reLAKSation 201.

Costly Exercise: Whether it is a total coincidence that we discussed the lack of any cost of production data in the last issue of reLAKSation, but the Shetland News have just reported that a government/industry working group have now appointed KPMG to study the comparative costs of salmon farming in different countries. The intention to carry out this survey was first announced in the Scottish Executive’s Strategic Framework for Aquaculture but despite recurring complaints from Scottish farmers that they face unfair competition, the survey has been subjected to delay after delay. Shetland News have indicated that the first phase of the survey, costing £70,000, will be complete by the end of August and focuses on a detailed desktop study of the costs of salmon farming in the main production areas.

We, at Callander McDowell, believe that the results of this survey should finally put an end to the ongoing trade dispute between the Scottish and international salmon industries. The basis of the argument is that Scottish producers have to bear extra financial and regulatory burdens that mean that they are unable to compete with countries such as Norway and Chile. David Sandison of Shetland Aquaculture told Shetland News that Scottish farmers would be just as competitive as their foreign rivals if they did not face constraints such as limits on fish farm sites and extra tax burdens. One of the main targets for complaint has been the Crown Estate who according to seafoodintelligence.com received £17.12 for every tonne of salmon produced (£15.41/tonne from the Western and Northern Isles). It is estimated that the Crown Estate received a total of £2.7 million from aquaculture producers last year. This survey should finally put an end to the argument whether such costs place the Scottish industry at a disadvantage.

Whatever figures result from this survey, there are really only two outcomes that matter. These are whether the cost of production in Scotland is less then or equal to that in Norway or whether the cost of production in Scotland is greater than in Norway. The last time that such a survey was carried out was in 1993 by the Scottish Agricultural College. They found then that the production costs in Scotland were actually much lower than those in Norway much to the horror of the then Scottish Salmon Growers Association, who then refused to participate in any further surveys quite simply because it hadn’t supported their claims that they were operating at a disadvantage. Since then, it has been impossible to make any judgment whether the Scottish claims are justified or not. Only the large multinational companies know the answer as they operate in every salmon farming arena and should be able to assess whether any one division is operating at a disadvantage or not.

As we already suggested, there are only two outcomes to this survey that matter. If the survey shows that even with the extra financial and regulatory burden, the Scottish industry incurs similar or lower costs than in Norway, then it will be clear that the constant whingeing and whining has been unjustified. However, if survey shows that the extra financial and regulatory burden has placed Scottish farmers at a disadvantage, then as the Shetland News says, it will help persuade the Scottish Executive of the need for changes to help the industry compete on a more level playing field.

We, at Callander McDowell, would suggest that this second outcome leads to two very different questions. The first is that the Scottish industry has always argued that all it wants is to compete on a level playing field, but this isn’t exactly true. The reality is that whilst Scottish farmers might want to benefit from the same cost of production as their competitors, they actually want to sell their fish for a much higher price. They say that Scottish fish are of a much higher quality and therefore merit a premium price. However, one of the reason why free range chicken, for example, is a higher price than conventionally produced chicken is that the costs of production are higher. Why should consumers have to pay extra for salmon that costs the same to produce as traditionally produced fish? It makes little sense.

If Scottish farmers are suffering as a result of the extra financial and regulatory burden, surely, it is this which must be addressed rather than accusing Norwegian producers of dumping at prices below the cost of production. Clearly, the belief is that it is easier to penalise Norwegian producers for not having to incur such costs rather than persuade the British authorities to remove them.

Hopefully, it will be only weeks before we know the answers, unless the Scottish Executive doesn’t like the results and refuses to publish them as it did with the 2003 Scottish production figures, which now seem to have been lost forever.

Fund or refund: On their web site, the EU’s Directorate of Trade make it clear that the dumping case against Norwegian salmon is totally unconnected to what is happening in the marketplace. For example, DG Trade believe that the fact that increased consumption of farmed salmon has eased the fishing pressure on threatened stocks of commercial marine species is irrelevant to the case. Equally, they cannot relate the increased demand for salmon to the promotion of fish rich in healthy omega-3 fatty acids. These examples, like others, are simply irrelevant to the dumping case.

The fact that any punitive measures on imported salmon will damage the market for salmon is, in the Commission’s view, irrelevant. Those found to be dumping must be punished, even if it irrevocably harms the market. Even a simple measure like the MIP is affecting the market since rising prices have destabilised the market just as much as when they fall.

An alternative solution to the dumping case is that instead of imposing negative trade measures against valuable Norwegian imports, the Commission should positively help those who claim to have been affected by so-called dumped salmon. Would it not be better to help those become more competitive and efficient rather than force prices out of reach the pocket of the average consumer.

The European Commission has already indicated that it wants to help agriculture convert to organic production. Why not help salmon farmers do the same. The recent organic fish producers meeting in Edinburgh indicated that there is much scope for organic production but conversion requires a major commitment, in terms of time and cost.

Meanwhile, European importers and processors are applying increased pressure to obtain their share of the money paid to customs during the period when salmon was subjected to anti-dumping duties. The total amount paid is estimated at about Euro 30 million. When the Commission finally decide this money can be repaid, it will be the subject of much wrangling and disagreement as to who gets what. This will inevitably further strain relationships within the industry.

We, at Callander McDowell, believe that there is a simple solution. This ‘unnecessary’ tax should be appropriated into a special fund to help those farmers whose need is restructure in whatever is necessary for them to be able to operate in the changing marketplace. This could allow them to convert to organic or adopt a different production strategy or even develop a much needed market-led strategy. In return for access to this fund, the Commission would drop all measures against Norwegian salmon so allowing the free flow of salmon throughout the European market.

Sadly, this will never happen. The Commission are too rigid in their outlook and follow the legislation precisely. There is no flexibility in their vision to allow consumers, producers and processors to benefit from a supply of value for money fish, even if everyone should benefit. Instead, they want their pound of flesh, (but not salmon flesh).  

What’s in a name?   IntraFish report that Nick Durant of brand consultancy Interbrand has suggested that the seafood industry is suffering from a major lack of imagination in marketing its products. He said that efforts to introduce new species into the market are failing because consumers are not responding to the names. He pointed to New Zealand hoki as a fish in need of a makeover. He claims that Bird’s Eye saw its fish finger sales plummet after switching to hoki, because most consumers don’t know what hoki is.

As a company involved in marketing fish, we are not convinced that Mr Durant really understands the market for fish. He is right that some fish do need a change of image but selling fish under different names is nothing new. For example, dogfish is regularly sold as rock salmon, even though it has no relation to the salmon family. The use of the salmon name is intended to give dogfish a much more upmarket image that the name dogfish would suggest. Dogfish has been sold as rock salmon for many years. In much the same way, as IntraFish points out, dog salmon was renamed Artic keta salmon by the State of Alaska in order to create a better image.   

In the case of Birds Eye, as cited by Mr Durant, we believe that any downturn in fish finger sales can be better attributed to the fact that Birds Eye stopped promoting cod fish fingers rather than to the use of hoki. A number of years ago, it was suggested that the only reason that the British were so attached to cod was because of the huge sum spent by Birds Eye promoting the species. Birds Eye may have moved away from cod to hoki, but the reality was that most consumers had no idea that their fish fingers now contained hoki. Birds Eye, in common with most processors, do not state which fish are used in their products unless they do so as part of the promotion as with cod fish fingers. Fish fingers made with other species are simply called fillet fish fingers or just fish fingers. Sales declined because cod, which consumers thought as being superior, was no longer being used, not because hoki was being used instead.

Certainly, fish names can be confusing for the consumer which is why the labelling legislation was tightened. However, it is not just the name which is the problem, the fact is that many consumers simply won’t eat fish. It doesn’t matter how innovative names are, they alone won’t persuade consumers to eat fish, let alone different fish.

Back to reLAKSation