reLAKSation 225. Callander McDowell
More representative:
It's a novel idea but the Scottish salmon industry aims to set up a new
representative organisation that is actually representative of the industry it
serves. Seafoodintelligence.com published two reports on the same day concerning
the all new 'singing and dancing' Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation. The
first reported that an interim board headed by current Scottish Quality Salmon,
Lord Jamie Lindsay has reached agreement with the industry and drafted the main
structure of the organisation. A spokesman for SQS told Seafood intelligence.com
that they hoped to make an announcement in the coming weeks. 'Whether it is 3-4
or 6-7 is hard to tell', he said, 'but its that sort of timetable.' Even the
spokesman must have been surprised when only hours later, SQS announced that Sid
Patten had been appointed as the Chief Executive of an enhanced SSPO and that he
would take up this role as of the beginning of next week.
Clearly,
Mr Patten faces a challenging time ahead. It should seem a simple matter to
establish a representative organisation since the salmon industry should have
many common interests. Yet, the Scottish industry is divided and has been for
many years. The Shetland industry were always represented by a separate
organisation because they considered their circumstances to be different to
those of farmers elsewhere. They also tried to establish Shetland salmon as a
distinct entity, although it is clear that most consumers would disagree. The
Shetland representative organisation has now rebranded itself as Shetland
Aquaculture.
The
rest of the industry was also divided. Whilst there was a single representative
organisation , the Scottish Salmon Growers Association, some farmers refused to
join because of demands that they had to contribute to a marketing budget to run
the Scottish Salmon Board. These farmers considered that they would receive
little benefit in return for their contribution. As more and more farmers
drifted away from this organisation, the SSGA and SSB collapsed as their
remaining members had to bear the increasing costs of running these two
organisations.
Scottish
Quality Salmon rose from the ashes of the SSGA/SSB but their decision to
continue with marketing activities deterred a large part of the industry from
joining. Whilst SQS claimed to represent 65% of Scottish production, their
actual membership ran to only a handful of companies, including one or two under
foreign ownership. According to Seafoodintelligence.com the level of
representation is now believed to below 50%. The SQS website lists only eight
member farming companies.
Certainly,
it is this division within the industry that has led to the ongoing trade
actions in Brussels. The EUSPG, although representing a small and insignificant
section of the Scottish industry, has managed to persuade the British government
that it is they who really represent the interests of true Scottish producers.
The government failed to appreciate that whilst the EUSPG have a dominant voice
within the corridors of power, they actually have little influence within the
industry. It is only the absence of a unified voice from other producers which
has left the EUSPG unchallenged.
The
big question is whether this new organisation will manage to unite the Scottish
industry. Clearly, there are major challenges ahead, not least distinguishing
between the interests of the small independent farmers and the largest
multinational companies. There is a lot of common ground, but there are also
some major differences. The greatest challenge will be those issues which centre
on salmon prices.
The
press release announcing Mr Patten's appointment said he will be responsible for
representing the whole industry in political, regulatory and technical issues.
It is not apparent whether this includes those issues relating to trade. After
all it is such issues which have been responsible for creating major divisions
in the industry. We, at Callander McDowell, cannot see that the EUSPGs'
blinkered visionaries will be prepared to cede control to the new organisation.
After all, many of the SSPO's members will be under foreign ownership and
therefore will not be viewed as being truly Scottish. The EUSPG would surely
always perceive that they will be outvoted on any issue and therefore they must
remain in control of their own interests. Under dumping rules, even the smallest
minority of locally owned companies can continue to pursue such trade issues
irrespective of how the remainder of the industry are represented. The EUSPG can
only remain a threat to industry stability in Scotland, unless Mr Patten is
really persuasive.
Mr
Patten's appointment is only part of the solution. We have yet to hear what will
happen to the current marketing interests such as TQM and Label Rouge. Equally,
we will have to wait to see what sort of representative organisation emerges. We
have previously discussed that we believe a representative organisation named
the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation harks back to the past at a time when
the industry needs to look forward. We certainly feel a new name is needed. A
simple name like 'Scottish Salmon' may fulfil that need.
Won't
pay: Just prior to Christmas, Seafood Choices
Alliance in partnership with other environmental groups such as WWF and
Greenpeace commissioned a survey that showed that whilst many European consumers
were happy to buy seafood from sustainable sources, most were unwilling to pay
more for it. According to IntraFish, the survey showed that only 40% of
consumers in the UK, Germany and Spain say that they would pay more for
sustainable seafood but only by up to 10% extra.
The
results of this survey are not of any surprise. We, at Callander McDowell, have
previously discussed that there is always a section of the consuming public,
albeit a small one, who put their principles first when buying food and are not
swayed by price. By comparison, the majority of consumers might say that they
are willing to follow the trend, but when faced by higher prices, are more
influenced by the cost of the item. This does not just apply to sustainability,
but also to quality, origin etc.
This
is why salmon quality marks have largely failed to make an impact in the
marketplace. Responses to consumer surveys may show a high support for the need
for a quality mark or a reassurance of origin, but when actually faced with the
choice in the supermarket, give in to price.
Sustainability
is the buzz word of the moment, not just in wild catch fisheries but also in
aquaculture. Yet, producers and fishermen are responding to the demands of the
environmental organisations not those of the consumer. Consumers are only
interested in sustainability because they are being asked whether they are. In
reality, sustainability simply is not an issue.
Back
in November 2005, IntraFish reported that Tesco, Britain's largest retailer had
launched a new range of Marine Stewardship Council certified seafood on the fish
counter at 432 of its stores nationwide. Although this initiative was announced
nearly two months ago, it has yet to find its way into store. So far, none of
the fresh fish products on Tesco's fish counters have yet to be labelled with
the MSC logo, including products such as the Alaskan salmon fillet. The question
is why. Our guess would be that most of Tesco customers are not that interested
in buying sustainable seafood, that is unless they can buy it at the same price
as they normally pay. Even Tesco's chilled fish products, despite a recent major
revamp, do not display a sustainability logo except on Tesco's own-label smoked
Alaskan salmon. The real problem is that when consumers buy their food, they
expect issues such as sustainability and quality to be addressed between the
supplier and the retailer, so that they only have to decide whether to buy it or
not. They expect that the food they buy to be of the highest possible quality
and of sustainable providence as a matter of right, not something that they
should have to decide for themselves.
Without
organisations such as the Seafood Choices Alliance, the WWF and Greenpeace,
sustainability would not be a major issue. Tesco's slow response to the
introduction of the MSC label on their fish counters demonstrates that consumers
do not consider it to be of sufficient importance for the urgent need to
introduce sustainability labelling.