reLAKSation 308. Callander McDowell
Who won?: We, at Callander McDowell, did mention that we were reluctant to pre-empt the outcome of the WTO investigation in terms of who won. We are not really in the business of taking sides but we are of no doubt who should win, based simply on the total unwillingness of one side to answer any questions about the case.
The Norwegian claims that the WTO has favoured them has sparked outrage from both sides. Odd Steinsbo of NSL was scathing of his criticism of his government in their decision to announce its victory. By comparison, commentators from the European side have preferred to hide behind the veil of anonymity.
Seafoodintelligence.com reported that an un-named ‘spokesman’ for the independent Irish industry told the ‘Irish Examiner’ that even if the report favours Norway, the MIP would be staying in place for the foreseeable future.
Fishupdate.com spoke to a prominent Scottish farmer, who did not want to be named, who said the removal of the MIP would threaten the progress being made by all sectors of the industry.
A spokesperson for the EUSPG referred IntraFish to an article in ‘The Times’ which had reported that the WTO report actually favoured the European Commission.
Ever since the EUSPG submitted their complaint to Brussels, there has been a total reluctance to stand up in public and be accountable for their submission. They have repeatedly hidden behind an unnamed spokesman. Surely, if they are so convinced by their case, then they should be willing to stand up and speak out. However, this has never happened and this unwillingness to come out only goes to further undermine their integrity.
These un-named spokespeople have all inferred that the MIP has brought stability to the industry and everyone should support its continuance. We disagree. We have previously argued that the continued imposition of the MIP has brought nothing to the industry except distrust. It has not brought stability because it is only a safety net which comes into force when prices fall below a specified level. As prices have remained above this level, the MIP has not had any effect at all. The MIP is simply an excuse for poor marketing and it is raised demand from outside the EU that has brought this perceived stability.
If the independent sector wants to retain the MIP, then let’s hear why direct from the horses’ mouth instead of from some anonymous soul. We don’t understand this need for anonymity since the original EUSPG submission lists all the farms that supported the complaint. We can only assume that they remain hidden to avoid answering the difficult questions.
All for one, one for all: Geir Isaksen, Chief Executive of Cermaq, has warned the salmon industry not to overreact to the recent outbreak of ISA in Chile. He said that the ISA is a challenge not a crisis. Although he doesn’t mention it specifically, Mr Isaksen may well have been directing his comments towards industry analyst Klaus Hatlebrekke of DnB Nor, who told IntraFish that whilst it is still too early to be making predictions. In exactly the same breath, Mr Hatlebrekke has suggested that due to ISA, salmon could once again be seen as exclusive. Surely, if this is not an example of scaremongering, then we don’t know what is!
Mr Hatlebrekke implies that ISA will decimate the Chilean salmon industry making salmon once again a rare and exclusive food. Even in worse case scenarios, this is never going to happen. Chile is not the only producer of salmon and in addition, the US, which is the main market for Chilean salmon, has plenty of wild Pacific salmon to satisfy market demand. Regardless, Salmon of the Americas have announced that this outbreak was isolated to just four farms amounting to 220,000 fish, equivalent to 0.1% of Chile’s annual salmon production. Hardly, what could be called a crisis. This does not mean that the outbreak should be trivialised for even Mr Isaksen recognises that there is always room for improvement.
Norway has always seemed a little wary of the Chilean industry especially with its opportunities for low cost expansion. This is similar to the long term relationship between Scotland and Norway. An IntraFish editorial now suggests that the ISA outbreak is just the latest of a number of cracks that have dented the image of Chile as a super-profitable aquaculture producer. We are not so sure. A member of Callander McDowell’s team was invited to visit Chile last year and was extremely impressed by what he saw, not just in terms of scale but also of organisation and dedication. What might be seen as cracks in its reputation may be better ascribed to differences in culture between Norway and Chile, just as differences in the culture between Scotland and Norway have proved problematic in the past. The reality is that we are all part of the same salmon farming family, whether we are from Chile, Norway, Scotland, BC, Ireland, Tasmania or anywhere else. If one of us has a problem then we all have a problem since our problems ultimately affect us all.
Mr Hatlebrekke said that Chile’s ISA problem can be a sad and sorry affair for companies farming there adding that in a cynical world, the outbreak could be highly fortunate for companies elsewhere. At the same time, Mr Hatlebrekke has been strangely silent about the 65 Norwegian farms that have been hit by Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis (IPN) this year, estimated to have cost the Norwegian industry NOK 600 million so far and forecast to rise to over NOK 1 billion. FIS.com suggests that if the situation is not brought under control very soon, the Norwegian industry will soon be facing problems akin to those in Chile. We will wait to hear what Mr Hatlebrekke will say then.
ISA in Chile will undoubtedly be brought under control, as will IPN in Norway. Farming live animals whether at sea or on land always poses a challenge. In this case, the salmon industry will rise to these challenges just as it did with those it has previously faced.
Carping on: Some twenty or so years ago, one enterprising company tried to encourage agricultural farmers to diversify into aquaculture through the integration of extensive warm-water pond culture into their existing agricultural farms. The advantage for farmers was that they could utilise waste land and other wastes such as manure, feed sweepings etc into the production of fish flesh which they could then sell through an agricultural co-operative to a unsatisfied and protected market. These farmers, being canny people, asked the inevitable question. ‘If this is such a good economic proposition, then why doesn’t the government agency, the Agricultural Advisory Service (ADAS), that provides advice to farmers, promote this form of diversification?’ This was not an unreasonable question. Yet when ADAS were asked their response was that fish are outside their responsibility and those seeking advice about fish should speak to the Ministry’s fisheries department. MAFF Fisheries response was that monoculture of warmwater fish production was never going to be economic in the UK. When it was suggested that the fish were not to be farmed in monoculture but as part of a diversified agricultural production, they said farming was not their responsibility and speak to ADAS instead. Despite sharing the same Ministry, this inflexibility was never broken and the enterprise never really took off.
We, at Callander McDowell, were reminded of this inflexibility on reading that Parliamentary spokesman for angling, Martin Slater MP, had complained that stocks of carp were being plundered by eastern Europeans, particularly Poles who were catching the fish and, would you believe it – actually taking them home to eat!!
This news comes at the same time that the Institute of Aquaculture at the University of Stirling have publicised the results of a project funded by the Rural Economy and Land Use Programme (RELU) aimed at integrating warmwater aquaculture into mainstream farming. Unfortunately, rather than focus on the most appropriate type of aquaculture for British farmers, the research team have opted to capitalise on the research interests of the Institute and have recommended the development of tilapia farming.
Whilst carp and tilapia can be both grown in warmwater extensive pond culture, there is a major difference. Carp are able to withstand culture in the British climate whilst tilapia cannot. Fishupdate.com report that tilapia require a temperature of around 27oC to grow which means that British farmers would need to invest in a costly indoor heated recirculation system to grow tilapia. By comparison, farmers thinking about growing carp would just need to did a hole in the ground, which once filled does not require a constant supply of fresh running water.
Tilapia grown in heated recirculation would require constant management whereas carp ponds could be left for weeks without supervision, although clearly if the farmer hoped to make money from the venture, the more care the better.
Although tilapia are a tropical fish, they are beginning to feature on British fish counters. There have been previous attempts to grow the fish in heated water in the UK, but none have yet been successful despite trying to capitalise on the freshness of local produce. Most tilapia are imported frozen and can be bought quite cheaply. Mainstream supermarkets tend to be more expensive and have focused on fillets.
British farmers would have to compete against this growing trade and as most would be small ventures, they would have to find local markets such as pub restaurants etc if they wanted to compete. This could involve a lot of work for not a great return.
By comparison, the market for carp remains untapped. It remains so for two reasons. Firstly, the real demand for carp would be from the local Chinese population who would relish the opportunity to buy fresh carp. These fresh carp would have the ultimate guarantee of freshness, they would still be live. The Fish Disease Act prevents the import of live carp so this market cannot be satisfied from continental producers who are excluded. The second obstacle is that there needs to be a coordinated cooperative sales organisation to act between the small producers and the market. Organisations such as RELU that might act as the catalyst to make this happen are clearly too busy looking at other options.
Sadly this is yet another example of a missed opportunity to develop alternative forms of aquaculture in the UK. Meanwhile, there does seem to be a growing opportunity for those involved in the restocking of angling waters, replacing the many fish that have found their way from the ponds and lakes into the pan.