reLAKSation 220.
D-Day
minus one: A source from the European Commission has told IntraFish that
'they have had it up to here with salmon' as it is sapping them of time and
energy. The Commission is said to deal with around 100 cases a year and they are
looking for an end to the salmon dispute so they can concentrate on other cases
such as footwear from China.
If
the European Commission is now sick and tired of salmon, then it only has itself
to blame. There was absolutely no justification for initiating this dumping when
a parallel safeguard investigation was already underway. Safeguard cases may be
different to those concerned with dumping but both cases involved the dispute
between independent Scottish producers and Norway and whether Norwegian salmon
imports were undercutting Scottish salmon. They were identical cases and should
never have been allowed to run together. It would have been much easier on the
Commission and much fairer for Norway had the safeguard case been allowed to run
its course and then for the Commission to assess whether the EUSPG had a valid
case on dumping. Instead, the Commission made twice as much work for themselves
as well as a difficult relationship between producers, processors and themselves
due to their either/or approach.
The
EU source has indicated that the Commission is seeking a fair closure, however
their interpretation of what is fair is beyond understanding. He said that the
Scots think that the minimum price is too low. The Norwegians think that it is
too high. No-one is satisfied, which the Commission believe is sufficient
indication that they have arrived at a solution that everyone can live with.
This is madness. Surely, the majority of the salmon industry including the
European processing industry would prefer to see a return to free trade. This of
course is unacceptable to the EUSPG. Does it not make more sense to make sure
that the majority of the salmon supply industry are satisfied with trading
conditions and that it is just the 15 or so small companies that make up the
EUSPG who are not happy with the situation? Would it not be simpler for these 15
companies to adapt to the wider salmon market than have the wider salmon market
adapt to what the EUSPG want? Most of the EUSPG have already opted out of the
traditional salmon market by adopting organic or Freedom Food production. They
are no longer even trying to compete against imported salmon. To put this into
its proper perspective, Norway harvested more salmon last week than Ireland
harvested last year. The market has changed but the Commission is trying to
force it into out of date ideals. This is like protecting the vinyl record
industry when the market has opted for music downloads.
The
only real solution to this salmon dispute is a return to free trade but the
Commission have ruled this out completely. There's nothing like having an open
mind! Instead the Commission have proposed an MIP of 2.80 and according to the
EU source, 2.80 means 2.80, a figure resulting from painstaking studies
conducted over a long time. Yet, we at Callander McDowell would argue that these
studies have not been as painstaking as the Commission would have us believe. We
have already identified major errors in their calculations and we are sure that
there are many more but the investigation is deemed confidential and therefore
the data is inaccessible, Interestingly, the Commission have just allowed the
Norwegian government access to some
of the documentation and maybe they will be able to identify more of the flaws.
The
EU source said that this is an opportunity to achieve peace. This is not about
peace it is about fairness and justice and both have been severely lacking in
regard to this case.
The
anti-dumping committee are due to meet tomorrow and the result is a foregone
conclusion, but then what would you expect when they are prevented from hearing
all the true facts.