%
38%
31%
< 5 years
>= 5 < 15 years
>= 15 < 25 years
>= 25 years
38%
27%
< 5 years
>= 5 < 15 years
>= 15 < 25 years
>= 25 years
Chart 109
Chart 110
27%
25%
Scottish administered Scallops vessels > 10m, by age:
1997
Scottish administered Scallops vessels > 10m, by age:
2008
3%
6%
12%
30%
44%
< 5 years
>= 5 < 15 years
>= 15 < 25 years
>= 25 years
< 5 years
>= 5 < 15 years
>= 15 < 25 years
>= 25 years
48%
34%
23%
Chart 111
Chart 112
48
Fish Prices by Segment
Crab & Lobster Prices Since 1999 in 2008 Prices
Scallop Prices Since 1999 in 2008 Prices
£2,500
£14,000
£12,000
£8,000
Lobster
£6,000
Brown
Crab
Price Per Tonne
Price Per Tonne
£2,000
£10,000
£1,500
Scallops
£1,000
£4,000
£500
£2,000
£0
£0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
1999
2009
Chart 113
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Chart 114
Financial Performance by Segment
Scallops >10m, Potters & Creelers >12m Fleet Average
Profit (before depreciation and interest)
£60,000
Average Profit
£50,000
£40,000
NS & WoS Scallopers
£30,000
Potters and Creelers
10m -12m
£20,000
£10,000
£0
2004
2005
2006
Year
2007
Chart 115
49
Pelagic Fleet
Size of Fleet by Segment
Scottish administered Pelagic vessels > 10m
Number of vessels at 31 December
40
35
30
25
Pelagic
20
15
10
5
0
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Chart 116
Year
Geographical Distribution of Fleet
Port Of Administration For Pelagic Vessels In 2008
12%
8%
4%
Peterhead
Fraserburgh
Shetland
Stornoway
27%
Ayr
49%
Chart 117
Fishing Patterns of Fleet by Segment
Pelagic Vessel Fishing Patterns
Pelagic Vessel Fishing Patterns
100%
40
Pelagic >10m:
Neither NS nor
WoS
90%
80%
60%
Pelagic >10m:
North Sea only
50%
40%
Pelagic >10m: Both
NS and WoS
30%
30
Number
Percentage
70%
Pelagic >10m:
Both NS and
WoS
35
Pelagic >10m:
West of Scotland
only
Pelagic >10m:
North Sea only
25
Pelagic >10m:
West of Scotland
only
20
Pelagic >10m:
Neither NS nor
WoS
15
10
20%
10%
5
0%
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
Year
Chart 118
Chart 119
Fleet Age Profile by Segment
Scottish administered Pelagic vessels > 10m, by age:
1997
Scottish administered Pelagic vessels > 10m, by age:
2008
8%
12%
23%
32%
< 5 years
>= 5 < 15 years
>= 15 < 25 years
>= 25 years
< 5 years
>= 5 < 15 years
>= 15 < 25 years
>= 25 years
8%
44%
16%
Chart 120
Chart 121
57%
50
Fish Prices by Segment
Pelagic Fish Prices Since 1999 in 2008 Prices
£1,000
£900
Price Per Tonne
£800
£700
£600
Herring
Mackerel
£500
£400
£300
£200
£100
£0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Year
2008
2009
Chart 122
Financial Performance by Segment
Pelagic Fleet Total Earnings
£4,500,000
Average Total Income
£4,000,000
£3,500,000
£3,000,000
£2,500,000
Pelagic
£2,000,000
£1,500,000
£1,000,000
£500,000
£0
2004
2005
2006
Year
2007
Chart 123
51