1、Scientific,Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries(STECF)-Economic report on the fish processing industry(STECF-21-14)Edited by Loretta Malvarosa,Jordi Guillen and Jarno Virtanen EUR 28359 EN 2022 This publication is a Science for Policy report by the Joint Research Centre(JRC),the European C

2、ommissions science and knowledge service.It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process.The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission.Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commis

3、sion is responsible for the use that might be made of this publication.For information on the methodology and quality underlying the data used in this publication for which the source is neither Eurostat nor other Commission services,users should contact the referenced source.The designations employ

4、ed and the presentation of material on the maps do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the European Union concerning the legal status of any country,territory,city or area or of its authorities,or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.Contact inform

5、ation Name:STECF secretariat Address:Unit D.02 Water and Marine Resources,Via Enrico Fermi 2749,21027 Ispra VA,Italy E-mail:jrc-stecf-secretariatec.europa.eu Tel.:+39 0332 789343 EU Science Hub https:/ec.europa.eu/jrc JRC129953 EUR 28359 EN PDF ISBN 978-92-76-53687-1 ISSN 1831-9424 doi:10.2760/71584

6、1 STECF ISSN 2467-0715 Luxembourg:Publications Office of the European Union,2022 European Union,2022 The reuse policy of the European Commission is implemented by the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents(OJ L 330,14.12.2011,p.39).Except otherwise n

7、oted,the reuse of this document is authorised under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International(CC BY 4.0)licence(https:/creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).This means that reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated.For any use or reproduction of pho

8、tos or other material that is not owned by the EU,permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders.All content European Union,2022 How to cite this report:Scientific,Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries(STECF)Economic report on the fish processing industry(STECF-21-14).EUR 283

9、59 EN,Publications Office of the European Union,Luxembourg,2022,ISBN 978-92-76-53687-1,doi:10.2760/715841,JRC129953.i Authors:STECF advice:Abella,J.Alvaro;Bastardie,Francois;Borges,Lisa;Casey,John;Damalas,Dimitrios;Daskalov,Georgi;Dring,Ralf;Gascuel,Didier;Grati,Fabio;Ibaibarriaga,Leire;Jung,Armelle

10、;Knittweis,Leyla;Ligas,Alessandro;Martin,Paloma;Motova,Arina;Moutopoulos,Dimitrios;Nord,Jenny;Prellezo,Ral;ONeill,Barry;Raid,Tiit;Rihan,Dominic;Sampedro,Paz;Somarakis,Stylianos;Stransky,Christoph;Ulrich,Clara;Uriarte,Andres;Valentinsson,Daniel;van Hoof,Luc;Vanhee,Willy;Villasante,Sebastian;Vrgoc,Ned

11、o.EWG-21-14 report:EWG chair:Malvarosa,Loretta Experts:Avdic Mravlje,Edvard;Brigaudeau,Cecile;Cozzolino,Maria;Danatskos,Christos;Davidjuka,Irina;De Peuter,Sabine;Fernandez Polanco,Jose Manuel;Guillen,Jordi;Hoekstra,Geert;Huber,Lina-Marie;Ioannou,Myrto;Jackson,Emmet;Jung,Armelle;Kazlauskas,Edvardas;K

12、ieliszewska,Malgorzata;Krupska,Joanna;Lees,Janek;Llorente Garcia,Ignacio;Mongruel,Remi;Nicheva,Simona;Nielsen,Rasmus;Ntavou,Stavroula;Pokki,Heidi;Rodgers,Philip;Sciberras,Andrew;Virtanen,Jarno;Vini Novakovi,Svjetlana;Waara,Lina;Zhelev,Kolyo.ii CONTENTS Abstract.1 SCIENTIFIC,TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC CO

13、MMITTEE FOR FISHERIES(STECF)-Economic report on the fish processing industry(STECF-21-14).2 Background provided by the Commission.2 Request to the STECF.2 General STECF observations.2 STECF comments on data and procedure.2 STECF comments on the EWG report results.3 STECF comments on the impact of re

14、cent economic shocks.4 STECF conclusions.4 Contact details of STECF members.5 Expert Working Group EWG-21-14 report.9 1 Introduction.10 1.1 Terms of Reference for EWG-21-14.12 2 EU Overview.15 2.1 Overview of the EU fish processing industry.15 2.2 Economic performance.21 2.3 Fish used as raw materia

15、l.24 2.4 Trends,drivers and outlook.27 3 Socio-demographics of the EU fish processing sector.34 3.1 Gender.34 3.2 Age.35 3.3 Education.37 3.4 Nationalities.38 3.5 Socio-demographics by size classes.39 3.6 Main conclusions and data issues.44 4 The impact of Covid-19 on the EU fish processing sector.4

16、5 4.1 Consumption and retail.45 4.2 Labour productivity.45 4.3 Disruptions in the supply chain.46 4.4 Summary and outlook.50 4.5 References.50 iii 5 National chapters.51 5.1 Austria.52 5.2 Belgium.53 5.3 Bulgaria.58 5.4 Croatia.65 5.5 Czechia.75 5.6 Denmark.76 5.7 Estonia.84 5.8 Finland.86 5.9 Franc

17、e.92 5.10 Germany.98 5.11 Greece.105 5.12 Hungary.113 5.13 Ireland.118 5.14 Italy.125 5.15 Latvia.134 5.16 Lithuania.141 5.17 Malta.147 5.18 Netherlands.152 5.19 Poland.155 5.20 Portugal.163 5.21 Romania.164 5.22 Slovakia.171 5.23 Slovenia.173 5.24 Spain.180 5.25 Sweden.189 6 Data Quality and Covera

18、ge.195 7 Contact details of EWG-21-14 participants.200 9 Annexes.203 9.1 Annex 1 Data collected under DCF and EU-MAP.203 9.2 Annex 2 Glossary of variables and indicators reported under the DCF and EUMAP.205 9.3 Annex 3 Quality and Coverage checking procedures on the data submitted under the 2021 fis

19、h processing sector economic data call216 iv 9.4 Annex 4 Estimation protocol used by EWG 21-14 for the 2021 report.218 10 List of Electronic Annexes.221 11 List of Background Documents.221 1 Abstract Commission Decision of 25 February 2016 setting up a Scientific,Technical and Economic Committee for

20、 Fisheries,C(2016)1084,OJ C 74,26.2.2016,p.410.The Commission may consult the group on any matter relating to marine and fisheries biology,fishing gear technology,fisheries economics,fisheries governance,ecosystem effects of fisheries,aquaculture or similar disciplines.This report contains the 2021

21、economic report of the EU fish processing sector,covering the period 2008 to 2019(for some MS 2020)and includes information on the EU fish processing industries in terms of number of enterprises,employment,income and costs.The profitability and performance of the sector is also reported in terms of

22、gross value added,profits,profit margins and labour productivity.In 2019,the sector was made up of about 3,200 firms,provided about 111,000 jobs and produced a turnover of 28.5 billion.For the second time the analysis of the socio-demographic aspects of the labour forces employed by the sector is pr

23、ovided,in terms of gender,age,nationality and educational aspects.The report provides an in-depth look of the different factors affecting the economic performance of the EU fish processing industry with a special focus on the major drivers and issues affecting the sector as well as an outlook on the

24、 main future trends.Considering what has happened in the last two years,since the previous report,and following a specific request of the Commission,the report provides a first attempt of assessment of the impact that the spread of Covid-19 throughout the world has had on the EU fish-processing sect

25、or.2 SCIENTIFIC,TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC COMMITTEE FOR FISHERIES(STECF)-Economic report on the fish processing industry(STECF-21-14)Background provided by the Commission The economic report on the fish processing industry is one of the main sources of economic and social data for scientific advice on

26、the performance of the EU fish processing industry.It is also increasingly used by scientific bodies,national administrations and international institutions.Following the 2021 DCF/EU-MAP call for economic data on the EU fish processing sector,the EWG is requested to analyse and comment on the econom

27、ic performance of the EU and national fish processing sectors between 2008 and 2019(2020 when available).Request to the STECF STECF is requested to review the report of the STECF Expert Working Group meeting,evaluate the findings and make any appropriate comments and recommendations.General STECF ob

28、servations STECF EWG 21-14,on the Economic report of the EU fish processing sector,met virtually,from 22-25 February 2022.STECF has reviewed the report and notes that the EWG has addressed all the ToRs.STECF comments on data and procedure STECF notes that the EU-MAP,as defined in the COMMISSION DELE

29、GATED DECISION(EU)2021/1167,states,in the ANNEX,CHAPTER II,point 7,that Over and above the data published by Eurostat,collected by the Member States in line with the European Business Statistics Regulation and Regulation(EC)No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council(15),Member States

30、may collect additional socioeconomic data on the fish processing sector although does not include a list of indicators for the processing industry.STECF further notes that the EWG 21-14 used complementary data sources(e.g.Structural Business Statistics(https:/ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/structural-bus

31、iness-statistics)and Prodcom(https:/ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/prodcom)from Eurostat)to close gaps where Member States did not provide some indicators requested in the data call.As this requires the use of an estimation protocol for some Member States,STECF notes that EWG 21-14 further elaborated on

32、the protocol approved by STECF 19-02 and used for the 2019 report on the processing industry.STECF further observes that the EWG report includes a brief analysis,at country level,for three Member States involved in data collection under EU-MAP,but not collecting data for the fish processing sector b

33、ecause of a very small sized industry(i.e.Austria,Czech Republic and Slovakia).3 STECF considers that the use of the protocol and of data sources complementary to the data call means that the EWG-21-14 report provides a comprehensive overview of the most recent information available on the structure

34、 and economic performance of the EU fish processing industry.STECF observes that although not requested in the ToRs,the EWG assessed the sources of raw material(e.g.catches by EU fishing fleets,EU aquaculture company production and imports)with details on species,type of industry and Member States.S

35、TECF notes that information on this is scarce,and that only a limited number of Member States provided data(9 of 25,and primarily from the Mediterranean,Black Sea and Baltic regions),with different levels of data coverage and quality.The main EU seafood processing countries did not submit any data a

36、nd no analysis was made on these Member States.STECF notes also that a workshop on raw material planned by RCG_ECON in 2020 could not be held.STECF comments on the EWG report results STECF observes that the EWG report covers the period 2008 to 2019(including 2020 where available)and includes informa

37、tion on the EU fish processing industries in terms of number of enterprises,employment,income and costs.The profitability and performance of the sector is also reported in terms of gross value added,profits,profit margins and labour productivity.STECF notes that the main findings obtained in the EWG

38、 report are:The overall number of enterprises carrying out fish processing as a main activity was around 3 200 companies.In 2019,the sector had a turnover of about EUR 28.5 billion and employed more than 110 000 people corresponding to around 100 000 full time equivalents.This implies that part-time

39、 employment in this sector is relatively low.The majority of processing enterprises(98%)are small and medium sized enterprises(less than 250 employees),85%are small-sized(less than 50 employees)and more than half are micro-enterprises(less than 10 employees).The distribution of enterprise by size-cl

40、asses shows many differences across Member States,with Finland,Greece,Italy,Slovenia,and Sweden having the highest proportions of micro-enterprises.The highest proportion of enterprises above 50 employees are in Eastern Europe(e.g.Poland and Lithuania).There has been a progressive concentration of p

41、roduction over the analysed period(2008-2019),evidenced by a decrease of the total number of enterprises.The number of smaller enterprises has decreased while there has been a parallel increase in larger enterprises Gross Value Added is positive and increasing(+18%)in 2019 compared to 2018.This incr

42、ease counterbalanced an increase in personnel costs(+5%compared to 2018),linked to an increase both in employment and in average wages.The sector was able to generate an Operating Cash Flow 34%higher than in 2018.The purchase of fish and raw material is the dominant cost item for the sector(more tha

43、n 70%of the total production costs).The EWG concluded that there are substantial differences in the origin of the sourcing of raw material across those Member States who submitted data.While e.g.Finland and Croatia rely on domestic production,in Germany only one quarter of the raw material used by f

44、ish processing industries is domestic.52%is imported from other EU countries,while 20%is purchased from outside the EU.STECF notes that the EWG also analysed the socio-demographic aspects of the labour force employed by the sector.The variables included information on gender,age,nationality and educ

45、ational level.This data was collected under the EUMAP and were provided by the Member States.The main findings on these aspects obtained by the EWG were:The proportion of female and male in the workforce is almost equal.The 40-64 age class made up the largest proportion(51%)of people employed in the

46、 processing industry and most employees hold a medium education level,followed by 25%of low educated employees.4 The vast majority(73%)of people employed in the sector are EU nationals working in their own country with the remainder being mostly workers from other EU Member States.STECF comments on

47、the impact of recent economic shocks STECF observes that the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on the EU fish processing industry was assessed by the EWG.STECF notes that given that 2020 data were only available for a minority of the Member States,the assessment made was mainly qualitative.STECF notes

48、 that according to that preliminary assessment,the EU fish processors seem to have globally managed the initial disruptions in labour productivity,supply of raw materials and prices by the end of 2020.However,in the light of the sharp rise in energy costs emerging from the past few months and the fu

49、rther expected cost increases(mainly of raw material)as a consequence of the Russian invasion of Ukraine,will undoubtedly have an impact on the fish processing industry across the EU.STECF notes that the EWG also assessed the impact of the Brexit.The EWG concluded that the main impact of Brexit has

50、been an increase in paperwork and transport costs for both exporters and importers to and from the UK.In addition,the EWG provided some specific analyses on the situation in Ireland.The EWG concluded that the pelagic processors are the most heavily impacted part of the processing sector in Ireland,g

51、iven that sourcing of raw material,particularly mackerel,has become more challenging to get.This has led to a concentration of the production of pelagic processed products in the first half of the year,reducing their average selling prices.STECF conclusions STECF concludes that the report on the eco

52、nomic performance of the fish processing industry provides a comprehensive overview of the most recent information available on the structure and economic performance of the EU fish processing industry.STECF concludes that the report has gained improvements from the methodological approach used for

53、countries not providing data,which has helped bridging data gaps.STECF concludes that the assessment of the impact of Brexit on the sector provides useful insights,although it cannot be considered as a comprehensive overview because it is limited to a single case study.Further case studies covering

54、other Member States would be informative,including the import-export flows of products between UK and the EU.STECF concludes that the analysis of the raw material provided by the EWG is limited due to the lack of data.STECF reiterates its previous conclusion from PLEN 21-01 that it is difficult to o

55、btain this data by Member States,due to the complexities in deriving information directly from industries.However,in the light of the Farm to Fork Strategy and its recent deliverable EU Code of Conduct on Responsible Food Business and Marketing Practices that entered into force in July 20211,STECF c

56、oncludes that it is essential to identify the supply chain,as clearly as possible,from the fishing area(for fishery products)or farming plants(for aquaculture one)to the market outlets.Furthermore,given that the purchase of fish and raw material is the dominant cost item for the sector,this informat

57、ion is also crucial for assessing the strengths and vulnerabilities of the sector.The collection of this data is,therefore,important and Member States are encouraged to continue improving the dataset in accordance with the guidelines of the data call2.1 https:/ec.europa.eu/food/horizontal-topics/far

58、m-fork-strategy/sustainable-food-processing/code-conduct_en 2 https:/datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/guidelines/socioeco/proind 5 STECF concludes that the COVID-19 impact assessment provided by the EWG is merely descriptive.STECF acknowledges the general interpretation provided by the EWG but conclu

59、des also that a more detailed assessment of the impact will not be available until the data from years 2020 and 2021 are available and analysed.STECF further concludes that any outlook assessment into the future(2020-2022 and beyond)should be read with caution given the changing and volatile macroec

60、onomic environment in the EU.STECF concludes that given that the EU-MAP does not provide a list of variables to be potentially collected,the data collection should follow the recommendations of the RCG_ECON(PGECON 2020 Report)which are based on the COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION(EU)2016/1251.Conta

61、ct details of STECF members 1-Information on STECF members affiliations is displayed for information only.In any case,Members of the STECF shall act independently.In the context of the STECF work,the committee members do not represent the institutions/bodies they are affiliated to in their daily job

62、s.STECF members also declare at each meeting of the STECF and of its Expert Working Groups any specific interest which might be considered prejudicial to their independence in relation to specific items on the agenda.These declarations are displayed on the public meetings website if experts explicit

63、ly authorized the JRC to do so in accordance with EU legislation on the protection of personnel data.For more information:http:/stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/adm-declarations Name Affiliation1 Email Abella,J.Alvaro Independent consultant Bastardie,Francois Technical University of Denmark,National Institute

64、 of Aquatic Resources(DTU-AQUA),Kemitorvet,2800 Kgs.Lyngby,Denmark fbaaqua.dtu.dk Borges,Lisa FishFix,Lisbon,Portugal infofishfix.eu Casey,John Independent consultant Damalas,Dimitrios Hellenic Centre for Marine Research,Institute of Marine Biological Resources&Inland Waters,576 Vouliagmenis Avenue,

65、Argyroupolis,16452,Athens,Greece sharkhcmr.gr Daskalov,Georgi Laboratory of Marine Ecology,Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research,Bulgarian Academy of Sciences G 6 Name Affiliation1 Email Dring,Ralf(vice-chair)Thnen Institute TI-SF Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas,Forestry and Fi

66、sheries,Institute of Sea Fisheries,Economic analyses Herwigstrasse 31,D-27572 Bremerhaven,Germany ralf.doeringthuenen.de Gascuel,Didier AGROCAMPUS OUEST,65 Route de Saint Brieuc,CS 84215,F-35042 RENNES Cedex,France Didier.Gascuelagrocampus-ouest.fr Grati,Fabio National Research Council(CNR)Institute

67、 for Biological Resources and Marine Biotechnologies(IRBIM),L.go Fiera della Pesca,2,60125,Ancona,Italy fabio.graticnr.it Ibaibarriaga,Leire AZTI.Marine Research Unit.Txatxarramendi Ugartea z/g.E-48395 Sukarrieta,Bizkaia.Spain.libaibarriagaazti.es Jung,Armelle DRDH,Techople Brest-Iroise,BLP 15 rue D

68、umont dUrville,Plouzane,France armelle.jungdesrequinsetdeshommes.org Knittweis,Leyla Department of Biology,University of Malta,Msida,MSD 2080,Malta Leyla.knittweisum.edu.mt Ligas,Alessandro CIBM Consorzio per il Centro Interuniversitario di Biologia Marina ed Ecologia Applicata“G.Bacci”,Viale N.Saur

69、o 4,57128 Livorno,Italy ligascibm.it; Martin,Paloma CSIC Instituto de Ciencias del Mar Passeig Martim,37-49,08003 Barcelona,Spain palomaicm.csic.es Motova,Arina Sea Fish Industry Authority,18 Logie Mill,Logie Green Road,Edinburgh EH7 4HS,U.K arina.motovaseafish.co.uk Moutopoulos,Dimitrios Department

70、 of Animal Production,Fisheries&Aquaculture,University of Patras,Rio-Patras,26400,Greece dmoutopoteimes.gr Nord,Jenny The Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management(SwAM)Jenny.nordhavochvatten.se 7 Name Affiliation1 Email Prellezo,Ral AZTI-Unidad de Investigacin Marina,Txatxarramendi Ugartea z/g

71、 48395 Sukarrieta(Bizkaia),Spain rprellezoazti.es ONeill,Barry DTU Aqua,Willemoesvej 2,9850 Hirtshals,Denmark baroneaqua.dtu.dk Raid,Tiit Estonian Marine Institute,University of Tartu,Mealuse 14,Tallin,EE-126,Estonia T Rihan,Dominic(vice-chair)BIM,Ireland rihanbim.ie Sampedro,Paz Spanish Institute o

72、f Oceanography,Center of A Corua,Paseo Alcalde Francisco Vzquez,10,15001 A Corua,Spain paz.sampedroieo.es Somarakis,Stylianos Institute of Marine Biological Resources and Inland Waters(IMBRIW),Hellenic Centre of Marine Research(HCMR),Thalassocosmos Gournes,P.O.Box 2214,Heraklion 71003,Crete,Greece s

73、omarakhcmr.gr Stransky,Christoph Thnen Institute TI-SF Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas,Forestry and Fisheries,Institute of Sea Fisheries,Herwigstrasse 31,D-27572 Bremerhaven,Germany christoph.stranskythuenen.de Ulrich,Clara(chair)IFREMER,France Clara.Ulrichifremer.fr Uriarte,Andres AZTI.G

74、estin pesquera sostenible.Sustainable fisheries management.Arrantza kudeaketa jasangarria,Herrera Kaia-Portualdea z/g.E-20110 Pasaia GIPUZKOA(Spain)auriarteazti.es Valentinsson,Daniel Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences(SLU),Department of Aquatic Resources,Turistgatan 5,SE-45330,Lysekil,Swed

75、en daniel.valentinssonslu.se van Hoof,Luc Wageningen Marine Research Haringkade 1,Ijmuiden,The Netherlands Luc.vanhoofwur.nl Vanhee,Willy Independent consultant wvanheetelenet.be 8 Name Affiliation1 Email Villasante,Sebastian University of Santiago de Compostela,Santiago de Compostela,A Corua,Spain,

76、Department of Applied Economics sebastian.villasanteusc.es Vrgoc,Nedo Institute of Oceanography and Fisheries,Split,Setaliste Ivana Mestrovica 63,21000 Split,Croatia vrgocizor.hr 9 EXPERT WORKING GROUP EWG-21-14 REPORT REPORT TO THE STECF EXPERT WORKING GROUP ON Economic report on the fish processin

77、g industry(EWG-21-14)Virtual meeting,21-25 February 2022 This report does not necessarily reflect the view of the STECF and the European Commission and in no way anticipates the Commissions future policy in this area 10 1 INTRODUCTION The 2021 Economic Report on the EU Fish Processing Sector provide

78、s a comprehensive overview of the latest information available on the structure and economic performance of the EU fish processing industry,from an economic and social point of view,updated at the year 2019(for some countries at 2020).The report covers the period starting with the year 2008 and incl

79、udes information on the EU fish processing industries in terms of number of enterprises,employment,income and costs.The profitability and performance of the sector is also reported in terms of gross value added,profits,profit margins and labour productivity.For the second time(because of a second ca

80、ll),the analysis of the socio-demographic aspects of the labour forces employed by the EU fish processing industries has been provided,in terms of gender,age,nationality and educational aspects.The report provides an in-depth look of the different factors affecting the economic performance of the EU

81、 fish processing industry with a special focus on the major drivers and issues affecting the sector and gives insight on the main factors influencing the industrys economic performance in the period covered by the data series but also trying to provide an outlook on the most recent years,relying on

82、the experts knowledge and information already available for the sector as a whole(including insights on the link with the import and export flows,market prices and consumption trends).Some phenomena have been analysed with a special attention after two years from the previous report,e.g.the impact o

83、f Brexit,with the use of selected case-studies revealing to have particularly been impacted by it.In line with the ToRs,the report has also dealt with the impact that the Covid-19 pandemic has generated on the fish processing sector of the EU countries.Taking into account that the data submitted by

84、MSs do not cover the Covid period(2020-21),the section has been based on the analysis of the trends of imports and export of selected commodities and countries and on qualitative information provided by experts.Details of the impact are synthesised at EU level and at countrys level,as well.Given tha

85、t under the new EU-MAP,the transmission of data about the fish processing sector is only done on a voluntarily basis,complementary source of data(e.g.Structural Business Statistics and Prodcom from Eurostat)was used for some countries(in line with what suggested by the EWG drafting the 2017 report a

86、nd already implemented by the EWG for the draft of the 2019 report).Furthermore,for the second time and in line with the approach used for the 2019 report,the data for EU totals represent the complete picture of the EU fish processing sector as they are not biased by the inclusion(or exclusion)of so

87、me Member States,throughout the analysed period(mainly due to the voluntarily of the data collection for the fish processing sector under EUMAP).The protocol approved by STECF 19-02 has been adapted by the EWG 21-14.The compilation of EU aggregates required the use external sources(Eurostat/SBS)to c

88、over the lack of data for a)for some MS committed to data delivering under DCF/EUMAP but submitting not complete data series;b)for MS not(or no more)committed to deliver data under DCF/EUMAP3.Thanks to this,the EU overview analysis is based on the aggregation of a full dataset of 24 Member States,pr

89、oviding the main socio-economic indicators for the sector.It is worth noting,nevertheless,that an in-depth analysis of the economic performance of the EU fish processing sector has been possible only for the group of DCF/EUMAP MSs,because of the more detailed level of variables covered by the DCF/EU

90、MAP in comparison to the Eurostat/SBS framework.It is also important to highlight that even if the report has largely benefited of this methodological approach,a lot of 3 For details,see Annex 4 11 time was spent prior and during the meeting,for cross-checking the two datasets(DCF/EUMAP and Eurostat

91、/SBS)and to provide consistent and coherent indicators.For the second time,after the 2019 report,and with the aim of providing a real EU overview of the sector,the report includes also a brief analysis,at country level,for Member States involved in data collection under EUMAP,but not collecting data

92、 for the fish processing sector because of a very small sized industry(i.e.Austria,Czech Republic and Slovakia).For these countries and for those no more submitting data because of the voluntarily of the data collection(Estonia Netherlands and Portugal)and in one case for lack of coverage in the dat

93、a series(France),the national chapters are built on a bit different format as graphs and tables are based also or exclusively on Eurostat(Structural Business Statistics)data,for the description of the main economic indicators.The purchase of fish and raw material is the dominant cost item for the se

94、ctor,accounting for more than 70%of the total production costs,increasing over time.Understanding which segments and Member States use EU raw material(either from wild fisheries or from aquaculture)and which ones depend on imported supplies and on which species is of high importance for assessing th

95、e strengths and vulnerabilities of the sector.The 2019 report already dealt with the series of initiatives undertaken,from pilot studies under the MSs work plans to specific studies committed by the Commission,e.g.SECFISH project,concluding that the raw material data has revealed,in most cases,to be

96、 quite costly and challenging and trying to provide suggestions for the improvement of the future data collection.Nevertheless,in the light of the Farm to fork Strategy and the most recent EU Code of Conduct on Responsible Food Business and Marketing Practices entered into force in 2021,it is essent

97、ial to define,as clearly as possible,the track of products along the value chain,from the fishing area(for fishery products)or farming plants(for aquaculture one)till market outlets.This aspect is crucial also in the process of revision of the marketing standards under the Common Market Organisation

98、 and,indeed,in 2020 a first attempt has been made by STECF EWG 20-05 support the process by defining criteria and indicators to incorporate sustainability aspects for seafood products.For this reason,an attempt to look further at the data collected by MSs in terms of raw material in volume by specie

99、s and origin has been made in the present report.The report is structured as follow:An overview of the economic performance of the EU fish processing industry,with specific sections on the structural aspects,on economic data and performance indicators(e.g.revenue items,cost items,earnings,profitabil

100、ity,etc.)A section on social indicators(e.g.employment by gender,labour productivity and average salaries,education level,nationality,etc.).A special chapter on the impact of Covid-19 on the fish processing sector of EU countries.National chapters on the economic performance of the fish processing i

101、ndustry at Member States level Annexes containing the main details of the datasets used(DCF/EUMAP and Eurostat/SBS),the checks on data submitted,the glossary of the main variables and indicators.The 2021 Fish processing economic report supersedes all previous reports.Comparisons across reports shoul

102、d not be made.This is mainly due to the inclusion of more Member State,the exclusion of the United Kingdom and greater coverage of the data this year.The difference in the EU totals and/or for some MSs are due to:1)use of Eurostat data for some MS instead of DCF/EUMAP data;2)exclusion of United King

103、dom from the set of EU countries.12 1.1 Terms of Reference for EWG-21-14 Background and objectives The economic report on the fish processing industry is one of the main sources of economic and social data for scientific advice on the performance of the EU fish processing industry.It is also increas

104、ingly used by scientific bodies,national administrations and international institutions.Following the 2021 DCF/EU-MAP call for economic data on the EU fish processing sector,the EWG is requested to analyse and comment on the economic performance of the EU and national fish processing sectors between

105、 2008 and 2019(2020 when available).The final draft of the EWG report will be reviewed by the STECF.The report should provide an in-depth look at the different factors affecting the economic performance of the EU fish processing industry with a special focus on the major drivers and issues affecting

106、 the sector(in particular the COVID crisis impacts and the disruption of the activity along the value chain).In addition to interpreting and explaining the quantitative results,the report should contain qualitative information and analysis on the drivers and trends in performance and other aspects o

107、f policy relevance based largely on the scientists expert knowledge.The main objectives of the report is to obtain high quality interpretation of all data outputs to ensure the usefulness of the report for DG MAREs policy development,Member States and the industry.Experts are asked to analyse the se

108、ctor and its components,e.g.by markets and trade determinants(particularly imports)by main segments of processing activities,competitiveness,market prices and consumption,certification,innovation,links and level of dependency with the local fishing fleet and aquaculture sector,the role of European M

109、aritime Fisheries Fund support,contribution to the local communities and the Blue Economy,strengths,weaknesses,opportunities and threats.Given the social importance of this activity in many communities,particular emphasis should be paid to the social aspects of the analysis including trends on emplo

110、yment,salaries,labour productivity and breakdown of the fish processing employment by gender,education level and nationality(nationals,EU nationals,non-EU nationals).Structure and content Being the basis for the structure of the report,the EWG is requested to work and comment on,at least,the followi

111、ng items:-An executive summary containing the key findings(abstract).An overview of the economic performance of the EU fish processing industry(The report should mention indication on the evolution compared with the base year.The latest developments should be presented in annual terms and not with r

112、espect to the previous report).This should include the drivers and main trends based on expert knowledge.It must include specific sections on:EU fish processing sector overview(including recent developments,including an assessment on Covid impacts in the sector).13 Economic data and performance indi

113、cators(e.g.revenue items,cost items,earnings,profitability,etc.),including contrasting company size(e.g.SMEs vs.non-SMEs),when possible.Employment and social indicators(e.g.employment by gender,labour productivity and average salaries,education level,nationality,etc.).Comparative across Member State

114、s highlighting the differences and similarities of national industries.-National chapters on the economic performance of the fish processing industry providing4:National fish processing sector overview(including recent developments).Economic performance indicators,including by size category(e.g.cont

115、rasting SMEs and non-SMEs when possible).Employment and social indicators(e.g.employment by gender,labour productivity and average salaries,education level,nationality,etc.).Description of trends and drivers based on expert knowledge.Outlook.-Annexes Data coverage and quality.Streamlining of the rep

116、ort and data issues After seven reports,efforts should also be invested in streamlining the structure and content of the report.In particular,the following should be taken into account:It shall be considered whether some specific(sub)sections provide limited value added and therefore should be dropp

117、ed from the report.The narrative should add value to the figures compiled in the charts and tables.This could be achieved by highlighting a few figures with special relevance and by explaining what are the drivers and/or consequences.The main socio-economic indicators,if possible and where relevant,

118、should also be put into context with homologous figures at the EU and national levels(e.g.,national average salaries,GDP,etc.),or in relations with the other fisheries sectors(the fishing fleet and aquaculture).Given that under the EU-MAP,the transmission of data about the fish processing sector is

119、only done on a voluntarily basis,the use of complementary source of data(e.g.SBS and PRODCOM from Eurostat)may be required for some countries When aggregating national indicators to obtain the EU totals,special attention should be made to maintain a homogeneous number of Member States.The data for E

120、U total should reflect an estimation of the actual evolution and should not be distorted by the inclusion(or exclusion)of Member States throughout the analysed period.The compilation of EU aggregates may require the use of imputation in some Member States.The imputation of missing values should foll

121、ow the principles approved by the STECF plenary.4 Given the use of EUMAP as well as Eurostat data,it should be clearly identified the source of data.A more detailed discussion about data coverage and quality issues could be included in an Annex.14 The economic report on the fish processing industry

122、is produced on a biennial basis.This should be taken into account when presenting the information and making the interpretations.Besides the long-term evolution analysis,a special focus should be made not only on the last year,but rather on the last two years,when relevant.Indications on the latest

123、developments should be presented in annual terms and not with respect to the previous report(which implies an increase or decrease over two years).The report should also present indications on the evolution compared with the base year.A discussion and explanation about data coverage,data issues and

124、how they were addressed should be included in an Annex.Data transmission As a matter of priority,the EWG is requested to ensure that all unresolved data transmission(DT)issues encountered prior to and during the EWG meeting are reported on-line via the Data Transmission Monitoring Tool(DTMT)5.Guidan

125、ce on precisely what should be inserted in the DTMT,log-on credentials and access rights will be provided during the EWG.5 For details refer to ToR 7.1 of STECF plenary report 19-01.15 2 EU OVERVIEW This chapter provides an overview of the structure and economic performance of the fish processing in

126、dustry in the EU from 2008 to 2019.The chapter summarises the number of enterprises,their size,the employment they provide,and trends in these variables for the EU and aggregated for the MS.A comparison of average salaries and labour productivity(a measure of the capital intensity of production)are

127、given for the MS.Summaries for the EU are reported for the main financial variables,including turnover,subsidies,profits and gross value added as a social contribution are included.The 2021 report has attempted to give a comprehensive overview of the EU fish processing industry,including in the anal

128、ysis all the EU MSs with a fish processing sector.Relevant figures are given for all EU countries,including countries involved in data collection under DCF and currently EUMAP(DCF/EUMAP MSs)but also those countries never or not still involved in the data collection for the fish processing industry(N

129、O DCF MSs)for details see notes under table 2.1.1.The main economic analysis is,instead,focusing on the EU in its formation at 24 countries,while some in-depth considerations are provided only for the group of DCF/EUMAP MSs,because of the more detailed level of variables covered by the DCF/EUMAP in

130、comparison to the Eurostat/SBS framework.An explanation of the protocol for data use and imputation to overcome problems with missing or mistaken data,and other data issues is provided in Annex 9.4.The overview of the sector at EU level is carried out looking,where possible,at comparison across MSs,

131、highlighting the main reasons of relevant differences.2.1 Overview of the EU fish processing industry In 2019 the overall number of enterprises carrying out fish processing as a main activity was equal to around 3 200 firms.According to Eurostat data6,the degree of specialisation7,of the EU fish pro

132、cessing enterprises is around 83%(the highest percentage recorder for Portugal,98%and Netherland,94%)a bit lower than observed for other food manufacturing sector,as the meat(NACE 10.10)and vegetable and fruit(NACE 10.30)processing,showing a degree of specialisation of around 85%.The overall turnove

133、r produced by the sector is estimated at EUR 28.5 billion.Spain is the leading country,with the 18%of firms and the 24%of the EU turnover.Italy and France are at the second place,respectively,in terms of number of active firms(13%)and turnover produced by the sector(17%).When looking at the employme

134、nt generates,Spain is still the top country followed by Poland that,due to the large size of its processing plants,generate the 18%of the EU employment in the sector(Table 2.1.1).Fish processing enterprises are,indeed,largely different across EU in terms of labour intensity.If the EU average is arou

135、nd 35 persons employed per enterprises,there are some Eastern countries,with Lithuania and Poland at the top with,respectively,128 and 122 employees per enterprises.All the other countries are characterised by a lower intensity of human capital:Romania and Croatia follow with employment per firm at,

136、respectively,80 and 66 units.Beside a large number of countries with medium-high values,there are countries where small-sized plants prevail,as Finland,Sweden and Slovenia,with an average of 9 units per firm(Figure 2.1.1).6 Annual detailed enterprise statistics for industry(NACE Rev.2,B-E)sbs_na_ind

137、_r2.Last update:28-02-2022.https:/appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do 7 Defined as the share of turnover deriving from the principal activity on the total turnover.16 Table 2.1.1:Number of enterprises,employment and turnover in the fish processing sector by EU countries,2019 CountryNumber of en

138、terprisesenterpises%Turnover(million)turnover%Total employmentemployment%Belgium65 2%961 3%1.426 1%Bulgaria55 2%122 0%2.177 2%Croatia34 1%116 0%2.239 2%Denmark92 3%2.503 9%3.510 3%Finland119 4%402 1%1.100 1%Germany210 7%2.196 8%6.633 6%Greece155 5%235 1%2.357 2%Hungary13 0%17 0%330 0%Ireland166 5%62

139、2 2%3.962 4%Italy427 13%2.165 8%6.037 5%Latvia105 3%209 1%2.907 3%Lithuania40 1%570 2%5.115 5%Malta5 0%28 0%80 0%Poland163 5%3.326 12%19.850 18%Romania13 0%88 0%1.038 1%Slovenia15 0%33 0%126 0%Spain584 18%6.930 24%23.781 21%Sweden206 6%517 2%1.894 2%Sub-total EU MSs DCF2.467 77%21.042 74%84.562 76%A

140、ustria6 0%45 0%158 0%Czechia19 1%96 0%756 1%Estonia59 2%130 0%1.313 1%France333 10%4.823 17%12.958 12%Netherlands154 5%1.039 4%3.068 3%Portugal161 5%1.354 5%8.508 8%Non-DCF MSs732 23%7.487 26%26.761 24%Total EU3.199 100%28.529 100%111.323 100%Source:elaboration by the EWG on MS data submissions unde

141、r the 2021 Fish processing data call and on Eurostat/SBS Notes:1)DCF EU MSs:EU MS covered by obligation under DCF/EUMAP and submitting countries under the 2021 data call.France excluded in this group because of missing data;2)NO DCF(SBS)MSs:EU MSs not covered by obligation under DCF/EUMAP but having

142、 a fish processing industry,namely Austria,Czechia,Estonia,Netherlands and Portugal,for which Eurostat/SBS data have been used.France included in this group because of DCF missing data.3)2018 data used for Hungary as 2019 is not available.At EU average,indeed,the great bulk of enterprises(98%)of the

143、 sector are SMEs(less than 250 employees),85%are small-sized(less than 50 employees)and more than a half are micro-enterprises(Fig.2.1.2).The distribution of enterprise by size-classes confirms that there are large differences across MSs,with Finland,Slovenia,Sweden,Greece and Netherlands having a f

144、ish processing sector characterised by more than 70 of micro-enterprises.The highest share of firms with 50-249 employees is recorded for Croatia while the highest shares of large industries(above 250 employees)are located in Eastern Europe(e.g.Poland,Lithuania and Romania).17 Figure 2.1.1:Number of

145、 employees per enterprise by country,2019 Source:elaboration by the EWG on MS data submissions under the 2021 Fish processing data call and on Eurostat/SBS.Notes:2018 data used for Hungary as 2019 is not available Figure 2.1.2:Number of firms by country and by size classes,2019 Source:elaboration by

146、 the EWG on MS data submissions under the 2021 Fish processing data call and on Eurostat/SBS.Notes:Czechia number of enterprises not available by size classes.2018 data used for Hungary as 2019 is not available SBS size classes not perfectly homogenous with DCF/EUMAP size classes(for details see the

147、 methodological annex)Looking at the trend of the total number of firms,a general stability emerges over the 2008-2019 period,with a peak in 2015 and a decreasing trend in the last 4 years of the period(figure 2.1.3).Since 2015,indeed,the ratio of the GVA generated by the EU enterprise on the total

148、income produced appear to decrease,highlighting a low ability to add value to the raw material inputted in the production cycle.This ability is,indeed,higher for more capitalised and bigger enterprises 18 that,indeed,appear to increase in the last 2 years of the series.The increase of bigger enterpr

149、ises in parallel with the increase of turnover(+3%vs.2018;+8%vs.2017;+47%over the period 20018-2019)highlight a phenomenon of re-sizing of the sector and concentration of production.Figure 2.1.3:Trend of the numbers of firms,total and by size classes,2008-2019(index number,2008=100).Source:elaborati

150、on by the EWG on MS data submissions under the 2021 Fish processing data call and on Eurostat/SBS In addition to the increase in turnover,reaching,in 2019,around EUR 28 billion,the concentration of the sector is evidenced by the increase in the level of employment(+27%over the entire period;+2%vs 20

151、18 and+6%vs 2017)-figure 2.1.4-despite the decrease in the number of companies.Figure 2.1.4:Trend of total employment,FTE and turnover,2008-2019 Source:elaboration by the EWG on MS data submissions under the 2021 Fish processing data call and on Eurostat/SBS.19 Employment level,both in terms of numb

152、er of persons employed and in terms of full-time equivalent units(FTE),is,in 2019,at the highest level over the period 2008-2019:around 111 thousand job positions equivalent to 100 thousand full time positions.Table 2.1.2:EU fish processing industry sector overview,2008-2019 Variable2008200920102011

153、2000182019(2018-19)Structure(number)Total enterprises3.2133.3273.4153.3793.8734.1003.9354.0133.4803.2873.5213.186-10%10 employees1.6671.7421.8221.7442.0912.3072.2002.3432.0391.9341.9451.799-8%11-49 employees1.0241.1101.1081.0011.1871.2151.1681.09083%50-249 employees4

154、4644684644604093833863973%250 employees78079595660635%Employment(number)Total employees87.43683.82597.236 100.051 100.025 101.339 102.250 102.674 107.101 104.848 109.203 110.8982%FTE90.02085.67788.45691.54490.46590.50391.67592.24496.28494.25898.74999.8381%IndicatorsTurnover(mil

155、lion)19.41818.77320.93721.26221.89422.42822.53923.57325.28526.50327.64428.5183%FTE per enterprise28,025,825,927,123,422,123,323,027,728,728,031,312%Average wage(thousand)19,425,726,024,925,426,626,826,627,328,629,430,12%Value of unpaid work(%on total)*1,33,13,41,21,32,22,81,71,81,62,01,4-31%Enterpri

156、ses doing fish processing not as main activity*Number of entreprises544724708750692657676703733712706673-5%Turnover attributed to fish processing(million)499 662 587 501 514 891 1.016 1.066 1.069 1.096 1.065 1.131 6%Source:elaboration by the EWG on MS data submissions under the 2021 Fish processing

157、data call and on Eurostat/SBS Notes:Hungary missing in 2019,the reason why there is a difference with the total in table 2.2.1;*only DCF/EUMAP MSs.The average wage paid by the sector to EU workers(measured as personnel costs per FTE unit)was around EUR 30 thousand,increasing by+2%vs the level of 201

158、8 and+5%vs.2017,impacted by the rather satisfying economic performance of the sector(for details see next paragraph).2019 data on personnel costs and employment by countries suggest that the average wage per FTE varies substantially by MSs(Figure 2.1.5).Figure 2.1.5:Average salary by country,2019 20

159、 Source:elaboration by the EWG on MS data submissions under the 2021 Fish processing data call and on Eurostat/SBS.Hungary 2018 The EU average is around EUR 30.4 thousand,more or less in line with labour costs/FTE recorded from similar food manufacturing sector(processing of meat and vegetables,on a

160、verage 30.6 in 2019 for)8.The Danish fish processing industries record the highest remuneration(EUR 70 thousand),followed by the French,Italian,Austrian and Swedish industries(around EUR 48-50 thousand).Most of the Eastern countries(Latvia,Lithuania,Poland,Czechia,Estonia)together with Greece and Po

161、land record an average salary between EUR 10 and 20 thousand while Romania and Bulgaria stay at the lowest level(around EUR 6.5 thousand).The labour productivity of the EU fish processing industries,measured as the GVA produced by a unit of labour(FTE)was,on average equal,in 2019,to EUR 65.4 thousan

162、d figure 2.1.6.Figure 2.1.6:Labour productivity by country,2019 Source:elaboration by the EWG on MS data submissions under the 2021 Fish processing data call and on Eurostat/SBS.Hungary 2018 Again,large differences emerge across EU with only two countries overcoming the EUR 100 thousand level:Belgia

163、n industries,positioning only at the 7th place in terms of average salary,are first in terms of GVA per FTE(EUR 114 thousand).The Danish industries follow with EUR 109 thousand.Most of the Central EU counties record a labour productivity among EUR 50 and 100 thousand while Eastern EU countries repor

164、t lower level with Estonia and Latvia under the EUR 20 thousand level.The DCF/EUMAP framework requires MSs to also provide the number and the turnover of enterprises carrying out fish processing as a secondary activity(“non-main”).The number of enterprises processing fish products as integration to

165、other type of activities(in many cases other types of food processing)is estimated,in 2019(and only for DCF/EUMAP MSs)to be equal to 673 units9.It is well known that the share of the turnover attributable to the processing of fish and fish products coming from these enterprises is,sometime,not so ma

166、rginal.It is estimated to be equal,at EU level,to EUR 1.1 billion(4%of the total turnover of the sector in 2019)table 2.1.2.Amon reporting countries,those with the highest number of enterprises are Italy and Belgium.8 Annual detailed enterprise statistics for industry(NACE Rev.2,B-E)sbs_na_ind_r2.La

167、st update:28-02-2022.9 It is worth noting that the EU totals should be carefully considered as a big number of data are missing,both at countries level and in terms of years available(for details see the coverage section).21 2.2 Economic performance Total income,including turnover and other incomes,

168、has increased for the European fish processing industry between 2008 and 2019(almost doubled in nominal terms)and amounted to EUR 28.7 billion in 2019,a slight increase compared to 2018(+6%)and 2017(+7%).The increase in the total turnover over the whole period is attributable primarily to the increa

169、se in the price of commodities produced by EU fish processing industries and,to a lesser extent,to a change in the production mix(for details see section 2.3 on the main drivers of change).Table 2.2.1:Economic performance of the EU fish processing industry sector,2008-2019 Variable200820092010201120

170、00182019(2018-19)Income,expenditure and investments(million)Turnover19,418.118,772.720,937.021,262.321,894.022,427.722,538.923,573.325,284.626,502.7 27,644.528,518.06%Total Income19,108.918,375.920,574.420,893.821,573.322,012.222,472.523,481.925,786.426,731.9 27,705.728,736.86%

171、Total purchase of goods and services13,299.312,569.914,036.214,985.815,470.615,951.716,027.517,253.119,528.919,884.2 20,438.521,132.81%of which:energy costs317.9287.9298.3335.9328.9326.7318.8321.1365.3340.6348.5372.57%Personnel costs1,748.82,198.72,296.72,283.32,297.32,408.72,456.62,454.32,626.02,69

172、4.72,903.93,005.85%Net Investments740.0282.0614.0604.1478.5407.1540.7497.3487.2557.5583.2589.9-5%Economic performance(million)Gross Value Added3,096.23,178.73,734.13,273.03,169.23,228.83,237.22,982.72,805.93,771.64,106.44,179.718%Operating Cash Flow1,756.51,976.22,463.91,990.91,876.51,876.41,872.11,

173、627.31,302.92,251.52,265.22,453.734%Productivity and performance IndicatorsLabour productivity(thousand)34.439.244.237.837.438.137.634.731.042.145.653.317%Source:elaboration by the EWG on MS data submissions under the 2021 Fish processing data call and on Eurostat/SBS data An increasing trend over t

174、he 2008-2019 period is recorded for all the main cost items.As far as the purchase of goods and services(including raw materials and energy costs),the trend of this cost item appears to be almost stable between 2018 and 2019(only+1%),recording a slight increase since 2017(+6%)but a major increase is

175、 recorded between 2015 and 2016.Indeed,the share of raw material costs on the total costs has increased in the period 2016-2019 in comparison to the overall period(form 68%in the 2008-2011 period to 73%in the 2016-2019 triennium)-table 2.2.2(based only on DCF/EUMAP countries data).Table 2.2.2:Cost s

176、tructure of the EU fish processing industry,2008-2019 avg 2008-2011avg 2012-2015avg %90%91%Raw materials68%70%73%Personnel costs12%11%10%Other operational costs17%17%15%Energy costs3%2%2%Cost items as a share of total costs(%)Total costs/Total income(%)Cost items Source:elaboration by the

177、 EWG on MS data submissions under the 2021 Fish processing data call and on Eurostat/SBS data.Notes:based only on DCF/EUMAP EU MSs because of lack of details on operational cost and total costs in Eurostat/SBS 22 As far as energy costs,if the share on total costs appear to be slightly decreasing ove

178、r the period 2008-2019,an increasing trend of this cost item is recorded in the last two years(+9%)and,in the light of what has already happened in the period 2019-2022 and is foreseen in the next future at the time of writing,it is likely a further and major increase will occur(for details see sect

179、ion 2.3).Although a generalised increase in the main production costs,the increase of the value production of EU fish processing enterprises has allowed them to generate a positive Gross Value Added,equal in 2019 to around EUR 4 billion(increasing by+18%vs 2018 and+11%vs 2017).This shows the importa

180、nce of the fish processing industry in the fishery sector in Europe,taking into account that the GVA produced by the EU fishing fleet amounted,in the same year(2019)to EUR 3.4 billion10(STECF,2019).Table 2.2.3:Economic performance of the EU fish processing industry sector by country,2019 CountryGros

181、s Value Added%of total EUOperating Cash Flow%of total EUAustria10,1 0%3,6 0%Belgium158,3 3%94,0 4%Bulgaria71,1 1%60,1 2%Croatia48,0 1%24,6 1%Czechia18,9 0%5,6 0%Denmark308,0 6%109,6 4%Estonia25,9 0%7,6 0%Finland52,6 1%17,4 1%France777,8 14%176,1 7%Germany440,1 8%178,3 7%Greece116,8 2%87,1 4%Hungary6

182、,7 0%4,1 0%Ireland223,2 4%146,2 6%Italy356,2 7%120,9 5%Latvia49,9 1%22,7 1%Lithuania109,2 2%45,0 2%Malta3,8 0%1,8 0%Netherlands148,7 3%47,6 2%Poland542,9 10%268,9 11%Portugal222,1 4%86,8 4%Romania39,2 1%32,6 1%Slovenia5,3 0%1,7 0%Spain1.567,4 29%901,3 37%Sweden87,6 2%14,0 1%Total EU 5.390,0 100%2.45

183、7,8 100%Source:elaboration by the EWG on MS data submissions under the 2021 Fish processing data call and on Eurostat/SBS.Hungary 2018 The in-depth analysis of all the economic performance indicators supports a trend toward a good level of efficiency:indeed,the added value generated by the EU fish p

184、rocessing industries was enough to counterbalance the increase in the personnel costs(+5%vs.2018;+12%vs 2017),10 Scientific,Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries(STECF)-The 2021 Annual Economic Report on the EU Fishing Fleet(STECF 21-08),EUR 28359 EN,Publications Office of the European Unio

185、n,Luxembourg,2021,ISBN 978-92-76-40959-5,doi:10.2760/60996,JRC126139 23 due both to the increase of the employment level and of the average wages,as already highlighted in the previous section.Consequently,the sector has been able to generate an Operating Cash Flow(OCF)equal to EUR 2.5 billion in 20

186、19,increasing by+34%vs 2018 and+9%vs 2017.The highest share of GVA and OCF was produced by the countries with the larger sector,e.g.Spain,Poland and France.Spain is first for both indicators,with share equal to 29%for GVA and to 37%in terms of OCF,followed by France,in terms of contribution to GVA,a

187、nd by Poland,in terms of OCF.As for Spain,also for Poland the share when looking at the OCF,meaning that the cash flow is benefiting of operating subsidies(amounting,indeed,to EUR 23 and 15 billion for,respectively,Spain and Poland,on an EU total of EUR 47 billion)or of a lower share of personnel co

188、sts on total costs table 2.2.3.The trend toward efficiency is highlighted by almost all the productivity and profitability indicators reported in table 2.2.4.For technical reasons(lack of details on capital assets and costs,on financial costs and debts in the Eurostat/SBS dataset)the table reports t

189、he performance indicators only for the MSs submitting data under the DCF/EUMAP framework.It offers,nevertheless,a snapshot of the average efficiency level of the EU fish processing firms.The capital productivity,highlighting the ability of the capital invested in the sector to generate value(GVA/Tot

190、al value of assets)records a noticeable increase between 2017 and 2018(3.5 percentage points)as well a slight increase afterwards(0.8 percentage points between 2018 and 2019).A positive trend is detectable also for the financial position,decreasing by 2.4 percentage points between 2017 and 2019,henc

191、e highlighting a decrease of the capital owned by third parties on the total assets invested in the sector.An increase in the efficiency is evident between 2017 and 2018 for the profit margin indicators(EBIT and Net%on total income)while a slight decrease is recorded between 2018 and 2019 table 2.2.

192、4.Table 2.2.4:Main productivity and performance indicators of the EU fish processing industry sector,2008-2019(only for DCF MSs)Productivity and performance Indicators200820092000019Capital productivity(%)51,6 56,1 51,1 54,2 47,1 45,7 46,6 42,6 40,8 45,5 49,0 49,8 GV

193、A margin(%)21,7 23,9 24,3 21,6 20,4 20,4 20,1 17,7 15,0 19,0 19,8 19,6 EBIT margin(%)10,0 11,6 13,0 10,5 9,6 9,4 9,0 7,2 5,1 8,8 9,3 9,1 Net profit margin(%)8,2 10,1 11,3 9,3 8,7 8,3 7,8 6,9 5,4 8,5 9,1 8,9 Return on Investment(%)23,8 27,3 27,4 26,5 22,3 21,0 21,0 17,3 13,9 21,1 23,1 23,2 Financial

194、position(%)31,733,239,935,037,332,033,837,637,843,642,141,2 Source:elaboration by the EWG on MS data submissions under the 2021 Fish processing data call and on Eurostat/SBS data.Notes:based only on DCF/EUMAP EU MSs because of lack of details on capital assets and costs,on financial costs and debts

195、in Eurostat/SBS The EU GVA as%of total income was around 19.6%,with large differences across MSs:highest GVA margin for Bulgaria and Romania,51%and 44%,respectively,and lowest for Finland and Denmark,around 13%.24 Figure 2.2.6:Economic performance of the EU fish processing industry sector by country

196、(indicators in relation to income),2019 Source:elaboration by the EWG on MS data submissions under the 2021 Fish processing data call and on Eurostat/SBS.Hungary 2018 2.3 Fish used as raw material As highlighted in the previous paragraph,the purchase of fish and raw material is the dominant cost ite

197、m for the sector,accounting for more than 70%of the total production costs,increasing over time.Understanding which segments and Member States use EU raw material(either from wild fisheries or from aquaculture)and which ones depend on imported supplies and on which species is of high importance for

198、assessing the strengths and vulnerabilities of the sector.The 2019 report already dealt with the series of initiatives undertaken under the data collection framework by different MSs,from pilot studies under the MSs work plans to specific studies committed by the Commission,e.g.SECFISH project,concl

199、uding that the raw material data collection has revealed,in most cases,to be quite costly and challenging and trying to provide suggestions for the improvement of the future data collection.Nevertheless,in the light of the Farm to fork Strategy and the most recent EU Code of Conduct on Responsible F

200、ood Business and Marketing Practices entered into force in 2021,it is essential to define,as clearly as possible,the track of products along the value chain,from the fishing area(for fishery products)or farming plants(for aquaculture one)till market outlets.This aspect is crucial also in the process

201、 of revision of the marketing standards under the Common Market Organisation and,indeed,in 2020 a first attempt has been undertaken by STECF EWG 20-05 in support of the process,by defining criteria and indicators to incorporate sustainability aspects for seafood products.For this reason,an attempt t

202、o look further at the data collected by MSs in terms of raw material in volume by species and origin has been made by this EWG.It is important to note that the overall data collection for the economic data for the fish processing sector is not mandatory for MSs and,even if planned,the collection of

203、data on the volume of fish and fish product used a raw material is furtherly optional.This optionality has impacted the possibility to draft a good analysis at EU level,because of missing important EU fish processing countries from the analysis(e.g.Spain or France).During the last data call,only 9 M

204、Ss have submitted data on raw material for the reference year 2019(see also section 7).25 Furthermore,because of this optionality,there is no clear mandatoriness about the specifications of provided data,neither in terms of details provided nor in terms of codifications used.The aspect that has limi

205、ted since the beginning the extent of the analysis and has prevented more in-depth considerations,is,in particular,the lack of harmonised species specification.Indeed,when looking at the guidelines for data submission11 no clear reference to international codification is found.On the other hand,the

206、template for data submission“Pro_raw_mat”leaves room for free text under the“species”heading even if asking,preferably,the use of the 3-letters ISO-code.For this reason,a large variety of species classification has been detected by EWG experts in the dataset of submitted data.Below a synthesis.Count

207、ry Species codification Level of detail of species classification Origin(geographical)Note by the EWG on other specification recommended and reported Bulgaria 3-letters ISO-code High:61 species or group(free text used for 7“commodities”)Yes,high level details:by country and FAO areas The column“orig

208、in”has been used to provided disaggregation by geographical origin but also by production environment Finland Medium:11 species Yes:basic info,domestic and foreign Italy Medium:11 species(mainly aggregation)None Poland High:89 species Yes:basic info,domestic and foreign Slovenia Medium:5 species Non

209、e Only“production environment”reported Croatia ALL None None Greece None None Germany Free text:English name Medium:30 species or group(some aggregation used)Yes:domestic,other EU and non-EU The column“origin”has been used to provided disaggregation by geographical origin but also by“production envi

210、ronment”and“type of processed material”Romania Free text:English name(+Scientific name)High:97 species Yes:basic info,indigenous and import 11 https:/datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/guidelines/socioeco/proind 26 An easy analysis of the dataset at EU level has been prevented also by technical issues.

211、Indeed,the template for data submission(“Pro_raw_mat”)has not been adjusted to include details on the“production environment”or the“type of processed material”to include the details recommended by PGECON(nor RCG_ECON)202012.For this reason,MSs reporting also these further details had to use the uniq

212、ue“origin”column to report all the info.Some experts have devoted much effort to harmonise the different classifications used but the time limitation and the number of topics to be addressed in other sections has not allowed to draft an analysis at EU level but only at MSs level(for details see the

213、national chapters for countries reported in the above table).In the light of all the above it would be good,for the next report,if these technical issues will be properly addressed in due time before the next data call,by e.g.adjusting the template,provide more clear guidelines to MSs.Beside the dif

214、ferent species used as raw material,depending on the typology of production a large variety of dependency on domestic or,on the opposite,on foreign/imported raw material emerges from the analysis carried out at country level.There are countries,like Finland,mainly relying on domestic production(60%)

215、and where the governmental programme,promoting the increase of fish consumption and domestic fish production,need attention as this will imply considerably higher utilization of Baltic herring for processing as food fish.In the same direction in Croatia connecting aquaculture and fish processing ind

216、ustry is one of the main tasks for fisheries development and it is already emerging as a trend in fish processing industry,both in marine and freshwater aquaculture.Merging these two sectors is leading to increase the use domestic raw material for production in processing industry as well to decreas

217、e the cost of production.On the other hand,there are country,as Germany,where only one quarter of the raw material used by fish processing industries is domestic.52%is imported from other EU countries,while 20%is purchased from outside the EU.The majority(73%)of the processed raw material originated

218、 from capture fisheries and the biggest share is fresh(70%;18%frozen and 12%semi-processed).There is also Poland highly dependent on imports of raw material:75%of imported salmon comes from Norway.An important feature of the Polish fish processing of salmon products is that it is mainly imported in

219、the form of fresh fish,and then mostly re-exported from Poland after processing.The analysis carried out at country level highlights also some technical problems inherent the data collection carried out in some MSs.For instance,in Poland,as the domestic supply of some kind of fish is highly develope

220、d,some respondents buying raw material from a Polish intermediary,indicate the country of origin as domestic,which significantly and artificially increases the share of salmon in the structure of domestic supplies.Furthermore,even if in the raw material data collection in Bulgaria there were no prob

221、lems in terms of the quantities and species,the origin sometimes was reported differently than expected,because the processors were not always sure if the imported fish was from aquaculture or from fisheries.12 To allow proper use of these data,PGECON recognises the importance of additional specific

222、ation other than volume by species and origin.Hence,PGECON recommends including in the requirements for the optional provision of data on raw materials(under the proposed Table(13?)of the Commission Delegated Decision(Economic and social variables for the processing industry sector):Volume and value

223、 by:Species Production environment(Capture based fishery and aquaculture sector)Country of Origin(Domestic,other EU or non-EU)Type of processed material(fresh,frozen and semi-processed materials)where possible.27 The EWG highlights that the RCG_ECON 2020 recommended13 to hold a Workshop to train peo

224、ple involved in data collection on the possible,alternative and most efficient methods to collect raw material data by MS,using the SECFISH findings since then available.No workshop has been organised since that time because there has been large uncertainty on the possibility to keep the fish proces

225、sing data collection under EUMAP,since the last revision.Therefore,the EWG suggests the next RCG_ECON,to be held in May 2022,to evaluate,in the light of the current MSs Work Plans,if this recommendation is still valid.2.4 Trends,drivers and outlook The present paragraph is aimed to provide some qual

226、itative and quantitative considerations on the main drivers of changes that have already occurred(until 2019 or between 2019 and the time of writing),that directly or indirectly affected the EU fish processing sector,trying also to infer potential future trends.The reader should bear in mind that th

227、e report was drafted in the week of the Russian incursion into Ukraine(February 2022),a time of high political tension and during a rapidly changing political,military and economic situation.It has not been possible to predict the extent of any effects this may have on trade between Russia and the E

228、U in fish and fish products,and if the situation were to deteriorate significantly,on the domestic supply of and demand for raw material.In addition,MS are at different stages in the progress of the Covid-19 pandemic through their populations.While the picture at the time of writing seems hopeful,th

229、e possibility exists of another variant emerging,though the probability is unpredictable.The fish processing industry is,hence,operating with a future that is more uncertain than it has been for many decades.It is essential to highlight,for sake of clarity,that security in Eastern Europe has not bee

230、n considered as a major factor in the trends and drivers affecting the outlook for fish processing in the near future even if some final remarks have been provided on the outlook as far as the increase in energy costs and inflation.Regarding the Covid-19 pandemic,a special section(section 4)has been

231、 dedicated to the effect of this recent and still in progress phenomenon while in this section some indirect effects(disruption of the logistics)have been commented upon.Industry Concentration The concentrated structure of the retail market,which provides the demand side for the processing industry,

232、and the diffuse nature of the processing industry was discussed in the 2019 report.The situation remains unchanged,as highlighted by the trend of enterprises numbers by size classes(section 2.1).Increasing concentration as a result of mergers intended to cope with the effect of increasing labour and

233、 energy costs is likely to appear in the immediate future.Output The value of turnover increased by 7.6%between 2017 and 2019 and by 47%over the period 2008-2019(though only 19%higher in real terms than in the base year 2008,if considering the deflated trend according to the HICP for Fish and Seafoo

234、d).Using the volume of products sold,according to the ProdCom dataset(Eurostat)as a proxy for the volume of production of the EU fish processing sector14,stability in the quantity of production figure 2.1.7,is clear.Therefore,13 https:/datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/10213/1239611/2020_PGE

235、CON.pdf/3799b4c1-ac50-4811-84fe-f3b0221970f7 14 The Nace code for the fish processing sector is 10.20,used in the Structural Business Statistics.As specified at https:/ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/en/prom_esms.htm(Metadata for ProdCom)“The purpose of the statistics is to report,for each prod

236、uct in the Prodcom List,how much has been 28 one can speculate that the cause of the increase in the nominal value is a shift towards secondary processed higher value-added products.Similarly,a growing desire for a healthy diet means that consumers are preferring a high-quality primary rather than s

237、econdary processed products.The trend in output also reflects the increasing availability of farmed finished product(both primary and secondary processed)available from outside the EU.Catfish species(basa and panga)farmed in low wage economies such as Vietnam are currently important competitors in t

238、his respect.Looking at the HICP already available for 2020 and 2021 a further increase of the value of output(turnover)can be expected for the next few years.Figure 2.4.7:Economic performance of the EU fish processing industry sector by country(indicators in relation to income),2019.Source:elaborati

239、on by the EWG on MS data submissions under the 2021 Fish processing data call and on Eurostat data:SBS,ProdCom and HICP.Employment and labour productivity Over the period 2008 to 2019 there has been a relatively small increase in employment measured in FTEs amounting to 10.9%,but a greater increase

240、in the crude numbers employed,by 26.4%(table 2.1.1).This suggests a shift towards the use of part-time labour.This probably reflects the general shortage of labour in the economies of the northern European MS.Strictly speaking there is no such thing as a shortage of labour in the long run;in the sho

241、rt run,wages are merely below the labour market equilibrium level which will equate the supply of labour to demand for it.As the shortage corrects,increased wages will encourage an increased supply of labour(quite possibly reinforced by part-timers).The increased labour cost,however,means that the m

242、arginal firm will be unable to survive with its existing labour to capital ratio and will need to substitute capital equipment for labour if it is to survive.Despite its name,Labour Productivity,the value of output per employee,is actually a measure of the capital intensity of production;a person wi

243、th a machine can normally produce more than someone working by hand without a machine.It increased by 55%between 2008 and 2019 and this trend increased by a further 27%between 2017 and 2019(table 2.1.1).An increasing future produced in the reporting country during the reference period.This means tha

244、t Prodcom statistics relate to products(not to activities)and are therefore not strictly comparable with activity-based statistics such as Structural Business Statistics”.29 trend may be expected as pressure from increased raw material,energy and wage costs impacts upon firms.Particularly,increased

245、labour costs make the cost of capital equipment less daunting and encourages substitution of capital-intensive production at the expense of employment.Outsourcing Processors in the EU have attempted to exploit low labour costs in China.The procedure involved fish caught and landed in the EU by EU ve

246、ssels being headed and gutted before being frozen in blocks and flown to China for filleting.After re-freezing it was returned to the EU for secondary processing into finished products,frozen and distributed to caterers and retailers.However,a number of problems developed.It proved difficult to ensu

247、re at such a distance that EU safety,hygiene and quality standards were being met,and it seems(according to experts knowledge)that in the last years this practice has been progressively abandoned.Nevertheless,efforts to reduce costs by outsourcing have continued,but by using intra-EU trade.For examp

248、le,factories in Denmark have been closed and their production moved to facilities in Poland to capture lower labour costs.Costs It is tempting to consider that the principal cost increases that the fish processing industry faces in the immediate future are in raw materials;fish,energy and labour cos

249、ts,alone.However,labour and energy costs are so far-reaching among the production inputs,such as packaging,of suppliers to fish processing enterprises that they affect the cost of almost all the inputs to processing production itself.This has manifested itself in Italy,for example,where the rising c

250、ost of tin-plate cans has led to serious difficulties for the canning segment of the industry over the last year.The tinplate can,in fact,the main packaging material for fish preserves,accounts for about 30%of the production costs of fish preserves and in 2021 the prices of the raw materials that co

251、mpose it grew consistently,in some cases up to 85%.An increase that has a significant impact on the sector,considering that the companies that produce fish preserves in Italy use about 650 million cans every year(efficiently recycled),for a total of about 16 thousand tons of tinplate.The inflationar

252、y spiral is very dangerous:prices are set month by month hence not allowing firms to make any planning on production15.Furthermore,the diffuse nature of the processing industry with few large enterprises means that the industry as a whole,rather than a small proportion,can be placed in difficulties

253、as has been exemplified by the Italian canning segment.Shipping transport costs Among the impact of costs increase,the shipping transport costs deserve special attention because of the generalised impact on the whole supply chain.As the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted international logistics and supply

254、chains after March 2020 there were several barriers that hit the seafood trade.Multiple events caused a strongly increased container shipping market price.The market prices for the rent of shipping containers increased by a factor of more than nine16.In 2019 the average container freight rate index

255、was between$US 1,200 and$US 1,300.In September and October 2021 this index was more than$US 10,100(figure 2.1.8).Causative events include Chinese harbour closures due to coronavirus outbreaks,harbour congestion,shortages of labour,as well as a lack of new shipping containers.Imports from Asia to the

256、 United States increased by about 40 percent in 2021 compared to 2019 adding pressure on the availability of containers,while the volume of exports remains stable,also affecting the rent prices for container shipping.By all these events,carriers have not been able to fully utilize their capacity and

257、 meet the demand for container shipping,which has driven freight rates to record levels.Seafood importers 15 https:/ freight rate index worldwide 2019-2022https:/ compete with many other industries for the transport services of shipping goods by containers.For traders of expensive goods(e.g.the auto

258、mobile industry)these increased shipping costs are just a small percentage of the economic value of their goods.They can outbid EU seafood traders for scarce containers since these strongly increased container shipping costs are becoming a large share of EU seafood traders operational costs.It is ex

259、pected that many new containers will be built in the coming year.Moreover,if there are no COVID-19 outbreaks or lockdowns in ports and among shipping crew,market prices for container freight can be expected to decrease.While EU seafood traders and processors are hoping for an improvement in performa

260、nce as a result of decreasing container shipping prices,they are also exploring opportunities for expansion of storage capacity within the EU.By using more intra-EU stored raw materials,EU processors are less vulnerable for international disruption of supply chains and logistics.Figure 2.4.8:Contain

261、er freight rate index worldwide 2019-2022(in U.S.dollars).Sustainability certification and geographical indication The use of certifications and motivations in the fish processing industry was already discussed in the previous processing report(STECF 19-15),covering the period from 2008 to 2017.No s

262、ignificant changes have taken place since then but there is a growing focus on environmental sustainability especially with the development of the European Green Deal.Climate change and environmental degradation are a threat to Europe.To overcome these challenges,the European Green Deal aims to tran

263、sform the EU into a modern,resource-efficient and competitive economy,ensuring no nett emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 with economic growth decoupled from resource use.Additionally,the EU Code of Conduct on Responsible Food Business and Marketing Practices entered into force in 2021,is one of

264、the first deliverables of the Farm to Fork Strategy and an integral part of the EU action plan.It sets out the actions that the actors between the farm and the fork,such as food processors,food service operators and retailers,can voluntarily commit to undertake to tangibly improve and communicate th

265、eir sustainability performance.These actions can be directly relevant and implementable within their own operations or may encourage collaboration with industry peers and other food system stakeholders(such as farmers and 31 consumers)to make similar changes.The EU Code of Conduct sets out 7 aspirat

266、ional objectives as voluntary commitments for action together with a monitoring and evaluation framework to measure progress.The Commission has said it will consider legislative measures if progress is insufficient.Processing companies are well adapted to the certifications of industrial processes,w

267、hether internal or external aspects.However,certification of raw materials cannot be influenced directly by processors and the decision of sourcing certified products will depend on the economic incentives of using the certified raw materials.Fish processors will source certified products if and onl

268、y if they are able to transfer any potential increase in their costs to the actors downstream in the value chain by means of price premiums.In this respect,customers,particularly wholesale and retail actors,have the final influence on making certified raw materials profitable or not for processors.A

269、t this point,not all the different certifications have the same value for traders.Certifications based on quality attributes are more in demand than other more specific types such as environmental or ethical.This means that they find it harder to transfer the increases in their costs to the prices p

270、aid by the final consumers.Processors will source certified raw materials at their customers request.Beyond potential premium prices,if any,there are several other incentives for retailers in sourcing certified products.Sustainability certifications,for instance,assure continuity in supply,prevent c

271、riticism from environmental groups and improve companys public perceptions.However,despite the benefits for processors and traders,the decision of certifying raw materials in the fishing industry remains in the hands of fishers and fish farmers.Along with the sustainability certifications,the geogra

272、phical indication labels of fish processed products deserves a mention in this section.As highlighted by the EUMOFA reports17,the number of PDO(Protected Designations of Origin)and the Protected Geographical Indication(PGI)has increased over time for processed fish products(from 18 in 2018 to 22 in

273、2020).These types of label are crucial for the economy of local communities as they promote,in most cases,traditional or niche fish products.Furthermore,as highlighted by the joint FAO Eurofish seminar,geographic indications can play a role in promoting the sustainability of FAPs(Fisheries and Aquac

274、ulture Products),by maintaining“traditional production methods and other aspects of cultural identity”18.Brexit and consequences for trade Special attention should be paid to the consequences of Brexit on trade.The last report tried to highlight the potential impact while the present one is based on

275、 the first recorded impact since its entering into force.In December 2020,an agreement was reached on the future trade and cooperation relationship between the EU and the United Kingdom(UK)(Trade and Cooperation Agreement).The UK became an independent third country on 1st January 2021(Official Journ

276、al of the European Union 31 December 2020,L 444).The agreement implies that goods can be traded freely between the UK and the EU if they originate from these two areas.Goods originating from third countries are normally subject to customs duties.This also applies to goods processed using raw materia

277、ls from third countries when the degree of processing is not sufficient to amount to a change of origin.A general impact of Brexit has been an increase in paperwork for both exporters to the UK and for imports from it.In addition,there are complexities related to the Northern Ireland Protocol in the

278、 Brexit Agreement,which has placed border checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland rather than along the border partitioning Ireland.The future of these checks and their location is subject to the re-negotiation and clarification of the Protocol underway at the time of writing.Below a focus

279、 on the impact on the market and industry of two EU countries(Denmark and Ireland)is reported.17 https:/www.eumofa.eu/market-analysis 18 Eurofish Magazine Issue 1 2022(January/February),http:/ 32 The case of Denmark19:The Danish fishing industry and wholesale trade are based on Danish raw materials,

280、those from other EU countries and imports from a large number of third countries mainly,by value,Norway,Greenland,the Faroe Islands,the USA and Canada.The proportion of fish raw materials,which origin from third countries,is difficult to determine,however previous studies indicate that 60-70%of the

281、fishing industry and the wholesale raw material base originate from third countries(Nielsen 2005).A part of the exports of fish and fishery products destined for the UK originate from third countries,which have been subject to a duty from 2021;this includes production based on raw materials from Nor

282、way,Greenland and the Faroe Islands.The most valuable Danish exports to the UK are shrimp,fishmeal and oil,haddock and mackerel.In that context,shrimps will be exported directly from Greenland to the UK to avoid custom duties.However,this requires a bilateral trade agreement between Greenland and UK

283、.The commodities in question also include fish oil,fresh haddock,fresh salmon,fresh halibut and frozen cod fillets.These are primarily from third countries,although there is some production in Denmark and EU.Although these goods may be subject to duties,this will only be the case if they originate f

284、rom third countries or if the degree of processing in the EU is not sufficient to change the origin.Customs duties on Danish imports from the UK for products originating from third countries will also have economic consequences for the Danish processing industry and wholesale trade.However,these are

285、 assessed to be modest,partly because the volume of these imports is small,and partly because the EU uses tariff suspensions and quotas for all countries for a variety of fish and fish products to reduce tariffs.The case of Ireland20:The whitefish processing sector has been primarily impacted by Bre

286、xit from a raw material access perspective,processing capacity and to a lesser degree from a logistics perspective.There is a distinct subset of companies who are more exposed due to their business model such as first point of sale entities(e.g.,Co-ops)and other producers who export into and operate

287、 logistics via the UK.Conducting this type of business model has become much more demanding and costly because of Brexit.The remaining whitefish processing(value-adding)subsector does not export significant volumes of added value whitefish into UK and therefore has been less impacted.The pelagic pro

288、cessors are the most heavily impacted part of the processing sector.Sourcing of raw material,particularly mackerel has become more challenging.This has meant the Irish pelagic sector has opted to concentrate effort on catching the mackerel quota early in the year.Consequently,this has resulted in in

289、creased processing activity during the first three months of 2021,which in turn has created several issues.The salmon and shellfish sectors are also under significant risk from Brexit and given the preponderance of small companies,this sector is particularly vulnerable to the extra costs being incur

290、red due to Brexit and TCA.The primary concern for both the salmon and shellfish sector is around logistics.This has impacted in two ways,extra costs associated with reaching export markets and delays in transit time.Final remarks on outlook for the(uncertain)next future Neither general inflation in

291、MS economies nor wage inflation have been problematic for the processing industry over the period to 2019.The average rate of general inflation across the EU MS in 2021 was 2.6%(Eurostat,HICP,All items,27 Countries).However,at the time of writing the sharp rise in energy costs as the MS economies re

292、cover from the effects of Covid-19 and the 19 Nielsen,M.(2005).Kortlgning af den globale handel med fisk og fiskeprodukter:Handel,produktion,rvarer og told.IFRO Rapport nr.173,Institut for Fdevare-og Ressourcekonomi,Kbenhavns Universitet,https:/staticcuris.ku.dk/portal/files/128109091/FOI_Rapport_17

293、3.pdf,viewed 23/02/2022.20 Report of the Seafood Taskforce(2021).Navigating Change The way forward for our Seafood Sector and Coastal Communities in the wake of the EU/UK Trade&Cooperation Agreement,October 2021.BIM https:/bim.ie/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Report-of-the-Seafood-Taskforce.pdf 33 expe

294、cted rise as a consequence of the Russian invasion of the Ukraine will have an unpredictable impact on the fish processing industry across the EU.The only saving grace is that major competitor nations,China,Norway and the UK face a similar position,but the disruption to the markets and trading condi

295、tions,in the broadest sense,can be of little benefit to anyone.The reader should note that the ability of the processing industry to pass on cost increases,whether for raw materials,labour,energy or other costs,depends on the relative price elasticities of demand and supply faced by the individual e

296、nterprises concerned.In the unconcentrated industry identified in this report(although some small evidence of progressive concentration emerges from data)a greater part of the incidence(burden)of cost increases could normally be expected to fall on fish processors,meaning that they are not simply ab

297、le to pass the whole of cost increases on to purchasers.This is exacerbated by the purchasing strength of the large chains of multiple stores.The shock of the Russian invasion of the Ukraine has also caused widespread reconsideration of the wisdom of becoming dependent on sources of supply external

298、to the EU for vital supplies.This goes far beyond the question of supplies of fish and fish products,but includes,among a wide range of products,the availability of gas and petroleum products for energy,and wheat.The next two years,therefore,can expect to see little development of trade within the E

299、U,and certainly hardly any development of new trade routes and commerce along them.Instead,new or rekindled sources of supply will emerge.These will be more expensive and possibly less secure than the trade relationships being replaced otherwise they would already have been exploited.The inflation t

300、hat can be anticipated from the effects of the Russian invasion of the Ukraine will compound inflationary contagion already in the worlds economic system.Before this event,the EU fish processing industry was already expecting to have to face higher costs across the board for its fish and non-fish ra

301、w materials,for energy and for labour.Little can be done to avoid cost increases for fish and non-fish products.Some increased purchasing of farmed product,especially from the Far East is possible but requires changes in consumer behaviour and tastes to be worthwhile.Otherwise,sources of wild specie

302、s are under pressure all around the world.Energy costs can be erratic.The market price of petroleum products is highly dependent on production levels agreed and observed by OPEC members.They may if they wish fill the gap created by losses of Russian sales of gas and oil.Non-OPEC suppliers will find

303、that their marginal production becomes viable.In the longer term,security of supply considerations,relative production costs of renewable,supposedly environmentally friendly energy sources will be developed.These will mean that the fish production sector will face an uncertain future lasting a few y

304、ears before the new sources become established and reliable.A general conclusion,therefore,is that the EU fish processing sector faces a difficult immediate future but one which will gradually improve in the time as the imbalances in energy supplies,raw material availability,labour markets,and the p

305、olitical background are gradually ironed out.34 3 SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE EU FISH PROCESSING SECTOR The social variables that should be collected for the processing industry are listed in table 10 in the COMMISSION DELEGATED DECISION(EU)2019/910,establishing the multiannual Union programme for the

306、 collection and management of biological,environmental,technical and socioeconomic data in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors.As this is the first year of reporting on social data collection this report only presents a snapshot in time and cannot examine trends that will be possible in future rep

307、orts.The social variables that should be collected are:Employment by gender,Employment by age,Employment by education level,Employment by nationality,together with the other employment variables listed in table 10 in the regulation:Number of persons employed,FTE National,Unpaid labour and Number of

308、hours worked by employees and unpaid workers.Although the regulation gives no guidance on how the data should be collected the PGECON workshop report from Vilnius in 2017 and Athens,2018 provides recommendations on the data collection.While the Commission Decision does not require stratified data or

309、 combined variables PGECON recognised that reporting social variables at more disaggregated levels rather than at national totals and reporting combined variables would add value to the social analysis.The following categories for social variables were recommended:Age categories:=65,unknown.Educatio

310、n categories:High,Low,Medium,unknown.Gender categories:Female,Male,unknown.Nationality categories:EEA,EU,national,non-EU/EEA,unknown.PGECON recommended that social data should be reported(raised)for the total population and that the sampling strategy and size should be reported.The following analysi

311、s of social variables include 2019 data provided by 14 countries under the 2021 DCF data call Belgium,Bulgaria,Germany2,Greece,Hungry1,United Kingdom1,Denmark,Finland,Italy,Lithuania2,Latvia2,Poland,Romania and Sweden.Due to the relative stability of the social data,the EWG 21-14 agreed to impute th

312、e social data provided by the United Kingdom and Hungary for 2018,Germany,Latvia and Lithuania for 2020 regardless of the reference year.Member states collected social data at different levels.Some member states collected data at enterprise level,others at employee level.Similarly,to the economic da

313、ta collection under DCF member states used different sampling strategies(e.g.census,probability sample survey,or non-probability sample survey).3.1 Gender In 2019,there were 110 898 people employed in the EU processing sector,equivalent to 99 838 FTEs.The proportion of females and males in the enter

314、prises was quite equivalent,respectively 50%were female,48%were male and 2%were unknown.Fourteen countries provided data for the gender of the employees in the processing sector.While in some countries the percentage of female employees varied between 28%(Latvia)and 68%(Lithuania),in other like Roma

315、nia the proportion of male and female was almost equal.Only three countries submitted part of the data as unknown.35 Figure 3.1.1:Gender distribution by MS,2019 Source:MS data submissions under the 2021 Fish processing data call and elaboration by the EWG.*Data refers to 2018,*Data refers to 2020.3.

316、2 Age While some member states collected age-data based on the proposed age categories,others collected information in disaggregated age categories,which are comparable to the ones recommended by PGECON or even the actual ages of individuals and assigned employees to one of the age groups.There were

317、 also member states that used their own categories.36 Figure 3.2.1:Age distribution by MS,2019 Source:MS data submissions under the 2021 Fish processing data call and elaboration by the EWG.*Data refers to 2020.Overall,the 40-64 age class made up the largest proportion(50.5%)of people employed in th

318、e processing industry,followed by the 25-39 age class(32.7%).A further 8.6%were apportioned to the 15-24 age class,1.6%to the over 65 years category and 6.6%were unknown.The percentage of the age group 40-64 is highest in Latvia(73%),followed by Lithuania(62%),Germany and Romania with 61%.Over 47%of

319、 the employees in Greece,39%of the Romanian employees,and 37%of Polish and Bulgarian employees were between 25 and 39 years old.Finland and Greece reported highest percentage of workers between 15 and 24 years,16%and 14%respectively.Hungary also provided the distribution by age,the age classes repor

320、ted do not correspond to the age classes reported by the rest of the countries and,because of this,their data were not included in the EU analysis and comparison with other MSs.Five countries reported unknown,one of them reported 100%unknown.37 3.3 Education Member states were required to report edu

321、cation aggregated by low,medium and high levels.The education level categories required were based on the International Standard Classification of Education(ISCED)academic qualification classifications.For more information on the ISCED levels included in the age,categories see Table 3.3.1.Table 3.3.

322、1:ISCED Academic qualification categories ACADEMIC QUALIFICATIONS ISCED code ISCED Educational attainment levels Education Level 1 Primary Low 2 Lower Secondary School 3 Upper Secondary School Medium 4 Post-secondary non-tertiary education 5 Short-cycle tertiary education High 6 Bachelors or equival

323、ent level 7 Masters or equivalent level 8 Doctoral or equivalent level Overall,the EU data demonstrates that 25%of people employed in the EU processing sector were educated up to a low level,followed by 57%with a medium level,15%with higher education and 3%unknown.The percentage of the higher educat

324、ion group is highest in Greece(35%),followed by Denmark and Lithuania(20%).Over 40%of the employees in Bulgaria,33%of Romanian and German employees had a low education level.The percentage of the people employed in the processing sector with a medium level of education is fluctuating between 43%and

325、81%in the different countries.The United Kingdom also provided the distribution by education level;however,the classes do not correspond to data submitted by others.Five countries reported unknown level of education,Belgium reported 100%.38 Figure 3.3.1:Education distribution by MS,2019 Source:MS da

326、ta submissions under the 2021 Fish processing data call and elaboration by the EWG *Data refers to 2018,*Data refers to 2020.3.4 Nationalities For all member states,it was recommended to report social data by nationality group.The nationality groups used were nationals,EU,EEA,non-EU/EEA and unknown.

327、The majority(73%)of people employed in the EU fishing processing sector were nationals of their own country,followed by 18%from EU,5%from non-EU/EEA nations,1%from EEA and 3%were unknown.In most of the MS the national employees are the main employees.The proportion of nationals varied from 99.8%in B

328、ulgaria to 72.4%in Germany.The other workers are mainly from EU MS.Only Greece provided more than 32%of unknown nationality.The values provided by Romania as EU includes nationals and EU citizens.Five countries reported unknown level of education,the highest percentage of the unknown was reported by

329、 Belgium(100%),followed by Greece(32%).39 Figure 3.4.1:Nationality distribution by MS,2019 Source:MS data submissions under the 2021 Fish processing data call and elaboration by the EWG*Data refers to 2020.3.5 Socio-demographics by size classes Only 8 Member States(Table 3.5.1)provided the socio-dem

330、ographic data broken down by company size:Belgium,Bulgaria,Denmark,Greece,Hungary1,Italy,Lithuania2 and Romania.40 Table 3.5.1:MS that provided the social data by size categories of the processing enterprises,2017 CountryGender by size Age by size Education by size Nationality by sizeBELYBGRYYYYDEU*

331、DNKYYYYGRCYYYYHUN*YYFINITAYYYYLVA*LTU*YYYYPOLROUYYYSWE Source:MS data submissions under the 2021 Fish processing data call and elaboration by the EWG.*Data refers to 2018,*Data refers to 2020.Gender by enterprise size These 8 MS mentioned below provided gender distribution by size categories of the

332、enterprises.The biggest proportion of female employees was in the largest processing enterprises.Females made up 46%of the total people employed in the smallest enterprises while reaching 63%in the biggest enterprises.Half of the employees for the smallest enterprises(less than 10 and 11-49)are male

333、.Figure 3.5.1:Gender distribution by enterprise size,2019 Source:MS data submissions under the 2021 Fish processing data call and elaboration by the EWG.41 Age by enterprise size 6 MS provided size categories of enterprises by age-Bulgaria,Denmark,Greece,Italy,Lithuania2 and Romania.The age classes reported in the social table for Hungary do not correspond to PGECON recommendations,therefore,had n