reLAKSation 199.
ROBBED,
RIPPED OFF and RUINED... : This weekend of
'Live 8' it is worth remembering that something is very wrong with world trade -
it's filling the pockets of the rich while ripping off the world's poorest
people. Millions of people are stuck in the trade trap. No matter how hard they
work, they earn less every year.
Trade
rules control how countries do business with each other. They are agreed at
international level, and are supposed to make sure nations compete openly and
fairly. In reality they don't. That's because the rules are rigged - loaded in
favour of the wealthiest countries and their business interests. So no matter
how hard people work in the developing world, or how much their countries
produce, trade relationships benefit the rich world most. The result is misery
for hundreds of millions of people who just want the chance to make a living,
feed themselves, send their kids to school and create a better future for the
next generation.
Live
8 say that the answer is really simple, change the rules. Now. It's an obvious
solution - challenge and change the rules so they work for poor countries.
Re-write them in favour of the poorest countries so they can develop, build
their own industries, grow stronger, and one day compete as equals. Rich
countries used trade rules to protect themselves as they developed - which is
how they got where they are now. Its only fair to use trade rules to end world
poverty.
Standing
on two feet: Live 8 puts the issue of trade
into perspective. How much better it would be if the European Commission would
direct their efforts into opening up international trade rather than spending
their time and efforts trying to protect a few whingeing salmon farmer who are
more than capable of helping themselves but don’t seem inclined to do so.
Although it seems totally indecent to draw any comparison between the world’s
poor and these few salmon farmers, we would suggest that they have absolutely
nothing to complain about. Equally, we would not even begin to suggest that any
comparison should be made with those suffering from our protection trade rules
and the Norwegian salmon industry but we should recognise that different
countries have different advantages in terms of production and trade. For
example, Europe will never be able to produce enough salmon to meet demand.
Europe needs to import salmon or else it needs to inform its consumers that in
future salmon will only be available to those who are willing to pay more for
it.
We,
at Callander McDowell, continue to argue that European Commission’s trade
department should never have become involved in the internal wranglings of the
salmon industry. The salmon dispute is not, and has never been, about trade
issues. Instead, it concerns our perceptions of how we see our salmon industry.
Do we want salmon farming to be an industry producing a small volume of ‘high
quality’ (whatever that means) salmon intended for the luxury market or do we
want to provide value for money, healthy eating fish for the wider consumer
market. This is the fundamental issue at the root of the trade problem and
sadly, however much time and effort Fritz-Harald Wenig and his colleagues at DG
Trade invest in trying to sort out the matter between Scotland and Norway, they
will never resolve this basic issue because it is something the industry needs
to sort out for itself. Not surprisingly, the international industry appear to
have already made their choice, however much the EUSPG appear to want to fight
against it. The time has come, not for a five year MIP, but for the EUSPG to
face the reality of the marketplace. The EUSPG cannot hide behind the protection
of trade rules for ever. Sooner or later, the time will come to stand on their
own two feet and the best time for this to happen is now.
Circumvention
ahead: According to seafoodintelligence.com
European salmon farmers have welcomed the latest agreement to introduce a MIP.
We have no doubt that they had no choice otherwise they might have had to
explain why their original submission contains so many errors and misleading
claims. However, they have demanded a long term deal with a proper mechanism for
preventing any loopholes. The EUSPG have always maintained that such loopholes
were rampant at the end of the last Salmon Agreement, leaving a bitter
aftertaste.
Richie
Flynn of the Irish Salmon Farmers Association said that the new agreement would
satisfy the Irish side as long as the MIP is governed by regulation and properly
policed. He added that those trying to circumvent the MIP should be punished
heavily ‘with perhaps the rest of their industry’. Mr Flynn said that
circumvention was rampant previously
so it is important that the MIP be part of a definitive European
regulation and be dealt with by a much ‘bigger stick’.
We,
at Callander McDowell, would argue that if Mr Flynn had invested more time
looking at the market for Irish fish rather than worry about any possible
contraventions of the MIP, he may not have had to seek help from Brussels in the
first place. Now that he has, Mr Flynn appears to wants Brussels to set up the
equivalent of a police state to ensure that there are no transgressions of the
agreement. Mr Flynn needs to get a grip on reality and put the matter into
perspective. This is such a non issue. Mr Flynn needs to focus on what is
important, supplying consumers with what they want.
Mr
Flynn also needs to realise that however big the stick he persuades the
Commission to wave, there are already ways available in which the MIP can be
legally circumvented. We would stress that these are totally legal and do not
require the use of any loopholes. The simple reason that Mr Flynn is ignorant of
the scope for avoiding the MIP is that, like most of the complainants, he is too
focused on production issues and has no idea of the real opportunities in the
marketplace.