Eurofish Magazine issue 6 2018 features the fishing and aquaculture sectors in Croatia. The technology section looks at the growing concern about plastic waste in the oceans while the poor image of aquaculture is discussed.
November / December 2018 EM 6
Country profile: Croatia, Romania
Technology: Growing concern about plastic waste in the oceans - Search for plastic-free packaging intensified
Aquaculture: Aquaculture has a poor image despite immense economic importance - Lack of knowledge nourishes prejudices
Species: Will eel soon be off the menu? - Europe struggling to save the eel population
Eurofish Magazine issue 5 2018 features the fishing, canning and aquaculture sectors in Latvia. The issue looks at automation in the technology section and growing algae in the aquaculture section.
September / October 2018 EM 5
Country profile: Latvia
Technology: Industry 4.0 conquers the fish processing sector - Automated processing lines take over from traditional manual work
Aquaculture: Algae and aquatic plants in global aquaculture
Events: Tuna 2018, WTO, Market Access. and Fish Trade
July / August 2018 EM 4
Country profiles: Spain and Romania
Fisheries: Chronic shortage of young people for Europe’s fishing industry - Less and less interest in joining the fishing profession
Aquaculture: Drones and robots for more efficiency in aquaculture - Offshore aquaculture requires intelligent technologies
Events: Review of the SEG show in Brussels
Eurofish Magazine issue 4 2018 features Spain along with aquaculture in Romania. The issue looks at the shortage of young people for Europe’s fishing industry.
APROMAR, the Spanish aquaculture producers association, has published the 2018 edition of its annual report on the development of the aquaculture sector in Spain and Europe. The figures are the most current available to date and in addition to the information gathered by the association and its members, information has been used from the European Commission, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAPA), the European Federation of Aquaculture Producers (FEAP) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
Among its main conclusions, the following stand out:
- The harvest of aquaculture seabass in Spain in 2017 was 21.269 tonnes. The Region of Murcia has led the production with 6.990 tonnes, followed by Canarias (5.900 tonnes), Comunidad Valenciana (4.972 tonnes) Andalucía (3.261 tonnes) and Cataluña (146 tonnes).
- The production of rainbow trout in Spain in 2017 is estimated at 17.984 tonnes. The main producing regions are Castilla y León, Galicia, and Andalucía.
- The harvest of seabream from aquaculture in Spain in 2017 was 13.643 tonnes. Comunidad Valenciana has led the production with 5.590 tonnes, followed by Murcia (4.356 tonnes), Canarias (2.063 tonnes), Andalucía (980 tonnes), and Cataluña (654 tonnes).
- The harvest of turbot from aquaculture in Spain in 2017 was 8.546 tonnes. Galicia is the main autonomous producer of turbot in Spain (99%); the rest is produced in Cantabria.
- The production of croaker by aquaculture in Spain in 2017 was 1.932 tonnes. The bulk of Spanish croaker production comes from Comunidad Valenciana.
- In 2017, 129.200 tonnes of aquaculture feed were used in Spain. 83,1% of these were administered to marine fish and the remaining 16,9% to freshwater species.
- Employment in aquaculture in Spain in 2016 was 6.534 work-year units, although this figure was distributed among 17.811 people.
- In 2016, a total of 5.105 aquaculture establishments were in operation and producing in Spain. Of these, 4.782 were marine molluscs aquaculture farms, 200 were freshwater fish aquaculture farms, 82 farms were on the coast, beaches, intertidal zones and estuaries, and 41 were nurseries (cages) in the sea.
The report (in Spanish) can be viewed here:
Eurofish Magazine issue 3 2018 features Norway, Estonia and Slovenia. The issue looks at urban farming in the aquaculture section.
May / June 2018 EM 3
Country profiles: Norway, Estonia, Slovenia
Fisheries: Multi-species models, more selective nets and more efficient fishing vessels
Aquaculture: Urban fish farming: A realistic model or unworldly utopia?
Events: Review of the SEG show in Brussels
One of every two fish sold on the world’s markets already comes from aquaculture and this share will continue to grow in the coming years. New farming projects are added almost every day. Not all of them succeed at the first attempt for aquaculture is very susceptible to disturbances and damages. So far, however, only very few companies are insured against losses. Too expensive, too complicated, or simply not interested?
Insurance companies don’t have a very good image. They are sometimes scorned for lending out umbrellas but immediately reclaiming them when the first drops of rain fall. Nearly everyone can relate examples of how skilfully insurance companies will evade their obligations when things get really tight for the insured party. Nevertheless, interest in insuring aquaculture projects has never been greater than it is today. The gap between this increase in demand and the available offers of aquaculture insurance is getting wider and wider. More than ten years ago FAO experts estimated the number of insurance policies taken out at around 8,000, and even if this number is likely to have increased by a few thousand since then it is still negligible compared to the total number of large and small aquaculture companies which amounts to several hundred thousand! It is striking that a large share of existing insurance policies is concluded in western industrialised countries while other regions, such as large parts of Asia, which accounts for around 80 per cent of global aquaculture production, are much less represented. What are the causes of this unsatisfactory situation? Do insurance companies simply shy away from the eff ort and cost of auditing farms or, in general, from the risks of fish farming? Or is it because fish farmers fear the costs of insurance and underestimate the benefits of insurance cover? Another noticeable feature of aquaculture insurance is that many insurers only offer products for a few species and production methods: mainly for salmon and shrimps. It is much more difficult to find useful offers for new species and innovative methods. This is understandable, because insurers need a broad database and industry-specific standards in order to realistically assess the risks of aquaculture production and calculate the resulting premiums. What has long been routine in car insurance, because there are detailed time series on the type, frequency and severity of possible damage that can even be grouped regionally and for specific car types, is still very difficult in aquaculture. The diversity of species and methods can hardly be forced into uniform, universally applicable standards.