reLAKSation 278. Callander McDowell
Identity crisis: The Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation recently met with the Highland Council’s land and environment select committee to make a presentation on the new organisational structure, how the organisation will represent the Scottish salmon farming industry and the major challenges to be faced in the future. Fishpupdate.com reported that the committee expressed a number of concerns including the reduction in employment across the industry and the identity of Scottish salmon.
The SSPO explained that Scotland was the most expensive area to produce salmon as compared to Norway and Chile and in order to become more competitive it was inevitable that costs had to be cut to become more efficient. As the industry strove for improved efficiency, increasing mechanisation meant fewer jobs would be required. Of course, increased efficiency will impact on jobs but whether Scotland is the most expensive place to produce salmon remains to be seen. The industry is still waiting for publication of the cost study commissioned by the Scottish Executive as part of the Strategic Framework. It has been suggested that publication has been postponed because the study actually showed there to be little difference between production costs in Scotland and Norway. This would be little different to the previous cost study conducted by the Scottish Agricultural College over a decade ago. The question of costs and the economics of salmon farming in Scotland will undoubtedly remain unanswered for some time and is sure to be discussed again and again.
Council vice-convener Michael Foxley voiced concern that the increasing domination of Norwegian companies could mean that Scottish salmon could lose its identity in the pursuit of mass commodity markets. With the EUSPG spokespeople seemingly keeping a low profile, Dr Foxley appears to have taken on the role of the voice of the independent Scottish industry. The reality is that any possible loss of identity has little to do with ownership of the farms. Mr Patten told Mr Foxley that the Scottish whisky industry has managed to retain its identity despite widespread ownership outwith Scotland. In addition, the Scottish Executive’s position on the issue seems to be that it was the Scottish identity that actually encouraged Norwegian firms to invest in Scotland.
The whole question of identity is a subject we hope to discuss in a future issue of reLAKSation as an article is due to be published in Fish Farmer magazine on the subject. In the meantime, we would continue to argue that the Scottish identity has already been significantly diluted as consumers are unable to ascertain any real difference between Scottish and imported salmon, certainly not enough to warrant paying more for it in the shops. This is despite the fact that some supermarkets seem to believe that their customers prefer to buy Scottish salmon and therefore make a point of only buying Scottish. However, it is very easy to demonstrate that the Scottish identity is largely irrelevant to most customers. As part of our regular surveys of the retail sector we recently bought two salmon recipe dishes from one UK store which sources its salmon only from Scotland. One dish is salmon in watercress sauce; the other salmon in cream sauce. Both dishes are offered in identical packaging. One pack describes the product as ‘Scottish salmon fillets in cream sauce’, the other ‘Salmon fillets with watercress sauce’. On closer reading, this second pack makes it clear in more than one place that the salmon is Scottish, but does the absence of the word Scottish in the main description make any difference?
Shoppers looking at these products are primarily interested that these products are salmon fillets in sauce. If they want to buy the watercress version, does the absence of the word Scottish from the description deter the purchase? Of course not! The presence or absence of the word Scottish makes no difference. Consumers are more interested in the meal choice not the identity of the salmon. Any concerns about the origin are likely to be dismissed preferring to trust the supermarket to ensure that the fish are of the highest possible quality regardless.
Finally, comparison with the Scotch whisky industry as Mr Patten does is actually misleading. Most salmon is still sold as raw flesh either from the fish counter or in simple chilled prepacks, usually as own-label. Most Scotch whisky is branded and sold in distinctive packaging which makes it much easier to maintain a specific identity. If whisky was sold from the pump, the equivalent of raw salmon flesh, then issues about maintaining identity would be much more difficult. This is an issue to which we will return.
Generic campaign: Prior to Christmas, IntraFish reported that four Mediterranean states agreed to explore a trans-national generic marketing campaign for sea bass and sea bream. The meeting of representatives from the fisheries ministries of Greece, France, Italy and Spain was organised by the Federation of European Aquaculture Producers. Courtney Hough, General Secretary of FEAP said that meeting was the first hurdle of getting an agreement to work together. He added that EU member states have never attempted to coordinate a generic marketing campaign for any kind of seafood.
This is not entirely true. The EU salmon generic marketing campaign was an example of such a coordinated campaign although it included one state that was not a member of the EU; Norway, and the funding came from import duties rather than the European Fisheries Fund. Whilst there were some differences, the campaign would be effectively the same.
Our view is that generic campaigns are not as effective as promotional campaigns that have a specific commercial target. Any outcome can be further diluted by the combination of a number of countries working together whose aims and objectives are all different. Certainly the EU salmon campaign failed to make any significant impression on the market mainly because the message was weak. This was because the aspirations of the Scottish, Irish and Norwegian industries were all very different. These differences are still manifested in the continued presence of the MIP in the salmon marketplace.
However, it is not just fish campaigns that suffer this problem. Currently, British TV is showing two anti-smoking campaigns.
One is financed by the UK’s National Health Service and the other by an EU initiative. The campaigns are very different. The British version of the EU campaign is fairly bland despite its important message. The advert does nothing to make the audience sit up and pay attention. In fact, it is not until the end of the advert that it is even apparent that it carries an anti smoking message. By comparison, the NHS campaign is hard hitting from the outset and gets its message across from the start. This is because the NHS campaign knows its target market and has tailored the campaign accordingly. The EU campaign fails to do this.
The danger is that any marketing campaign which is developed by committee runs the risk of being diluted and thus losing any impact. FEAP hope agreement to pursue this project will be reached by October so it is unlikely that consumers will see the results for some time to come.
(EU antismoking campaign - www.help-eu.com.)
Plan B: Marks and Spencer has announced that it will only sell fish certified by the Marine Stewardship Council or another independently certified source. According to IntraFish this is part of a 100 point eco plan. The aims are to make the company carbon neutral, stop sending any waste to landfill, extend sustainable sourcing, set new standards in ethical trading and help both customers and employees live a healthier lifestyle. Stuart Rose, the Chief Executive said this was called plan A because there is no plan B.
Yet however well intentioned, it would seem that plan A is already flawed, certainly in terms of their plans for fish.
The actual M&S statement states that ‘Our commitments across our food ranges for the next five years include: ensuring all our fresh and processed fish is Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certified or equivalent building on our position as Greenpeace's No. 1 responsible fish retailer. This also includes refusing to sell fish blacklisted by the Marine Conservation Society’
The problem for M&S is that much of the fish they currently sell cannot be certified by the MSC or equivalent because it is farmed and the MSC have made it clear that they have no intention of certifying farmed fish. This would exclude salmon, sea bass, halibut and prawns.
Salmon and warm water prawns dominate the shelves of the fish section and both are highlighted by the Marine Conservation Society as species which should be avoided. The MCS recommend ‘Avoid eating wild caught Atlantic salmon from depleted stocks. Choose MSC certified wild caught Pacific salmon from Alaska or farmed Atlantic salmon which has been certified as organic or salmon certified by the RSPCA Freedom Foods scheme as meeting high welfare standards.’ Although M&S sell some organic and Alaskan salmon, the majority is traditionally farmed. This means that M&S salmon is already blacklisted by the MCS even though it is grown under strict guidelines.
The same applies to prawns since the MCS also recommends ‘Avoid eating warm water prawns trawled from wild stocks. Only buy organically farmed prawns. Requirements for organic farms include mangrove replanting, limited stocking densities and strict health and feeding guidelines. Look for the Organic label on packaging.’
Marks & Spencer’s plan A will not be fully implemented until 2012 so they still have some time to sort out some of the detail. However, with more and more farmed produce coming to market, it seems that many retailers will encounter the same problem that the MSC is not the only answer to sustainable sourcing.