reLAKSation 182.
No
choice at all: Fritz-Harald Wenig of DG Trade at the European Commission
told IntraFish that Norway must choose between safeguards or a dumping duty. If
the Danish appeal against safeguards is successful, Norway could face the
imposition of a dumping duty of between 20 and 30 percent. However, we at
Callander McDowell would argue that the choice is not so simple. Instead, there
is a third option; that both the safeguard case and the antidumping action be
both dumped in the waste bin where they belong and that free trade be allowed to
prevail.
Mr
Wenig is trying to scare Norwegian producers into believing that their only
choice is between safeguards and antidumping duties, but perhaps he is being a
little too presumptuous. Denmark's
economic and business affairs minister, Bendt Bendtsen said last week that he
was extremely worried by the fact that the EC is trying to implement
protectionist measures for the benefit of a handful of inefficient salmon
producers in Scotland and Ireland. This equally applies to antidumping duties,
yet despite the similarities between the two, there are some significant
differences. The most notable, and something we have discussed previously, is
that whilst safeguards require the government to apply, it is the industry that
needs to apply for an antidumping investigation. The significance of this to
this specific case relates to the claims that only a minority of the Scottish
industry supports the applications. This does not matter in relation to
safeguards, but it is crucial in the antidumping case.
Mr
Wenig appears to assume that the progression of the antidumping case is a
foregone conclusion, but it is not. So far, details of the Scottish submission
have not been made public but Mr Wenig should release this information so
everyone can see whether this case has sufficient support to progress. Without
enough support, this case is invalid and therefore if safeguards are withdrawn,
the international industry can be left to get on with what they do best;
providing the public with a value for money healthy eating meal solution.
Blithely
mistaken: According to
IntraFish, Joanna Blythman, food writer for the Sunday Herald, has joined the
debate as to whether Scottish salmon farms should be allowed to expand in order
to better compete against cheap imports. She says that rather than expand, most
Scottish salmon farms should close down, leaving the remainder as a small
cottage industry. Her comments are not surprising as Ms Blythman is well know
for her attacks on the wider food industry. She is against the whole idea of
producing value for money food, available for everyone. If she had her way, she
would prefer that everyone should produce their own food in their own backyards.
As Brian Simpson of Scottish Quality Salmon suggests, she is out of touch with
the salmon industry.
Yet,
Ms Blythman does have access to the media and her views do get heard as happened
last week when she appeared on TV to discuss the Sudan 1 food scare. No doubt,
Ms Blythman will make sure that any expansion plans are hotly contested.
However,
we at Callander McDowell, do not believe that it will make any difference
whether the smaller Scottish farms expand or not. This is because the size of
the farm or its cost effectiveness are not really part of the underlying problem
that has prompted the EUSPG to demand safeguards or antidumping duties. The
problem is simply that these farms are not producing what the market wants and
until this matter is addressed, the independent Scottish producers will always
be at a disadvantage.
Norwegian
fisheries minister Svein Ludvigsen also believes that the planned restructuring
of the Scottish industry will not resolve the issues. He too argues that the
problems are not due to the imports of salmon from outside the EU. Meanwhile,
Angus Macmillan, one of the stalwarts of the EUSPG, supports the move towards
larger more efficient farms. It’s
only a shame that he and his colleagues refused to listen to similar proposals
as long ago as 1989, when the question of competition from imports first arose.
Although on very different sides of the divide, Mr Macmillan and the EUSPG are
as equally blinkered to the realities of the salmon industry as Joanna Blythman!!!
Making
Waves: Saturdays edition of the Daily Telegraph newspaper includes a
large article entitled 'Fish for thought' which suggests that as cod stocks
dwindle, British consumers should give more thought to the fish they eat.
It's not surprising that the article is given some prominence because it
includes an interview with Charles Glover, author of 'End of the Line' a book
about the decline of the commercial fisheries industry. Mr Glover also happens
to be environment editor of the Daily Telegraph.
In
the article, Mr Glover highlights that Blue Whiting are the most overfished
species in the sea - 2.3 million tonnes a year. He goes on to say that it is
impossible to buy this fish for love or money simply because it all ends up in
pellets to feed farmed salmon. Mr Glover invited the article's author to taste
Blue Whiting, claiming that this might be the first human bite of Blue Whiting
in Britain this century. The immediate reaction was 'that if this is what you
get for lunch, then being a farmed salmon isn’t all that bad.'
The
article ends by highlighting the Marine Conservation Society's new leaflet; Fish
to eat, Fish not to eat 2005 that lists which fish to eat and which to avoid.
Consumers of farmed salmon might be left in a quandary since they
recommend not to eat Atlantic salmon but only to eat salmon if it is farmed
organically. However, for those consumers concerned about the state of fish
stocks or concerned about farmed varieties, we believe we have found an
alternative solution.
Redwood Wholefood Company has just produced a range of new foods under the brand 'Making Waves'. These include fish style steaks, fish style fingers and Smoked salmon style pate.
The
key feature of all these products is that they are totally fish free.
In the same way that a whole industry of vegetarian products responded to
the needs of consumers concerned about animal welfare, this development suggests
that there may be a demand for those concerned with the state of fish stocks or
simply just don't like fish. Whether
these products receive the acclaim of industry commentators like Joanna Blythman,
a major critic of such processed foods, remains to be seen.
It will be interesting to see whether these products prosper in the
marketplace or whether they have any future at all.