Foreign ownership

What is meant by “foreign ownership”?

Foreign ownership does not mean “foreign workers”. Most aquaculture staff in Shetland are local, and the skills and wages matter.

It means that:

• ultimate corporate control is held outside Shetland
• strategic decisions are made elsewhere
• profits flow out of Shetland
• the marine space remains permanently constrained locally

The issue is not nationality. It is who captures the value from Shetland’s waters.

Why it matters in a small island economy

In a large national economy, profit extraction is often invisible. In Shetland, it is not.

The difference between a locally owned business and an externally owned business is that local ownership tends to:

• reinvest locally
• support local supply chains
• keep decision-making close to the impacts
• treat community relationships as long-term assets

External corporate ownership can still behave responsibly — but the incentive structure is different. The legal duty is to the corporate group and its shareholders, not to Shetland.

How the sector changed

Shetland’s aquaculture sector began with smaller local businesses. Over time, consolidation has occurred.

The present reality is that most of the original salmon farm businesses have now been bought up by:

• Scottish Sea Farms (a Norwegian-linked corporate group)
• Cooke Aquaculture (a Canadian corporation)

This matters because consolidation changes the balance of power between: local fishermen, local communities, regulators, and corporate operators.

Jobs versus long-term value

A common defence of large aquaculture developments is that they provide jobs. This is true — and should not be dismissed.

But a jobs-only framing can hide the wider question:

• What is the long-term value of marine space?
• Who else is displaced?
• What happens if environmental damage occurs?
• What happens if disease or chemical impacts affect wild fisheries?

A resource can be “developed” in a way that increases corporate turnover, while reducing local resilience.

Marine space is not a free asset

The inshore marine environment is a shared resource. When a corporate site is consented, it effectively receives a long-term exclusive right to a portion of that space.

The question is: what does Shetland receive in exchange?

• Is there a true local return?
• Is there an enforceable community benefit?
• Is there recompense for displaced fishing grounds?
• Is there a fair mechanism for consent?

If the answer is “jobs”, that may be part of the picture — but it is not the whole picture.

What a defensible system would require

A defensible system would not rely on vague promises. It would require:

• clear local benefit mechanisms
• transparent reporting of value captured locally versus extracted
• proper treatment of fishermen as affected stakeholders
• credible enforcement and independent monitoring

These are not anti-business demands. They are the normal requirements of a system that respects local resources.

Evidence

Supporting documents are stored in the TSNS Evidence Library. You can search by tags such as Sea, Other, and Cases.