Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure from:Assessment of Mediterranean Aquaculture Sustainability

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Figure 40. Respondents’ knowledge of regulatory frameworks verall, respondents consider the impact of regulation on aquaculture as important. However, some minor ifferences can be observed depending on the questions proposed. Integrated management and regulation f the sector at national and regional levels are considered as very important (60-70 % of respondents). bout 30 % of respondents considered the regulation on environmental protection and Marine Spatial lanning as “less important” for aquaculture. This statement is the line with the level of trust in European stitutions by companies and therefore, with the lower expectations associated with these policy ‘ameworks.

Figure 40 Respondents’ knowledge of regulatory frameworks verall, respondents consider the impact of regulation on aquaculture as important. However, some minor ifferences can be observed depending on the questions proposed. Integrated management and regulation f the sector at national and regional levels are considered as very important (60-70 % of respondents). bout 30 % of respondents considered the regulation on environmental protection and Marine Spatial lanning as “less important” for aquaculture. This statement is the line with the level of trust in European stitutions by companies and therefore, with the lower expectations associated with these policy ‘ameworks.

Related Figures (114)

Mediterranean Aquaculture Integrated Development
Mediterranean Aquaculture Integrated Development
Figure 1. Task diagram from WP1: Holistic sustainability assessment of Mediterranean marine fish farming sector Aquaculture is a critical source of food, essential to be able to feed humanity and ensure the world’s food security. It is also a business that generates economic interest. This is clearly specified in the FAO’s 2016 State of Fisheries and Aquaculture report, which states that “aquaculture will become the main driver of change in the fisheries and aquaculture sector”. Aquaculture is the main productive industrial activity that will play a crucial role in providing solutions to the millennium challenges. Overall, this is the main idea that exists under the MedAID EU Horizon 2020 project.
Figure 1. Task diagram from WP1: Holistic sustainability assessment of Mediterranean marine fish farming sector Aquaculture is a critical source of food, essential to be able to feed humanity and ensure the world’s food security. It is also a business that generates economic interest. This is clearly specified in the FAO’s 2016 State of Fisheries and Aquaculture report, which states that “aquaculture will become the main driver of change in the fisheries and aquaculture sector”. Aquaculture is the main productive industrial activity that will play a crucial role in providing solutions to the millennium challenges. Overall, this is the main idea that exists under the MedAID EU Horizon 2020 project.
Figure 2. Sample of MedAID fish farming structure
Figure 2. Sample of MedAID fish farming structure
The sample is composed of 27 companies that answered the questionnaire totally or partially. Moreover, there are 17 companies operating in one country of the European Union and 10 operating in a third country. Given that the survey collected information from a small number of companies, the results cannot be considered as representative of the entire industry.
The sample is composed of 27 companies that answered the questionnaire totally or partially. Moreover, there are 17 companies operating in one country of the European Union and 10 operating in a third country. Given that the survey collected information from a small number of companies, the results cannot be considered as representative of the entire industry.
Figure 3. Distribution of the companies surveyed based on their legal size
Figure 3. Distribution of the companies surveyed based on their legal size
Table 2. Distribution of the companies surveyed based on their number of productive units Another distinctive feature of the Mediterranean aquaculture sector is the diversification of species and their adaptation to production demands, either as a consequence of the market or as a business strategy, as it may be both at the same time. Although for this project we have based the work on the two main species (seabream and seabass, Table 3) and the specific results of other species produced have been ruled out, we cannot ignore that this strategy could have a considerable effect.
Table 2. Distribution of the companies surveyed based on their number of productive units Another distinctive feature of the Mediterranean aquaculture sector is the diversification of species and their adaptation to production demands, either as a consequence of the market or as a business strategy, as it may be both at the same time. Although for this project we have based the work on the two main species (seabream and seabass, Table 3) and the specific results of other species produced have been ruled out, we cannot ignore that this strategy could have a considerable effect.
Moreover, 63% of the surveyed companies are medium or large, and 37% are small or micro legal size (Figure 4). This indicates the tendency of the sector to grow in size and production, as we can see in the analysis of the “Assessment”.
Moreover, 63% of the surveyed companies are medium or large, and 37% are small or micro legal size (Figure 4). This indicates the tendency of the sector to grow in size and production, as we can see in the analysis of the “Assessment”.
However, we observed that in the companies interviewed (Table 3), seabass predominates as a species on which production is mostly supported, although the data from the production of both species in the Mediterranean indicates an equivalent distribution. It is evident that the distribution found may induce some kind of bias, but this is an analysis of what the companies have informed us of. Therefore, caution should be exercised when extrapolating some results in which the species is the main indicator.
However, we observed that in the companies interviewed (Table 3), seabass predominates as a species on which production is mostly supported, although the data from the production of both species in the Mediterranean indicates an equivalent distribution. It is evident that the distribution found may induce some kind of bias, but this is an analysis of what the companies have informed us of. Therefore, caution should be exercised when extrapolating some results in which the species is the main indicator.
Figure 5. Distribution of the units production from the companies surveyed with on-growing activity Regarding hatcheries, just over 30% declare that they produced less than 5 million fingerling per year, 27% have a production between 5 and 25 million, 33% above 30 million and only 7% have hatcheries which produce more than 100 million. So, 60% of the surveyed hatcheries have a model based on a production of no more than 25).
Figure 5. Distribution of the units production from the companies surveyed with on-growing activity Regarding hatcheries, just over 30% declare that they produced less than 5 million fingerling per year, 27% have a production between 5 and 25 million, 33% above 30 million and only 7% have hatcheries which produce more than 100 million. So, 60% of the surveyed hatcheries have a model based on a production of no more than 25).
-igure 6. Distribution of the units production from the companies surveyed with hatchery activity Finally, if we take into account the answers referring to the tonnes produced, we also find very divergent models, thus 19% declare productions of under 250 Tm, 20% of the companies have a production of between 250 and 500 Tm, 13% produce more than 500 Tm but under 1,000 Tm, another 19% produce between 1,000 and 2,000 Tm and a considerable 29% produce more than 2,500 Tm (Figure 5). It is important to consider that around 50% of the companies declare productions that exceed 1,000 Tm.
-igure 6. Distribution of the units production from the companies surveyed with hatchery activity Finally, if we take into account the answers referring to the tonnes produced, we also find very divergent models, thus 19% declare productions of under 250 Tm, 20% of the companies have a production of between 250 and 500 Tm, 13% produce more than 500 Tm but under 1,000 Tm, another 19% produce between 1,000 and 2,000 Tm and a considerable 29% produce more than 2,500 Tm (Figure 5). It is important to consider that around 50% of the companies declare productions that exceed 1,000 Tm.
Table 4. The number of survey data completed per category 3.2.2. Data analysis and statistics
Table 4. The number of survey data completed per category 3.2.2. Data analysis and statistics
Table 5. Descriptive statistics for the KPIs in hatcheries, and the number of data collected for each measure Table 6. Correlations (below diagonal for seabass hatcheries, above diagonal for seabream hatcheries) among survival at different ages with their associated standard errors Correlations among survival at different ages are in Table 6. For seabass, survival at the end of weaning was significantly (p<0.01) correlated with survival from 0-30 dph, whereas it was not significantly correlated with survival from 0-10 dph and survival from 0-20 dph. For seabream, survival at the end of weaning was not significantly correlated with survival at any earlier age.
Table 5. Descriptive statistics for the KPIs in hatcheries, and the number of data collected for each measure Table 6. Correlations (below diagonal for seabass hatcheries, above diagonal for seabream hatcheries) among survival at different ages with their associated standard errors Correlations among survival at different ages are in Table 6. For seabass, survival at the end of weaning was significantly (p<0.01) correlated with survival from 0-30 dph, whereas it was not significantly correlated with survival from 0-10 dph and survival from 0-20 dph. For seabream, survival at the end of weaning was not significantly correlated with survival at any earlier age.
3.3.2. Descriptive statistics of on-growing performance
3.3.2. Descriptive statistics of on-growing performance
Table 8. Correlations (below the diagonal for seabass, above the diagonal for seabream) among the KPIs in on-growing units
Table 8. Correlations (below the diagonal for seabass, above the diagonal for seabream) among the KPIs in on-growing units
3.3.3. Principal Components Analysis of hatchery data
3.3.3. Principal Components Analysis of hatchery data
Surv_10 = Survival From 0-10 Dph, Surv_20 = Survival From 0-20 Dph, Surv_30 = Survival From 0-30 Dph, Surv_W = Survival At The End Of Weaning, Surv_J = Juvenile Survival. * P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001
Surv_10 = Survival From 0-10 Dph, Surv_20 = Survival From 0-20 Dph, Surv_30 = Survival From 0-30 Dph, Surv_W = Survival At The End Of Weaning, Surv_J = Juvenile Survival. * P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001
Surv_10 = Survival From 0-10 Dph, Surv_20 = Survival From 0-20 Dph, Surv_30 = Survival From 0-30 Dph, Surv_W = Survival At The End Of Weaning, Surv_J = Juvenile Survival. * P<0.05, ** P<0.01, *** P<0.001 Table 10. The effect of predictor variables on survival at different ages and juvenile deformities ir seabream hatcheries
Surv_10 = Survival From 0-10 Dph, Surv_20 = Survival From 0-20 Dph, Surv_30 = Survival From 0-30 Dph, Surv_W = Survival At The End Of Weaning, Surv_J = Juvenile Survival. * P<0.05, ** P<0.01, *** P<0.001 Table 10. The effect of predictor variables on survival at different ages and juvenile deformities ir seabream hatcheries
Table 11. The effect of predictor variables on TGC, survival, and percent deformities during on-growing
Table 11. The effect of predictor variables on TGC, survival, and percent deformities during on-growing
An LCA consists of the following four phases (Figure 7): Figure 7. Life cycle assessment methodology as represented by the ISO 14040:2006 and 14044:2006
An LCA consists of the following four phases (Figure 7): Figure 7. Life cycle assessment methodology as represented by the ISO 14040:2006 and 14044:2006
Table 12. Detailed description of the sample under study nitially, data from 27 companies where obtained. However, the 30 % of the inventories lacked sufficient Jata, shows inconsistencies or where in financial units (Figure 8).
Table 12. Detailed description of the sample under study nitially, data from 27 companies where obtained. However, the 30 % of the inventories lacked sufficient Jata, shows inconsistencies or where in financial units (Figure 8).
(*) Annual consumption: 2 500 kWh < consumption < 5 000 kWh. ) Annual consumption: 500 MWh < consumption < 2 000 MWh; excluding VAT. ) This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence. Source: Eurostat (online data codes: nrg_pc_204 and nrg_pc_205)
(*) Annual consumption: 2 500 kWh < consumption < 5 000 kWh. ) Annual consumption: 500 MWh < consumption < 2 000 MWh; excluding VAT. ) This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence. Source: Eurostat (online data codes: nrg_pc_204 and nrg_pc_205)
Table 13. Common on-growing feed composition
Table 13. Common on-growing feed composition
Table 16. average life cycle inventory of the Mediterranean seabass and seabream processing company
Table 16. average life cycle inventory of the Mediterranean seabass and seabream processing company
4.2.3. Life cycle impact assessment In Table 17 the complete environmental impact assessment with the results of the proposed 16 impact categories is presented. High deviation is observed for most of the impact values due to the differences in the on-growing system, such as, use of tap water or feed consumption per kg of fish.
4.2.3. Life cycle impact assessment In Table 17 the complete environmental impact assessment with the results of the proposed 16 impact categories is presented. High deviation is observed for most of the impact values due to the differences in the on-growing system, such as, use of tap water or feed consumption per kg of fish.
where CC: climate change (kg co2 eq/kg fish), ODP: ozone depletion (kg ofe- 11 eq/kg fish), HC,NC: human toxicity, non-cancer effects (ctuh/kg fish HC,C: human toxicity, cancer effects (ctuh/kg fish), PM: particulate matter (kg pm2.5 eq/kg fish), IR,HH: ionizing radiation HH (kbq u235 eq/kg fish) IR,E: ionizing radiation E (interim) (ctue/kg fish), POF: photochemical ozone formation (kg nmvoc eq/kg fish), A: acidification (molc h+ eq/kg fish) EU,T: terrestrial eutrophication (molc n eq/kg fish), EU,F: freshwater eutrophication (kg p eq/kg fish), EU,M: marine eutrophication (kg n eq/kg fish) ET: freshwater ecotoxicity (ctue/kg fish), LU: land use (kg c deficit/kg fish), WRD: water resource depletion (m3 water eq/kg fish), RD: mineral, foss. & ren resource depletion (kg sb eq/kg fish) Table 18. Mean results and standard deviations of Life Cycle environmental impact characterisation o the production of 1 kg of seabass and seabream in different Mediterranean countries: Cyprus, Egypt, Spain, Greece, Croatia, Italy, Portugal, Tunisia and Turkey
where CC: climate change (kg co2 eq/kg fish), ODP: ozone depletion (kg ofe- 11 eq/kg fish), HC,NC: human toxicity, non-cancer effects (ctuh/kg fish HC,C: human toxicity, cancer effects (ctuh/kg fish), PM: particulate matter (kg pm2.5 eq/kg fish), IR,HH: ionizing radiation HH (kbq u235 eq/kg fish) IR,E: ionizing radiation E (interim) (ctue/kg fish), POF: photochemical ozone formation (kg nmvoc eq/kg fish), A: acidification (molc h+ eq/kg fish) EU,T: terrestrial eutrophication (molc n eq/kg fish), EU,F: freshwater eutrophication (kg p eq/kg fish), EU,M: marine eutrophication (kg n eq/kg fish) ET: freshwater ecotoxicity (ctue/kg fish), LU: land use (kg c deficit/kg fish), WRD: water resource depletion (m3 water eq/kg fish), RD: mineral, foss. & ren resource depletion (kg sb eq/kg fish) Table 18. Mean results and standard deviations of Life Cycle environmental impact characterisation o the production of 1 kg of seabass and seabream in different Mediterranean countries: Cyprus, Egypt, Spain, Greece, Croatia, Italy, Portugal, Tunisia and Turkey
Figure 10. life cycle impact characterisation of an average seabass and seabream aquaculture farm
Figure 10. life cycle impact characterisation of an average seabass and seabream aquaculture farm
Figure 11. Life cycle potential impact climate change per kg of cultured seabass and seabream in the 27 farms sampled in the Mediterranean region
Figure 11. Life cycle potential impact climate change per kg of cultured seabass and seabream in the 27 farms sampled in the Mediterranean region
Figure 12. Correlation between the climate change potential (kg co2 eq.) per kg of produced fish and the feed consumption ratio
Figure 12. Correlation between the climate change potential (kg co2 eq.) per kg of produced fish and the feed consumption ratio
Figure 13. Life cycle potential impact of marine eutrophication per kg of cultured seabass and seabream in the 27 sampled farms of the Mediterranean region
Figure 13. Life cycle potential impact of marine eutrophication per kg of cultured seabass and seabream in the 27 sampled farms of the Mediterranean region
Figure 14. Correlation between the marine eutrophication impact (Kg N eq.) per kg of produced fish and the feed consumption ratio As previously suggested, feed consumption affects marine eutrophication’s potential impact. In Figure 14 the specific correlation between the feed consumption ratio (kg feed / kg of fish) and the impact on the marine eutrophication is presented. In this case, the environmental impact is highly correlated with the feed consumption (kg feed / kg of fish) (R= 0.94), which means a higher marine eutrophication impact when feed consumption increases.
Figure 14. Correlation between the marine eutrophication impact (Kg N eq.) per kg of produced fish and the feed consumption ratio As previously suggested, feed consumption affects marine eutrophication’s potential impact. In Figure 14 the specific correlation between the feed consumption ratio (kg feed / kg of fish) and the impact on the marine eutrophication is presented. In this case, the environmental impact is highly correlated with the feed consumption (kg feed / kg of fish) (R= 0.94), which means a higher marine eutrophication impact when feed consumption increases.
Table 21. Additional questions regarding integration of people with risk of social exclusion 4.3.4. Social impact Assessment
Table 21. Additional questions regarding integration of people with risk of social exclusion 4.3.4. Social impact Assessment
Table 22. Average results of the rate of company integration of groups at risk of exclusion Table 22. Average results of the rate of company integration of groups at risk of exclusion
Table 22. Average results of the rate of company integration of groups at risk of exclusion Table 22. Average results of the rate of company integration of groups at risk of exclusion
Figure 15 represents in a schematic way the movements between countries of fingerling fish of the companies surveyed. With the exception of Greece, all companies have declared that they import or export seabass or seabream fingerlings. It is highlighted that MedAID is conducting an additional Biosecurity survey under Task 4.1 aiming to assess the risk of relevant pathogens in Mediterranean marine fish farming. Preliminary results show that the exchange of juveniles is higher than shown here.
Figure 15 represents in a schematic way the movements between countries of fingerling fish of the companies surveyed. With the exception of Greece, all companies have declared that they import or export seabass or seabream fingerlings. It is highlighted that MedAID is conducting an additional Biosecurity survey under Task 4.1 aiming to assess the risk of relevant pathogens in Mediterranean marine fish farming. Preliminary results show that the exchange of juveniles is higher than shown here.
Table 23. Seabass and seabream production (tonnes, 2016) and fingerlings produced (million, 2015) and estimated needs and balance (own calculation, million). data from FEAP and MedAID This information provides some clues about the international movements of seabass and seabream fingerlings in the Mediterranean region. Currently the fish-flow is significantly higher, as most on-growing is undertaken in cage farms whereas the fingerlings are produced in on-land hatcheries. As an example, most of the 7,000 tonnes of seabass and seabream produced in the Canary Islands are from fingerlings imported from the Spanish peninsula and elsewhere (e.g. France). Moreover, there are movements of fingerlings within countries, which should not be underestimated.
Table 23. Seabass and seabream production (tonnes, 2016) and fingerlings produced (million, 2015) and estimated needs and balance (own calculation, million). data from FEAP and MedAID This information provides some clues about the international movements of seabass and seabream fingerlings in the Mediterranean region. Currently the fish-flow is significantly higher, as most on-growing is undertaken in cage farms whereas the fingerlings are produced in on-land hatcheries. As an example, most of the 7,000 tonnes of seabass and seabream produced in the Canary Islands are from fingerlings imported from the Spanish peninsula and elsewhere (e.g. France). Moreover, there are movements of fingerlings within countries, which should not be underestimated.
*Median is the best parameter describing a mid-value of the data due to skewness
*Median is the best parameter describing a mid-value of the data due to skewness
Figure 16. Reported diseases in seabass and seabream classified by pathogen group Figure 16 illustrates the occurrence of the most frequently detected pathogen groups in seabass and seabream, respectively. Bacterial infections dominate the reports (75%) for seabass while parasitic infections (57%) are the most frequently reported infections in seabream.
Figure 16. Reported diseases in seabass and seabream classified by pathogen group Figure 16 illustrates the occurrence of the most frequently detected pathogen groups in seabass and seabream, respectively. Bacterial infections dominate the reports (75%) for seabass while parasitic infections (57%) are the most frequently reported infections in seabream.
Main reported diseases in seabass and seabream
Main reported diseases in seabass and seabream
Table 26. Overview of the disease records for the survey units over a 3-year period (2015 to 2017), categorised by pathogen and production unit The number of production units from which each disease was reported are given in parenthesis
Table 26. Overview of the disease records for the survey units over a 3-year period (2015 to 2017), categorised by pathogen and production unit The number of production units from which each disease was reported are given in parenthesis
*n/a indicates no records or that data were insufficient to generate the estimate
*n/a indicates no records or that data were insufficient to generate the estimate
Figure 19. Distribution of months when batches of fingerlings were put to sea separated by species
Figure 19. Distribution of months when batches of fingerlings were put to sea separated by species
Figure 21. Distribution of % mortality due to pathology by various explanatory variables (total number of observations=78)
Figure 21. Distribution of % mortality due to pathology by various explanatory variables (total number of observations=78)
was found in all regions. Winter syndrome was reported in the western and central Mediterranean. The western Mediterranean was the only region to report VER-VNN. Figure 23. Map showing the geographical distribution of reported diseases in seabass according to WP 1.4 disease survey data (2015-2017)
was found in all regions. Winter syndrome was reported in the western and central Mediterranean. The western Mediterranean was the only region to report VER-VNN. Figure 23. Map showing the geographical distribution of reported diseases in seabass according to WP 1.4 disease survey data (2015-2017)
Figure 24. Map showing the geographical distribution of reported diseases in seabream according to WP 1.4 disease survey data (2015-2017)
Figure 24. Map showing the geographical distribution of reported diseases in seabream according to WP 1.4 disease survey data (2015-2017)
Figure 25. Update on the fish disease situation in the Mediterranean basin, from Vendramin (2018) Figure 25 illustrates the relative proportion of diseases in seabass and seabream ranked as the most important in one of the workshop presentations (http://www.eurl-fish.eu/activities/annual-workshops/presentations- from-22nd-aw). In 2017 the major diseases of seabass and seabream seawater production were gill flukes followed by VER-VNN. Vibriosis, flexibacteriosis, aeromonas, and pasteurellosis were also indicated as important diseases. In contrast, VER-VNN was the major disease in 2016, followed by gill fluke. A summary of the same data by geographical region is given in Table 28.
Figure 25. Update on the fish disease situation in the Mediterranean basin, from Vendramin (2018) Figure 25 illustrates the relative proportion of diseases in seabass and seabream ranked as the most important in one of the workshop presentations (http://www.eurl-fish.eu/activities/annual-workshops/presentations- from-22nd-aw). In 2017 the major diseases of seabass and seabream seawater production were gill flukes followed by VER-VNN. Vibriosis, flexibacteriosis, aeromonas, and pasteurellosis were also indicated as important diseases. In contrast, VER-VNN was the major disease in 2016, followed by gill fluke. A summary of the same data by geographical region is given in Table 28.
As noted in the introduction of this section of the report, the participants at this 224 annual EURL meeting also evaluated the impact and risk of important diseases in seabass and seabream during a group work session. It is interesting to note that, in their opinion, tenacibaculosis (Tenacibaculum maritimum) was considered the most important disease for seabass followed by vibriosis (Vibrio harvey), with VER-VNN ranked third (as opposed to at the 2017 version of the meeting when VER-VNN was considered the most important disease). For seabream, parasitic infections by Sparicotyle chrysophrii (a gill fluke) were ranked first, followed by “red rash” (unknown aetiology), with VER-VNN again being assigned third place (Anonymous, 2018). These discrepancies in results suggest that improved reporting systems to yield more uniform data would be of benefit to allow a clearer picture of the current disease situation to be drawn. Table 28. Most important diseases according to the impact criteria developed by EURL Workshop
As noted in the introduction of this section of the report, the participants at this 224 annual EURL meeting also evaluated the impact and risk of important diseases in seabass and seabream during a group work session. It is interesting to note that, in their opinion, tenacibaculosis (Tenacibaculum maritimum) was considered the most important disease for seabass followed by vibriosis (Vibrio harvey), with VER-VNN ranked third (as opposed to at the 2017 version of the meeting when VER-VNN was considered the most important disease). For seabream, parasitic infections by Sparicotyle chrysophrii (a gill fluke) were ranked first, followed by “red rash” (unknown aetiology), with VER-VNN again being assigned third place (Anonymous, 2018). These discrepancies in results suggest that improved reporting systems to yield more uniform data would be of benefit to allow a clearer picture of the current disease situation to be drawn. Table 28. Most important diseases according to the impact criteria developed by EURL Workshop
Note. (group 1) companies farming mainly seabass/seabream, *companies without financial information appear in brackets; (group 2) companies significantly farming other species and secondarily, seabass/seabream; (group 3) companies not farming seabass/seabream; (group 4) companies not identified Table 30. Number of companies identified by country
Note. (group 1) companies farming mainly seabass/seabream, *companies without financial information appear in brackets; (group 2) companies significantly farming other species and secondarily, seabass/seabream; (group 3) companies not farming seabass/seabream; (group 4) companies not identified Table 30. Number of companies identified by country
Variables and ratios included in the analysis Table 31. Number of selected companies (category 1 of Table 30) by country and by year
Variables and ratios included in the analysis Table 31. Number of selected companies (category 1 of Table 30) by country and by year
Table 32. Main economic indicators in the seabream and seabass industry. Period 2008-14. Source: STECF Note: *The Table Does Not Include Information From Greece, France, Slovenia, Malta And The Non-EU Countries. If the increase in production continues, prices are expected to be affected. In this new context, the biggest challenge the industry faces in order to achieve positive economic results and be sustainable is the effective implementation of technology and research investment efforts, reflected in improvements to reduce the average production cost and to increase productivity.
Table 32. Main economic indicators in the seabream and seabass industry. Period 2008-14. Source: STECF Note: *The Table Does Not Include Information From Greece, France, Slovenia, Malta And The Non-EU Countries. If the increase in production continues, prices are expected to be affected. In this new context, the biggest challenge the industry faces in order to achieve positive economic results and be sustainable is the effective implementation of technology and research investment efforts, reflected in improvements to reduce the average production cost and to increase productivity.
Note: *Information about companies and employment is not available for Greece. *Italy and Croatia data about FTE are not considered due to lack of data or lack of reliability on the data. In 2008, Portugal did not provide the distribution by gender of the 225 jobs in the Portuguese seabream and seabass industry. Table 33. Industry structure and employment. Period 2008-14. Source: STECF
Note: *Information about companies and employment is not available for Greece. *Italy and Croatia data about FTE are not considered due to lack of data or lack of reliability on the data. In 2008, Portugal did not provide the distribution by gender of the 225 jobs in the Portuguese seabream and seabass industry. Table 33. Industry structure and employment. Period 2008-14. Source: STECF
Table 34. Industry sales, incomes and productivity indicators. Period 2008-14. Source: STECF Note: *Information about sales, productivity and incomes from Greece is not available in the period 2008-2012 and is not considered fo 2013 and 2014. The ratio “Sales Weight/FTE (Tonnes)” is calculated considering only data from Spain, Portugal and Cyprus due to the laci of reliability of FTE in Italy and Croatia. * Total income has a deviation from the sum of turnover, other income and subsides In 2012, 201: and 2014 caused by a mistake in income data from Croatia.
Table 34. Industry sales, incomes and productivity indicators. Period 2008-14. Source: STECF Note: *Information about sales, productivity and incomes from Greece is not available in the period 2008-2012 and is not considered fo 2013 and 2014. The ratio “Sales Weight/FTE (Tonnes)” is calculated considering only data from Spain, Portugal and Cyprus due to the laci of reliability of FTE in Italy and Croatia. * Total income has a deviation from the sum of turnover, other income and subsides In 2012, 201: and 2014 caused by a mistake in income data from Croatia.
Note: *Information about costs from Greece is not available in the period 2008-2012 and it is not considered for 2013 and 2014. *Portuga did not report labour cost in 2008.
Note: *Information about costs from Greece is not available in the period 2008-2012 and it is not considered for 2013 and 2014. *Portuga did not report labour cost in 2008.
Table 36. Industry economic performance indicators. Period 2008-14. Source: STECF Note: *Information about cost from Greece is not available in the period 2008-2012 and is not considered for 2013 and 2014. *Labou productivity does not consider Italy and Croatia due to reliability problems with the FTEs. *For detailed definitions and formulas of the performance indicators, please see the STEFC glossary
Table 36. Industry economic performance indicators. Period 2008-14. Source: STECF Note: *Information about cost from Greece is not available in the period 2008-2012 and is not considered for 2013 and 2014. *Labou productivity does not consider Italy and Croatia due to reliability problems with the FTEs. *For detailed definitions and formulas of the performance indicators, please see the STEFC glossary
According to data obtained from the STECF (STECF, 2016), the industry's revenues have increased significantly. However, the production costs have grown even more, causing the added value and other performance indicators to be negative and worsen. The economic results must be considered with caution, because they come from a survey of companies that covers 50% of the industry and, also, there are certain inconsistencies in the income data and production costs.
According to data obtained from the STECF (STECF, 2016), the industry's revenues have increased significantly. However, the production costs have grown even more, causing the added value and other performance indicators to be negative and worsen. The economic results must be considered with caution, because they come from a survey of companies that covers 50% of the industry and, also, there are certain inconsistencies in the income data and production costs.
The seabream and seabass industry consists of 5 companies classified in the "on-growing" segment and 3 at the "combined" one (hatcheries + cages) (STECF, 2016). The number of companies has remained stable in the period 2008-2014, while employment has increased, especially in 2013 and 2014. Industry revenues have followed a positive trend as well as economic performance indicators. The Cypriot industry is profitable throughout the period considered. Earnings, gross value added and return on investments in 2014 are higher than the average of previous years, although they have been reduced compared to 2013, due to the stagnation of revenues and the increase in production costs.
The seabream and seabass industry consists of 5 companies classified in the "on-growing" segment and 3 at the "combined" one (hatcheries + cages) (STECF, 2016). The number of companies has remained stable in the period 2008-2014, while employment has increased, especially in 2013 and 2014. Industry revenues have followed a positive trend as well as economic performance indicators. The Cypriot industry is profitable throughout the period considered. Earnings, gross value added and return on investments in 2014 are higher than the average of previous years, although they have been reduced compared to 2013, due to the stagnation of revenues and the increase in production costs.
In general, the Greek aquaculture industry is dominated in the marine finfish segment by large vertically integrated companies, most of which are listed in the Athens stock exchange market (STECF, 2016). In 2014, seabream and seabass industry in Greece generated a positive GVA. However, when considering all the operational costs, the economic result of the activities was negative, and the financial performance provides negative returns to ownership of the industry capital.
In general, the Greek aquaculture industry is dominated in the marine finfish segment by large vertically integrated companies, most of which are listed in the Athens stock exchange market (STECF, 2016). In 2014, seabream and seabass industry in Greece generated a positive GVA. However, when considering all the operational costs, the economic result of the activities was negative, and the financial performance provides negative returns to ownership of the industry capital.
Table 41. Main economic indicators of Italian seabream and seabass aquaculture industry. Source: STECF About 60% and 40% of the seabass and seabream production, respectively, are produced in brackish waters (FAO, 2018). The seabream and seabass industry in Italy consisted of 51 companies in 2014. The number of companies has remained stable since 2012, after four years in which it decreased from 93 companies in 2008 to 53 in 2011. There is a presence of small companies, as in the rest of the aquaculture industry in Italy, but seabream and seabass, especially caged production, represent the activity with the greatest presence of large companies dedicated to intensive cultivation and a greater use of technology.
Table 41. Main economic indicators of Italian seabream and seabass aquaculture industry. Source: STECF About 60% and 40% of the seabass and seabream production, respectively, are produced in brackish waters (FAO, 2018). The seabream and seabass industry in Italy consisted of 51 companies in 2014. The number of companies has remained stable since 2012, after four years in which it decreased from 93 companies in 2008 to 53 in 2011. There is a presence of small companies, as in the rest of the aquaculture industry in Italy, but seabream and seabass, especially caged production, represent the activity with the greatest presence of large companies dedicated to intensive cultivation and a greater use of technology.
Table 42. Main economic indicators of the Portuguese seabream and seabass aquaculture industry. Source: STECF
Table 42. Main economic indicators of the Portuguese seabream and seabass aquaculture industry. Source: STECF
Table 43. Main economic indicators of the Spanish seabream and seabass aquaculture industry. Source: STECF The Spanish seabream and seabass industry has evolved to be composed of a smaller number ot companies, but with a bigger production scale and higher labour productivity. This change has not translated into more production and the expected economies of scale that allow a higher efficiency and lower production cost have been neutralised by an increase in production cost, mainly due to the rise ir feed price. The consequence is that the largest proportional increase in incomes has allowed the growth ot the industry GVA in 2014, generated by better ex-farm prices and the increasing substitution of seabrearr by seabass in the total production, but it has not been enough to convert the negative performance indicators into positive ones.
Table 43. Main economic indicators of the Spanish seabream and seabass aquaculture industry. Source: STECF The Spanish seabream and seabass industry has evolved to be composed of a smaller number ot companies, but with a bigger production scale and higher labour productivity. This change has not translated into more production and the expected economies of scale that allow a higher efficiency and lower production cost have been neutralised by an increase in production cost, mainly due to the rise ir feed price. The consequence is that the largest proportional increase in incomes has allowed the growth ot the industry GVA in 2014, generated by better ex-farm prices and the increasing substitution of seabrearr by seabass in the total production, but it has not been enough to convert the negative performance indicators into positive ones.
According to FAO data (FAO, 2018), exports of fresh seabream and seabass reached 195,331 tonnes valuec 1,106 million USD in 2016. Since 2011, the quantities exported and their value have grown by 66% and 28% respectively. Seabream exports grew from 65 thousand tonnes with a value of 359 million USD in 2010 to 108 thousand tonnes valued 557 million USD in 2016. This trade represents 55% of the total seabream and seabass quantities exported and 50% of their value. In the case of seabass, exports in 2010 reached 59 thousand tonnes valued at 364 million USD, while in 2016 these figures increased by around 50% to 87 thousand tonnes with a value of 549 million USD. Table 44, Seabream and seabass exports in tonnes by countries in 2016. Source: FAO FishstatJ
According to FAO data (FAO, 2018), exports of fresh seabream and seabass reached 195,331 tonnes valuec 1,106 million USD in 2016. Since 2011, the quantities exported and their value have grown by 66% and 28% respectively. Seabream exports grew from 65 thousand tonnes with a value of 359 million USD in 2010 to 108 thousand tonnes valued 557 million USD in 2016. This trade represents 55% of the total seabream and seabass quantities exported and 50% of their value. In the case of seabass, exports in 2010 reached 59 thousand tonnes valued at 364 million USD, while in 2016 these figures increased by around 50% to 87 thousand tonnes with a value of 549 million USD. Table 44, Seabream and seabass exports in tonnes by countries in 2016. Source: FAO FishstatJ
Table 45. Seabream and seabass imports in tonnes by countries in 2016. Source: FAO FishstatJ The main countries exporting seabream are Turkey and Greece, which account for 77% of 2016 exports. Greek exports have fallen by 13% since 2010, while Turkish exports were seven times more than in 2010. Although Greek exports grew in 2016, for the first time, Turkish exports surpassed those of Greece. Italy has recorded its largest exports since 2010, which were equivalent to 81% of its seabream aquaculture production. Spanish seabream production and exports decreased in 2016, but exports gained weight until were equivalent to 40% of farmed seabream. Croatian, Cypriot and Maltese exports in 2016 were equivalent to more than 70% of their national productions.
Table 45. Seabream and seabass imports in tonnes by countries in 2016. Source: FAO FishstatJ The main countries exporting seabream are Turkey and Greece, which account for 77% of 2016 exports. Greek exports have fallen by 13% since 2010, while Turkish exports were seven times more than in 2010. Although Greek exports grew in 2016, for the first time, Turkish exports surpassed those of Greece. Italy has recorded its largest exports since 2010, which were equivalent to 81% of its seabream aquaculture production. Spanish seabream production and exports decreased in 2016, but exports gained weight until were equivalent to 40% of farmed seabream. Croatian, Cypriot and Maltese exports in 2016 were equivalent to more than 70% of their national productions.
Italy is the country with the most negative seabream trade balance, consumption being more than three times its national production. These data clearly show a market in which domestic production is far from meeting demand. Similarly, other traditional producer countries nowadays need more and more imports to meet their domestic demand, as in the case of France, Portugal, or Spain. The negative trade balance of Germany and the Netherlands is natural, since they are not producers, and indicates an increasing demand, also for re-export activities. Finally, imports in Israel have grown to figures higher than domestic production, thus showing an increasing domestic demand. Spain and Italy increased their negative trade balance. Seabass trade presents the same scenario in terms of trade balances.
Italy is the country with the most negative seabream trade balance, consumption being more than three times its national production. These data clearly show a market in which domestic production is far from meeting demand. Similarly, other traditional producer countries nowadays need more and more imports to meet their domestic demand, as in the case of France, Portugal, or Spain. The negative trade balance of Germany and the Netherlands is natural, since they are not producers, and indicates an increasing demand, also for re-export activities. Finally, imports in Israel have grown to figures higher than domestic production, thus showing an increasing domestic demand. Spain and Italy increased their negative trade balance. Seabass trade presents the same scenario in terms of trade balances.
The main market for seabream is Italy, where more than 30,000 tonnes are consumed annually (Table). The following three markets are Egypt, Turkey, and Spain. Among the main markets, there are clearly those that are supplied with domestic production (Turkey, Egypt, Greece and Tunisia) and those that are increasingly dependent on imports (Italy, Spain, France and Portugal). The main market for seabass consumption is Turkey with more than 50,000 tonnes. The Turkish seabass market is supplied with domestic production, as is the case in Egypt and Greece. On the contrary, the main markets in the EU, Italy, Spain, France, UK anc Portugal turn to imports to meet their domestic demand.
The main market for seabream is Italy, where more than 30,000 tonnes are consumed annually (Table). The following three markets are Egypt, Turkey, and Spain. Among the main markets, there are clearly those that are supplied with domestic production (Turkey, Egypt, Greece and Tunisia) and those that are increasingly dependent on imports (Italy, Spain, France and Portugal). The main market for seabass consumption is Turkey with more than 50,000 tonnes. The Turkish seabass market is supplied with domestic production, as is the case in Egypt and Greece. On the contrary, the main markets in the EU, Italy, Spain, France, UK anc Portugal turn to imports to meet their domestic demand.
Table 48. Aggregated results (average) for the 137 European companies farming seabass/seabream with available financial information. Source: Authors from data obtained in Orbis and Fish farm Survey in WP1
Table 48. Aggregated results (average) for the 137 European companies farming seabass/seabream with available financial information. Source: Authors from data obtained in Orbis and Fish farm Survey in WP1
Figure 28. Structure - Country comparison for the whole sample and for stable companies. Source: Authors from data obtained in Orbis and Fish farm Survey in WP1
Figure 28. Structure - Country comparison for the whole sample and for stable companies. Source: Authors from data obtained in Orbis and Fish farm Survey in WP1
Figure 30. Operating results (average cost of employee) - Country comparison for whole sample and stable companies. Source: Authors from data obtained in Orbis and Fish farm Survey in WP1 A positive trend is observed in labour productivity in the companies considered in the sample. However, this ratio should be interpreted with caution. STECF includes the ratio GVA (Gross Value Added) / FTE (Full time equivalent) to measure labour productivity but Orbis do not provide information about FTE, so the number of employees provided could be part-time or full time employees”’. Periods of collection and credit have narrowed over the years, reflecting higher bargaining power, and the credit period is usually greater than the collection period.
Figure 30. Operating results (average cost of employee) - Country comparison for whole sample and stable companies. Source: Authors from data obtained in Orbis and Fish farm Survey in WP1 A positive trend is observed in labour productivity in the companies considered in the sample. However, this ratio should be interpreted with caution. STECF includes the ratio GVA (Gross Value Added) / FTE (Full time equivalent) to measure labour productivity but Orbis do not provide information about FTE, so the number of employees provided could be part-time or full time employees”’. Periods of collection and credit have narrowed over the years, reflecting higher bargaining power, and the credit period is usually greater than the collection period.
Figure 31. Financial results (solvency ratio) - Country comparison for the whole sample and for stable companies. Source: Authors from data obtained in Orbis and Fish farm Survey in WP1 Comparisons by size Orbis database labels companies as very large companies when the annual turnover is higher than €100 nillion, total assets are higher than €200 million, or the number of employees is higher than 1,000. Large companies are those with an annual turnover higher than €10 million, total assets higher than €20 million, or with more than 150 employees. Finally, medium-sized companies” are those with a volume of sales nigher than €1 million, total assets higher than €2 million, or more than 15 employees. Orbis labels small companies as those not fulfilling the previous criteria.
Figure 31. Financial results (solvency ratio) - Country comparison for the whole sample and for stable companies. Source: Authors from data obtained in Orbis and Fish farm Survey in WP1 Comparisons by size Orbis database labels companies as very large companies when the annual turnover is higher than €100 nillion, total assets are higher than €200 million, or the number of employees is higher than 1,000. Large companies are those with an annual turnover higher than €10 million, total assets higher than €20 million, or with more than 150 employees. Finally, medium-sized companies” are those with a volume of sales nigher than €1 million, total assets higher than €2 million, or more than 15 employees. Orbis labels small companies as those not fulfilling the previous criteria.
Figure 32. Distribution of companies by size. Source: Authors from data obtained in Orbis and Fish farm Survey in WP1
Figure 32. Distribution of companies by size. Source: Authors from data obtained in Orbis and Fish farm Survey in WP1
However, distribution in operating revenues differs and medium-sized companies represent less than 20% of operating revenues of the considered companies, having reduced the proportion by almost 50% in the period 2008-2016. Although large companies account for around 35% of operating revenues throughout the period, a concentration of business in very large companies is observed, which represented 43.6% of business in 2008 and reached 62.1% in 2016 (see Figure33).
However, distribution in operating revenues differs and medium-sized companies represent less than 20% of operating revenues of the considered companies, having reduced the proportion by almost 50% in the period 2008-2016. Although large companies account for around 35% of operating revenues throughout the period, a concentration of business in very large companies is observed, which represented 43.6% of business in 2008 and reached 62.1% in 2016 (see Figure33).
Figure 34. Snapshot of seabass/seabream companies’ activity by size in 2016. Source: Authors from data obtained in Orbis and Fish farm Survey in WP1
Figure 34. Snapshot of seabass/seabream companies’ activity by size in 2016. Source: Authors from data obtained in Orbis and Fish farm Survey in WP1
Considering the available information (only companies farming mainly seabass and seabream), it can be seen that there is Greek capital in Spain and Italian capital in Slovenia and Croatia. Considering Croatian and Cypriot companies in the sample, there are no interactions in terms of property. However, France, Italy, Spain and Greece show several connections among shareholders, owning several companies and international connections. Greece’s changing panorama is not reflected in property maps, as it is the only country that provides outdated information, or does not provide information at all. Despite not having this information in the available information sources, it is necessary to point out that currently there are significant changes taking place in the ownership of companies producing seabream and seabass in Greece, especially among the largest, with a process of mergers and acquisitions, and the injection of investment funds into the ownership of these companies. Figure 35. Property maps and European connections. Note: IND — Independent Companies; SUB — Subsidiaries; GUO — Global Ultimate Owner; SHNI — Shareholders Not Identified
Considering the available information (only companies farming mainly seabass and seabream), it can be seen that there is Greek capital in Spain and Italian capital in Slovenia and Croatia. Considering Croatian and Cypriot companies in the sample, there are no interactions in terms of property. However, France, Italy, Spain and Greece show several connections among shareholders, owning several companies and international connections. Greece’s changing panorama is not reflected in property maps, as it is the only country that provides outdated information, or does not provide information at all. Despite not having this information in the available information sources, it is necessary to point out that currently there are significant changes taking place in the ownership of companies producing seabream and seabass in Greece, especially among the largest, with a process of mergers and acquisitions, and the injection of investment funds into the ownership of these companies. Figure 35. Property maps and European connections. Note: IND — Independent Companies; SUB — Subsidiaries; GUO — Global Ultimate Owner; SHNI — Shareholders Not Identified
Table 49. On-Growing units of production structure and employment. Period 2015-17. Source: Fish farm Survey The highest labour cost per employee is registered in countries such as Spain or Italy. Then there is a second group of EU countries such as Croatia, Cyprus and Greece where the labour cost per employee is reduced, by half, and even by a third. This information is consistent with what was analysed at the industry level. Finally, the information on other non-European countries shows a significantly lower labour cost between 10 and 5 times lower than those registered in EU countries. In on-growing activity, as the size of the unit of production increases, through more cages and employees, the volume of production grows. Within the sample analysed, the largest installed productive capacity, measured by the number of cages, is found in Turkish companies. If we relate the number of employees and the cages of each production unit, it is observed that Tunisia is the country in which the production process is most labour-intensive.
Table 49. On-Growing units of production structure and employment. Period 2015-17. Source: Fish farm Survey The highest labour cost per employee is registered in countries such as Spain or Italy. Then there is a second group of EU countries such as Croatia, Cyprus and Greece where the labour cost per employee is reduced, by half, and even by a third. This information is consistent with what was analysed at the industry level. Finally, the information on other non-European countries shows a significantly lower labour cost between 10 and 5 times lower than those registered in EU countries. In on-growing activity, as the size of the unit of production increases, through more cages and employees, the volume of production grows. Within the sample analysed, the largest installed productive capacity, measured by the number of cages, is found in Turkish companies. If we relate the number of employees and the cages of each production unit, it is observed that Tunisia is the country in which the production process is most labour-intensive.
Cost analysis at unit production level consists of the calculation of the relative importance of each type of operational cost in those on-growing farms where all the production costs were obtained. The results show in general the same cost structures identified in the analysis of the industry. Feed and fingerlings costs exceed 60% of the total operational costs. In EU countries, labour costs represent between 10% and 20% of the total operational costs. The cost of employment is of greater importance in hatcheries than in on- growing facilities. The study of the cost structure in the production units in Turkey, Tunisia and Egypt could not be considered in the analysis due to the lack of information on production costs in the companies surveyed in these countries.
Cost analysis at unit production level consists of the calculation of the relative importance of each type of operational cost in those on-growing farms where all the production costs were obtained. The results show in general the same cost structures identified in the analysis of the industry. Feed and fingerlings costs exceed 60% of the total operational costs. In EU countries, labour costs represent between 10% and 20% of the total operational costs. The cost of employment is of greater importance in hatcheries than in on- growing facilities. The study of the cost structure in the production units in Turkey, Tunisia and Egypt could not be considered in the analysis due to the lack of information on production costs in the companies surveyed in these countries.
The Fish farm survey in WP1 also provides information about the commercialisation and processing activities developed by the companies surveyed. In the period considered, companies reported the commercialisation of a total of 47,714,286 kg of seabream and seabass and a turnover of €153,913,002. Table 55 shows the distribution of the quantities and incomes according to fish size. Some of the companies surveyed reported the quantities marketed and their value according to the size of the fish, while others reported only th quantities sold. H owever, the analysis of the commercialisation (eit e quantity or only the value. This makes impossible to relate the value of sales to the her in kg or in €) according to the weight of the fish, provides relevant information. Seabream and seabass between 400g and 600g is the most commercialised product. About 70% of sales are fish between 300g and 800g, and this percentage rises to 80% if we include the individuals between 800g and 1000g. Just around 10% of sales corresponds to fish over 1 kg and this figure is reduced to 5% in fish over 2 kg.
The Fish farm survey in WP1 also provides information about the commercialisation and processing activities developed by the companies surveyed. In the period considered, companies reported the commercialisation of a total of 47,714,286 kg of seabream and seabass and a turnover of €153,913,002. Table 55 shows the distribution of the quantities and incomes according to fish size. Some of the companies surveyed reported the quantities marketed and their value according to the size of the fish, while others reported only th quantities sold. H owever, the analysis of the commercialisation (eit e quantity or only the value. This makes impossible to relate the value of sales to the her in kg or in €) according to the weight of the fish, provides relevant information. Seabream and seabass between 400g and 600g is the most commercialised product. About 70% of sales are fish between 300g and 800g, and this percentage rises to 80% if we include the individuals between 800g and 1000g. Just around 10% of sales corresponds to fish over 1 kg and this figure is reduced to 5% in fish over 2 kg.
Table 55. Distribution of seabream and seabass commercialisation by fish size (g). Period 2015-2017. Source: Fish farm Survey
Table 55. Distribution of seabream and seabass commercialisation by fish size (g). Period 2015-2017. Source: Fish farm Survey
Figure 36. Consultation and participation mechanisms established by the France, Italy and Spair at national, lower-national and local level
Figure 36. Consultation and participation mechanisms established by the France, Italy and Spair at national, lower-national and local level
Figure 37. Main challenges facing aquaculture The lower importance given to conflicts with other actors is clear, being considered by a slim majority of respondents as less important or not important. This contrasts with the difficulty of access to space, which was considered important or very important by 87% of respondents. The survey shows a large amount of confidence in institutions by fish farmers. However, there is a lack of trust for 30% to 40% of respondents. There are little differences between the institutional levels considered at local, national or European. But, for European respondents of the sample, about the half of the sample considers the trust in the European institutions important or very important, the other half considers the opposite. Respondents from third countries are more confident in national and in European regulations, but only around 50% are confident in local regulation. Given that seven non-European respondents answered, the results cannot be considered as representative of the entire sector.
Figure 37. Main challenges facing aquaculture The lower importance given to conflicts with other actors is clear, being considered by a slim majority of respondents as less important or not important. This contrasts with the difficulty of access to space, which was considered important or very important by 87% of respondents. The survey shows a large amount of confidence in institutions by fish farmers. However, there is a lack of trust for 30% to 40% of respondents. There are little differences between the institutional levels considered at local, national or European. But, for European respondents of the sample, about the half of the sample considers the trust in the European institutions important or very important, the other half considers the opposite. Respondents from third countries are more confident in national and in European regulations, but only around 50% are confident in local regulation. Given that seven non-European respondents answered, the results cannot be considered as representative of the entire sector.
Figure 38. Confidence of respondents in institutions The survey includes also questions about the perception of respondents about governance issues. The main results are presented in the bar chart in Figure 38. Complexity in licencing is considered to be very important by more than 80 % of respondents (and just important by the rest). The time for obtaining a licence is crucial for almost the same proportion of respondents as in the previous question. Other important considerations are related to the access to space to accompany the production increase mentioned in political strategies.
Figure 38. Confidence of respondents in institutions The survey includes also questions about the perception of respondents about governance issues. The main results are presented in the bar chart in Figure 38. Complexity in licencing is considered to be very important by more than 80 % of respondents (and just important by the rest). The time for obtaining a licence is crucial for almost the same proportion of respondents as in the previous question. Other important considerations are related to the access to space to accompany the production increase mentioned in political strategies.
Figure 39. Issues related to Aquaculture and governance
Figure 39. Issues related to Aquaculture and governance
Figure 42. Better ways to support aquaculture development Professionals are generally aware of the potential negative impacts related to aquaculture activities. Pollution by organic waste is an important or very important issue for the majority of respondents. In absolute terms, the spread of diseases as a very important issue was endorsed by 60% of respondents. On the contrary, landscape changes, escape of fish and drug use are considered less important or not important for about 40% of respondents. The protection of the European market is one of the main ways to support aquaculture in Europe for the majority of respondents (obviously mainly for European respondents). Reducing the complexity of regulatory and administrative processes is also considered important or very important for all respondents.
Figure 42. Better ways to support aquaculture development Professionals are generally aware of the potential negative impacts related to aquaculture activities. Pollution by organic waste is an important or very important issue for the majority of respondents. In absolute terms, the spread of diseases as a very important issue was endorsed by 60% of respondents. On the contrary, landscape changes, escape of fish and drug use are considered less important or not important for about 40% of respondents. The protection of the European market is one of the main ways to support aquaculture in Europe for the majority of respondents (obviously mainly for European respondents). Reducing the complexity of regulatory and administrative processes is also considered important or very important for all respondents.
Figure 43. Impact of aquaculture activities
Figure 43. Impact of aquaculture activities
Figure 44. Impact of environmental change on aquaculture
Figure 44. Impact of environmental change on aquaculture
Figure 45. Opinions about Technical and economic issues in aquaculture It is interesting to note that almost 40% of the respondents consider that the perception and attitudes of local communities towards aquaculture are bad or very bad. This point of view is close to the question of public perception at the national level. However, if we only consider respondents from European countries, negative perceptions correspond to half of the respondents in third countries. In addition, 30% of respondents believe that the information provided by the profession can generate distrust among local people.
Figure 45. Opinions about Technical and economic issues in aquaculture It is interesting to note that almost 40% of the respondents consider that the perception and attitudes of local communities towards aquaculture are bad or very bad. This point of view is close to the question of public perception at the national level. However, if we only consider respondents from European countries, negative perceptions correspond to half of the respondents in third countries. In addition, 30% of respondents believe that the information provided by the profession can generate distrust among local people.
Figure 47. Interactions with other stakeholder if we distinguish between European and third countries, there are some differences in the relationshi between the aquaculture sector and other stakeholders. Third country respondents seem to have more bac relations with the tourism and fishing sectors than those from European countries. On the other hand, hal of the proportion of third country respondents compared with European respondents perceive negative interactions with local residents. In this way, there would be fewer difficulties in Europe with othe economic agents but more with local residents, while in third countries it would be the opposite. However these results must be considered with caution, as the sample is small and not necessarily representative o the entire Mediterranean area.
Figure 47. Interactions with other stakeholder if we distinguish between European and third countries, there are some differences in the relationshi between the aquaculture sector and other stakeholders. Third country respondents seem to have more bac relations with the tourism and fishing sectors than those from European countries. On the other hand, hal of the proportion of third country respondents compared with European respondents perceive negative interactions with local residents. In this way, there would be fewer difficulties in Europe with othe economic agents but more with local residents, while in third countries it would be the opposite. However these results must be considered with caution, as the sample is small and not necessarily representative o the entire Mediterranean area.
Figure 48. Data collection structure
Figure 48. Data collection structure
Table 56. Codification model for company anonymization
Table 56. Codification model for company anonymization
Figure 51. Fish Farming Survey: Environment
Figure 51. Fish Farming Survey: Environment
Figure 53. Fish Farming Survey: Social (2)
Figure 53. Fish Farming Survey: Social (2)
Figure 55. Fish Farming Survey: Health Management (1)
Figure 55. Fish Farming Survey: Health Management (1)
Figure 57. Fish Farming Survey: Health Management (3)
Figure 57. Fish Farming Survey: Health Management (3)
Figure 58. Fish Farming Survey: Health Management (4)
Figure 58. Fish Farming Survey: Health Management (4)
Figure 59.Fish Farming Survey: Economic Analysis
Figure 59.Fish Farming Survey: Economic Analysis
Figure 62. Fish Farming Survey: Governance (3)
Figure 62. Fish Farming Survey: Governance (3)
Table 57. Description of the variables and indicators included in the analysis at company level
Table 57. Description of the variables and indicators included in the analysis at company level