Shellfish
Government must create right environment for small rural businesses to thrive
Dr Nick Lake
TTHE year past has been a difficult one to characterise in terms of progress with shellfish cultivation aspirations in Scotland. The politics of Brexit seem to have stymied any logical debate with respect to desired interventions from the public sector and agencies, and also evidenced in the UK by the winding down of EU structural investment.
The ASSG Oban conference at the end of October, reported in the December issue of Fish Farmer, had a theme of resilience. Was there an overall take home message from this theme for the Scottish shellfish sector?
From my perspective, it was this: we have talented and tenacious people engaged in the running of our shellfish cultivation and supply businesses and they need all the support they can get from the public sector if the real potential of such production is to be realised.
Hopefully, some of the excellent presentations from home and abroad will have at least revised the ‘fake news’ and ‘naysayer’ views on shellfish consumption, impacts of cultivation and the state of the marine environment.
Equally, they showed that there is a real appetite from those actually producing, rather than simply talking about, opportunities to further develop production and deliver employment, health, biodiversity, water quality, nutrition, economic and carbon footprint benefits, and ensure supplies of bivalve shellfish are widely available and accessible to all.
Shellfish have a clear role in the mitigation of the overall impacts of climate change – some countries are already exploring the opportunities, and the lessons learnt need to be considered and acted on by others.
The day before the conference saw a North Atlantic and European Mussel Organisation (NAEMO) workshop being hosted with the assistance of Marine Scotland. This brought together all those researchers and agencies within the area interested in the health of blue mussel stocks and the linkages to aquaculture production.
In general, the perception is that even with a widely distributed species such as Mytilus spp there are recurring themes becoming evident in the wild populations which may be part of natural cycles or could be signs of stressors having an impact on survival and performance.
The important point is that we have not spent enough time or resources on understanding the basic biology of a species upon which we have become reliant. In this respect, we need to ensure we continue to work with all our international colleagues in seeking to understand the dynamics of a humble species and its environmental interactions.
Against a background of climate change, I fear that we have made this task considerably more difficult and equally more important. The question is how much of a priority can we make such an issue on any national or international political and governance agenda?
In Scotland it does appear that we have so far failed to adequately describe and quantify these benefits for the appropriate policy makers.
We are faced with a period of unprecedented change in our operational as well as natural environment, which will play out over several generations. It will require a concerted effort by industry to convince our politicians of the positive and innovative role shellfish cultivation businesses can play, both in the rural economy and in the wider national interest.
Industry is well placed to be innovative in the way it can overcome operational issues. However, what is required is a public sector which is also able to react in time to the challenges that environmental change will bring, and be prepared to adapt to evolving circumstances and invest accordingly.
Investment breeds success
One of our nearest neighbours has pursued a similar path to Scotland in developing rural employment through aquaculture production. But outcomes are surprisingly different. BIM, the Irish Seafood Development Agency, recently published their Aquaculture Report 2019 as part of the National Seafood Survey.
It makes interesting reading from a bivalve shellfish perspective, in terms of similarities and disparities.
Species are identical, with blue mussel, Pacific oyster and native oyster comprising 57 per cent, 42 per cent and one per cent of volume respectively.
However, unlike Scotland, where the wild blue mussel was owned by the Crown Estate (now Scottish government and not currently exploited), 19 per cent of Irish mussel volume is generated from seabed stock. Hence, 38 per cent is rope grown mussels – which at just over 9,000 tonnes (worth 5.9 million euros) is less than their production of Pacific oyster.
Pacific oyster outputs stand at just over 10,000 tonnes with a national value of around 44 million euros, which equates to 76 per cent of total shellfish production value.
Compare this to the Scottish industry, which started at around the same time and which produces just over 300 tonnes valued at around £1.5 million at first sale, and rope mussels at just over 9,000 tonnes and £7.8 million.
Employment in the Irish oyster sector equates to just under 650 full time equivalents through
139 businesses. In Scotland, the mussel and oyster sectors combined employ 137 full time and 161 part time and casual workers through 130 businesses.
In Ireland, oyster production is limited by the availability of licensed ground and is currently at maximum capacity. In terms of the market, the sector also differentiates between triploid and diploid production. Nearly 90 per cent is triploid which attracts a price premium of almost 1,100 euros per tonne.
The Irish oyster industry is not without its challenges, including oyster herpes virus which may deliver between 20 and 80 per cent mortality of seed, with labour and seed inputs accounting for 44 per cent and 18 per cent respectively of total production costs.
Seed supplies are sourced primarily from French and, to a much lesser extent, UK hatcheries, while some local hatcheries are developing.
In terms of mussel production, the recruitment variability of natural stocks and seed collection are serious issues for all businesses. Rope grown production has an estimated current maximum capacity of 15,000 tonnes which is reported to be rarely reached due to seed availability, harvesting restrictions (red tide – biotoxin- closures) and oversupply of home markets.
Lessons to learn
Why the markedly different trajectories of the two countries’ shellfish cultivation sectors? Well you could write a book on the possible social and political reasons for public sector interventions taken and how these have played out in creating an environment for the establishment of small rural businesses. However, in a nutshell, it is simply down to economics, risk mitigation and the will to see such a rural industry prosper.
Obviously, positive regulatory and governance arrangements require to be in place in order to assure food safety and ensure biosecurity issues are addressed for the public good. And market conditions cannot be distorted through disproportionate assistance or subsidy. Industry needs to produce for and develop local market opportunities and/or governments need to assist with access to the international market.
How such public sector costs are attributed within a national economy is up to
“The practical reality of dealing with various elements of the public administration is a substantial barrier to progress”
“
Within Scotland we have all the required natural assets to sustain a far industry” larger shellfish cultivation
the government to determine.
There is no doubt that within Scotland we have all the required natural assets to sustain a far larger shellfish cultivation industry. Our own industry development strategy, part of the Scottish food and drink sector Vision 2030, is supported by the government and is used as a benchmark to assess overall production progress.
The associated benefits of shellfish farming have been presented over the years in a range of development strategies.
Public sector agencies are in place to ensure that all considerations relating to the public good are catered for – food safety, environmental protection, biosecurity, nature conservation.
We even have a National Marine Plan that promotes the positive role which shellfish cultivation can play within the environment and economy of Scotland.
Government departments and agencies exist to ensure that the environmental and water quality conditions present in coastal waters recognise the potential for individual businesses to establish shellfish cultivation sites.
We also have major research and development initiatives supported by the public sector which are capable of delivering the best available knowledge and science to resolve production constraints. In addition, businesses have been able to offset some locational or operational costs through targeted public sector investments.
All of the above should see shellfish cultivation activities in Scotland surging forward.
Bu while we are making progress, it is not at the same rate as our Irish neighbours. Do we as an industry want to see further substantive developments – undoubtedly, yes, as considerable private investment is already built into the structure of the Scottish sector.
Such investment is not just in production – but also the extremely important market development. As is seen from the Irish survey, without market development total production opportunities are unlikely to be fully realised.
Is there a simple solution to encouraging growth? From the public sector it simply has to be a joined up approach and clearly prioritised objectives that the Scottish government wishes to achieve and, importantly, to make sure all arms of government are aligned.
At the moment, industry is shouldering the risk and uncertainty associated with investment in shellfish production. The economics can be made to work – but this is dependent on a degree of public sector support and investments in areas to protect the public good.
However, such public sector provisions must not instil disproportionate costs which undermine the business case for establishing or expanding bivalve shellfish production.
Positive benefits
It is just a thought, but given the positive environmental benefits of shellfish cultivation and particularly biodiversity and climate change mitigation implications, possibly some other industries or businesses may wish to invest in shellfish production (through a publicly promoted scheme) as a form of carbon offsetting or credit scheme.
We have seen it on land with trees – amounting to an apparent ‘arms’ race in the December election campaign to plant the most trees. Could we in the future see a government committed to investing in bivalve shellfish production? It is a far more rational proposition than many that have been raised in recent weeks!
Cost and value
One example of where public sector policy is disjointed in terms of both aspirations for the expansion of the shellfish sector- and also with respect to recognising the wider environmental impact – is the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act.
It has to be questioned why developers establishing glasshouses or polytunnels on land attract a planning fee of £100 per 0.1 hectare (maximum £3,000 for any scale of development) while the placing of equipment for shellfish cultivation is £200 + £75 per 0.1 hectare (maximum £20,000)?
One has the lowest carbon footprint for foodanimal protein- production while the other is likely to actively contribute to carbon emissions. Perverse, disjointed or outdated – you decide.
From a shellfish business start- up perspective, planning fees can typically exceed even this £20,000 ceiling because when environmental reports are requested by the planning authority there is no upper limit to costs.
Such public sector engagement at the very start of what may well be a five-year process- once planning permission has been granted and before any shellfish are placed on the market – effectively makes any business unattractive to a commercial bank. Only through private equity are shellfish businesses able to be established in Scotland.
Add to this scenario a range of other charges levied by the public sector in order to gain access to a site and install equipment, and it can be seen that while there is a desire to encourage shellfish cultivation in Scotland, the practical reality of dealing with various elements of the public administration is a substantial barrier to progress.
Seafood Development Agency
How about establishing a Scottish BIM, as the Irish version has certainly developed the shellfish cultivation industry into a major economic enterprise and secured rural employment?
Scotland needs to not only talk the talk, but also walk the walk in coordinating public sector policies, through a single influential government initiative.
Such an undertaking would need to have sufficient authority to ensure that many of the current administrative and cost burden hurdles are marginalised or removed. This would assist industry with the establishment of a shellfish cultivation sector of national economic and social importance. Something to think about in the New Year.