reLAKSation 328. Callander McDowell
Almost farcical!: Previous rumours that the European Commission were not planning to appeal the WTO ruling have now been proved right. The deadline for appeal has passed by with the announcement in a press release from EU Trade Commissioner that he has accepted the adoption of the WTO panel report and hopes that this will mark the end of the dispute. However, we, at Callander McDowell can only think that Mr Mandelson must be living in 'cloud cuckoo land' if he thinks that this is the end of the matter. According to IntraFish, Norwegian officials believe that the WTO ruling is an unambiguous order for the European Commission to drop the MIP. Helge Seland, a lawyer advising the Norwegian Foreign Affairs Ministry, said that there is nothing in the ruling that gives them any other option even though the EU claim that WTO panel did not accept Norway's repeated calls for the MIP to be repealed.
Whilst the press seems to think that the EU's statement is an indication that they intend to retain the MIP, albeit in an amended form, we suspect that this latest posturing is nothing but an attempt to save face by Mr Mandelson. The EU statement clearly says that 'pending the implementation process, the current MIP will remain in place.' This could mean that the MIP will remain ‘in place’ at the current level or that the MIP will currently remain ‘in place’. Before Mr Mandelson decides which of these it is, he has to implement the relevant technical parts of the panel report. The outcome of this process could well mean that EU come to a revised conclusion that the MIP was not merited leaving the Commission with no choice but to remove the measure. However, as Mr Mandelson appears to be trying to save face, we suspect that before the implementation process comes to an end, the Commission will announce that the review initiated last year has concluded that the MIP is no longer required. It is therefore likely that the MIP will be removed long before the adoption of WTO recommendations are completed. By that time, no-one will really care if the EU have won or lost the WTO case as the market returns to normality without the spectre of the MIP hanging over it.
It therefore looks like we will have to wait a little more time before this dispute is finally resolved. Unfortunately, it has already gone on for far too long, when it should have never been allowed to progress so far. The original complaint should have been thrown out from the outset and should have never have reached the investigation stage. The original submission failed to meet the requirements set by the WTO for a complaint to be validated but the Commission failed to check this because they had already concluded that Norway must be guilty. They arrived at this conclusion following the safeguard application which had been run in parallel. Rather than admit their mistake, the European Commission have compounded the error with yet further errors throughout the investigation. The EU managed to get away with these because Norway failed to challenge them, preferring instead to concentrate on issues which had much less relevance. Having unsuccessfully challenged the EU in previous cases, the Norwegians should have realised that once again they were pursuing a losing defence and as a result, the dispute has yet to reach its final conclusion.
It is almost farcical how a few independent producers can wreak such havoc on such an important farming industry. Valuable time and resources have been directed at fighting a dispute that has little relevance to today’s markets when this time and resources could have been better invested to ensure that the modern industry is able to meet the demands of these changing markets.
Something stinks: Seafood News has asked why any retailer or seafood producer would want to associate themselves with MSC after what they call an unbelievably stupid media campaign called ‘Stinky Fish’ was unveiled by the WWF and the MSC. They say that it calls into question the MSC’s judgment since whoever put the campaign together knew absolutely nothing about the seafood industry or selling fish. We are not so sure that the MSC can be blamed for this campaign as it appears to have originated from the WWF, but as the MSC sent out a mailing announcing the launch, they are definitely associated with the campaign.
According to IntraFish, the campaign is based round a video commercial which can be seen at: http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/marine/our_solutions/sustainable_fishing/stinky_fish/index.cfm . The video introduces ‘Stinky’ a puppet incarnation of an illegally caught fish.
Stinky is seen to ambush several consumers, restaurant workers and fishmongers to ask them if the fish they are selling or eating is MSC certified. Stinky urges them to eat only fish which are certified by the MSC ascribing the name ‘Stinky’ to any other fish. In one scene, ‘Stinky’ is seen looking at fish on a counter display shouting ‘Stinky’ at all those without the MSC logo. The one example shown with the MSC logo which he approves is Pacific salmon, clearly identifiable by its distinct colouration. Yet, of all MSC certified fish, Pacific salmon may also claim to have an eminently bad smell which the MSC prefers to ignore.
Last year, the industry publication ‘Northern Aquaculture’ featured an article about the decline of the traditional salmon fisheries in British Columbia with smaller and older native salmon returning to the streams and rivers found along the Pacific coast. In some cases, fish have failed to return at all. The environmentalists have continuously lambasted the salmon farming industry for this decline but it seems that such criticism may have been totally misguided. The farms have provided an easy target when the real cause of the decline appears to be the race to push consumers towards sustainably certified fish stocks.
The Marine Stewardship Council has consistently refused to extend MSC certification to farmed fish. They argue that their role is to safeguard stocks of commercially caught fish but their association with the WWF may have also put a stop to farmed fish certification because of the WWF’s opposition to aquaculture. However, there does appear to be some cross-over between farming and wild catch fisheries when it comes to certified Pacific salmon. Most of the MSC certified fisheries are not true fisheries at all but rather a version of farming known as ranching in which young fish are bred in hatcheries and released to sea as smolts. It is estimated that Alaska currently releases 1.5 billion smolts into the Pacific Ocean very year. The implications of this huge release of mainly Pink and Chum salmon has not been realized, especially by the MSC, but these fish compete with truly wild fish for feed and the more sensitive Chinook and Sockeye species appear to be losing out. Research in Alaska has already shown that the overlap between these species has had a negative effect on local Sockeye populations and as many of these Alaskan fish also feed off the coast of BC, a similar effect is likely to occur there too.
Consumers are being told to buy MSC certified Pacific salmon because it comes from a sustainable fishery. Yet, it seems that this fishery is only sustainable because so many farmed raised smolts are being released to sea where they actively feed to the detriment of other species. Consumers are also being told that fish such as cod that are line caught are more sustainable because they do not affect populations of other species. We can not see any difference between the two. These fish are only judged to be sustainable according to the MSC vision however, they cannot keep their blinkers in place for ever and the time has come to see that their view of sustainability is just as damaging to other stocks are other destructive fishing methods. It seems that it is not just ‘Stinky’ that smells.
Salmon Ranching Examined. Bill Vernon Northern Aquaculture Sept/Oct 2007 pp14-15
Christmas saviour: IntraFish reported that the Daily Mail had hailed Scottish salmon as the unlikely saviour of Christmas, staving off an expected seasonal slowdown. Sales of salmon products have soared as shoppers turned away from traditional festive fare. Industry groups told the paper that the rise was in line with a general resurgence in the popularity of salmon.
Whilst we welcome the continued growth of consumer demand for salmon, the Daily Mail article does not tell the whole story. Firstly, not all salmon sold in the UK over Christmas was of Scottish origin. There was also an increased availability of Norwegian fish, all clearly labeled as such. As we have discussed previously, the Scottish industry is keen to increase exports of their salmon and whilst this is desirable, it does also leave a shortfall in demand in the UK. This has to be filled by imports, mostly from Norway. Most of the main retailers offered Norwegian salmon for sale over the Christmas period. By comparison, with one or two minor exceptions, all the smoked salmon sold in the UK was of Scottish origin. The Daily Mail said that Asda, which sources and smokes all its salmon in Scotland, boosted sales of smoked salmon by 45% on last year. Sainbsury’s also said salmon sales had rocketed.
We have already illustrated why sales of salmon increased over Christmas in the first issue of reLAKSation this year. Every supermarket discounted fresh whole salmon by up to half. Some presentations of fillets were also heavily discounted. The same incentives were also applied to smoked salmon. For example, Tesco announced at the end of November that it intended to freeze the price of smoked salmon whilst Asda had indicated that the price of its smoked salmon would be cheaper than the previous year.
Some examples of deals on smoked salmon over Christmas include:
Asda
400g smoked salmon £13.67/kg save £1.23/kg
Extra Special smoked salmon 100g £2.96 2 for £5
Booths
Smoked salmon 200g £6.85 2 for £10
Budgens
Smoked salmon 400g £5.99 half price
Coop
Smoked salmon 200g £2.99 half price
Marks & Spencer
Orkney smoked salmon all packs Buy 2nd half price
Morrisons
Smoked salmon 200g save £1 £2.49 2 for £5
Smoked salmon 600g £7.99 special price
Sainsburys
TTD smoked salmon various smokes 185g £2.99 half price
Somerfield
Smoked salmon 400g £4.50 save £7.50
Tesco
Smoked salmon 400g £5.98 half price
Waitrose
Smoked salmon 400g £7.99 save £4
With such discounts, is it not surprising that salmon sales have soared?