reLAKSation 146.
Tartan wrapping: According to Fishupdate.com, Dr Graeme Dear, communications director with Marine Harvest has said that ‘The long term growth and development of Scottish aquaculture will depend on the industry’s ability to compete on equal terns with producers elsewhere in the world.’ He added that ‘Building a protective shield around our industry and adding a touch of tartan to product packaging won’t deliver sustainable sales expansion.’ He went on to say that ‘Many customers both in the UK and abroad seek to buy high quality fish at the lowest possible price to be able to deliver affordable, high quality and healthy food to an increasing salmon eating public.’ He concluded that ‘This will only happen if the Scottish industry is allowed to match others for cost effective production.’
We, at Callander McDowell, are interested to see that Dr Dear has adopted a certain degree of realism in his analysis of the dilemma facing the Scottish industry. For far too long, Scottish producers have been blinkered to the realities of a global industry. Many consumers are unable to perceive any difference between Scottish salmon and that produced elsewhere and are therefore unwilling to pay more to buy it as the Scottish industry would have us believe. What is also clear is that, as Dr Dear suggests, the presence of a bit of tartan packaging is no longer sufficient incentive to persuade consumers to actively select Scottish salmon from others. This means that Scottish salmon is no longer perceived as being distinct from other salmon and which is why Dr Dear believes that Scottish producers need to be able to compete directly against all the world’s producers.
Sadly, not all Scottish producers think in the same way, which is why a minority have sought protection from Brussels from such direct competition. Dr Dear is clearly not convinced that this is the right approach. Instead, he suggests that Scotland’s regulators need to see and hear at first hand how to help provide the industry with a business environment that will allow Scottish companies to compete on equal terms. This is an interesting perspective on the current situation because Dr Dear seems to argue that to gain an equal footing with the rest of the world, the Scottish authorities must ease the regulatory burden currently placed on salmon farming.
Against this background, isn’t it strange that the British Government should seek safeguard protection from Brussels, over which it has little control as a way of helping the industry rather than trying to ease the burden of regulation, over which it can exert much more influence?
Surely if the burden of regulation is making the Scottish uncompetitive then the Scottish authorities should be looking at ways to ease this burden rather than attempt to penalise imported salmon. Why should Norwegian producers suffer simply because the regulators in Scotland have decided to place higher costs on the Scottish industry.
Yet, whilst Dr Dear argues that the Scottish industry must be able to compete against all the world’s producers, there is also a view that Scottish producers could still sufficiently differentiate their products from others to generate a higher return. This would involve a change in focus away from raw flesh but it would also enable producers to revert to their tartan wrapping!
Lost before they start: One of the speakers at this week’s Aquavision conference is due to discuss how to counter much of the adverse publicity generated against the salmon farming industry. The discussion will focus on whether farmers are criticised because they mistreat the environment and exploit non-renewable resources or because they are easy targets for lazy journalists who repeat old stories or will the conference find that the truth is somewhere in-between?
The reality is that the salmon industry has become the target for one or two individuals and organisations whose main aim in life seems to be a desire to destroy it. They disseminate as many adverse stories as possible and encourage the press to publish them. In doing so their campaign gathers increasing credibility even though many of the stories are nothing more than that, just stories.
It is well known that what is news today is only good for wrapping fish and chip the next day. Some of these stories are soon forgotten although the combined effect of several different stories can reinforce the message, which is why these few idealists persist with their campaign.
However, of greater concern to the future of the salmon industry, is the realisation that fish farming has become integrated into the education system? This year, both GCSE and A-level Biology courses cover the impact of salmon farming on the environment. The GSCE course discusses pollution and chemical pesticides including Dichlorvos. The A-level course looks in more depth at the impact of escaped fish, the problems of pollution, and the way in which fish are infected with parasites. The course infers that the decline in wild fish populations is due to the presence of salmon farms. Part of the course gets students to consider a case study looking at the potential environmental effects of the salmon farming industry.
We, at Callander McDowell, wonder whether students acquire more than just a qualification when they finish these courses. Will they have also acquired a lifetime’s prejudice against salmon farming that will deter them from ever buying salmon? The sort of adverse publicity the fish farming industry usually fights against can be very short term and often soon forgotten. By comparison, what is the industry doing to counter the negative viewpoint being learnt by generations of impressionable young people? If today’s youngsters are put off eating salmon, then it is unlikely that they will ever do so. In years to come, the industry risks losing its whole customer base and it clearly needs to target this future market to ensure that they get hold of a more positive message.