Regional Socio-economic studies on employment and the levels of dependency on fishing
Objectives and overview of methodology|
The aims of this series
of studies, which equate into four defined tasks, are to:
a) Quantify and describe the socio-economic
importance of fishing and aquaculture in Europe
b) Determine the level of dependency on fisheries
of these areas, in terms of jobs and incomes
c) Examine the trends in evolution of employment since
the 1991 socio-economic studies
d) Examine the extent to which the socio-economic measures currently
in place have been implemented, and the potential in the coastal areas for conversion and diversification
The work was conducted by considering 22 separate fisheries
regions. In each region four tasks were completed.
Task 1 provided an overview of the whole fishing
industry in each region, covering the basic economic parameters of fleet structure, production, processing,
on-shore infrastructure and ancillary trades (such as vessel construction and repair). Aquaculture (both
coastal and inland) was also included. In all cases there was a focus on data relating to employment
and value added.
Task 2 involved measuring three indicators of dependency. These were the share
of fisheries activity in the value added of the area (Ratio 1), the share of fisheries employment in
total regional employment (Ratio 2), and the share of catches subject to CFP quota management measures
as a proportion of total catches (Ratio 3). Employment multipliers were also calculated where feasible,
by creating local input-output models from national input-output tables. In addition to the quantitative
indicators, case studies were undertaken in each of the 22 study regions. These helped to illustrate
the different kinds of dependency which exist within the regions of the EU.
Task 3 was an examination
of the changes over time in socio-economic parameters and levels of dependency since the previous study
conducted in 1991.
Task 4 identified and commented on the types of socio-economic support measure
available to the fishery sector in each region, the extent of their application and their actual and
perceived effects, taking into account the likely future trends in the fishery sector in each region.
Recommendations were developed for improving these measures.
The minimum regional level was NUTS
3 (except for inland fisheries and aquaculture where NUTS 2 would be acceptable). However, data were
also available at lower regional levels of disaggregation and many regions were able to provide data
at NUTS 4 and NUTS 5 levels.
Apart from this report, one of the main outputs of these projects
is development of dependency maps (and data tables) to illustrate graphically, at NUTS 3 levels (and
lower regional levels of disaggregation where available), the regional values of the Ratios 1, 2 and
3, as well as other key economic indicators for the fishery sector. The maps are presented in the regional
database along with a brief socio-economic profile of each study region.
3 Constraints and limitations
of the study
Any EU-wide study of this nature will need to reconcile differences in data definitions
and methodologies between regions. During the study two workshops were held in Brussels, attended by
all of the consultants undertaking the regional studies, the coordination group and staff from DG Fisheries.
The workshops assisted the development of a harmonised methodology across the study regions, and supported
the development of methodological guidelines and standardised data tables.
3.1 Comparisons between
To enable comparison of regional dependency indicators, there is a need to ensure that
the definition of areas within regions is consistent across study regions. One major problem experienced
with this was that in some regions, the territorial divisions for which employment data were available
were not NUTS-based. In the UK, the fishing employment data are collected on a port, rather than NUTS
basis, and so fisheries dependency areas were based on TTWAs (travel to work areas). There was no option
but to accept this regional definition in the UK study.
There was a second problem which relates
to the fact that the area and population size of the NUTS 3 areas varies considerably between member
states, and this affects the value of any dependency ratio. It is therefore important that the dependency
ratios should be considered in the context of the total population of the areas to which they apply.
3.2 Definitions of fishery sector activities
Definition of different activities within
the fishery sector was also problematic. Particular problems were experienced with the activities of
mareyage in France (wholesaling and primary processing) and the production of mollusca in managed fisheries
(such as viveiros in Portugal). After detailed consideration of which activities should be included in
the numerators of Ratio 2, the following disaggregations and definitions were agreed:
All fishing activities conducted from a vessel
Processing: All fish processing activities, including
primary processing, but excluding mareyage and distribution activities
Marine aquaculture: Activities
in the culture of finfish and bivalve mollusca when introduction of juveniles and/or feeding is conducted
Total fishery sector: All activities including the above, plus (where data available) inland fishing,
inland aquaculture, vessel construction and repair, marketing and distribution (inlcuding mareyage) and
gathering of bivalve mollusca.
3.3 Comparisons over time
A major constraint was also
the regional disaggregation used in the previous 1991 studies, since for Task 3 it was necessary to maintain,
as far as possible, comparability of data. The areas for which the 1991 study developed dependency indicators
were extremely heterogeneous, with different regions reporting at different NUTS levels, such that in
many cases the only common base for comparison was at NUTS 2 level.
In the 1991 studies, the
capture fishing sector was examined separately, but all other fishing related activities were consolidated
in an 'others' category. However, this category was frequently not fully defined. Where definitions
were given it was clear that they varied significantly from one region to another. Except for fishing
as such, this makes it very difficult, and in some cases impossible, to compare the employment data from
the present studies with those previously undertaken.