reLAKSation 335. Callander McDowell
Porkies: The Daily Telegraph has reported that about 500 pig farmers descended on Whitehall to hand in a petition about the crisis threatening their industry. They say that they are losing about £26 on every pig sold because pig feed has gone up from around £130 to £225/ton in the past year. They claim that whilst grain costs have doubled, farmers have not benefited from the higher retail prices charged by the supermarkets. (Although not the issue discussed here, we, at Callander McDowell, would suggest that the supermarkets have been slow to pass on any price increases because retail pork prices have so far largely remained unchanged.)
At the same time, IntraFish reported that salmon industry analysts have suggested that producers will have to implement strategies to offset high feed costs. Aslak Berge of First Securities was responding to poor results from Peru based fishmeal producer Copeinca who indicated that prices for fishmeal and fish oil must rise. It is only necessary to look at the higher grain prices incurred by the pig industry to recognise the impact they will make on the price of all feed proteins. The price of salmon feed is not immune from rising global prices and this will have a significant knock on effect on the cost of production. Whether consumers are prepared or able to pay higher retail costs is unclear. Certainly, British supermarkets have so far been reluctant to increase the price of pork.
The possibility that the salmon industry may incur increased production costs is a timely reminder that the independent study of comparative costs of salmon production commissioned under the Strategic Framework is still ongoing some four years after it was supposed to have been completed. This study is the only one of the Strategic Framework objectives that is behind target, so much so that it now must be largely irrelevant.
According to the Scottish Executive website, the first part of the study was finally submitted over a year ago but its findings have never been published. It has been suggested that this was because the report showed that claims by the Scottish salmon industry that they incurred higher costs that their counterparts in Norway were not true and that Scottish farmers actually had a cost advantage. We would imagine that the publication of such data would not be considered prudent at a time when the European Commission’s DG Trade had imposed trade measures because Scottish farmers were allegedly being disadvantaged by their counterparts in Norway.
Of course the real issue is not about the effects of direct costs on the cost of production but rather the extra costs incurred by the Scottish industry due to the wide ranging regulations imposed on them. The pig industry argues the same point in an advertisement they placed in the press.
The second part of the cost of production study is supposed to investigate the regulations affecting different salmon producing nations but this should have been done at the outset not five years down the line.
Aquaculture Minister Michael Russell has already put out a call requesting views on the next stage of the Strategic Framework. This may now seem a little premature given that the current framework is still in progress and it has not been adequately evaluated.
Whilst looking at the current state of the cost of production study in the 3rd update, we noticed that the next objection was the development of an Export Action Plan. This involved a study of the French market which was completed in March 2004 and its recommendations were then distributed to active exporters. We don’t know what this study showed, or which recommendations were passed onto exporters but whether they can be judged to be successful may be gauged against the latest statistics from Globefish which show that salmon exports from Scotland to France for the period January – November 2007 were 5% on volume down over the same period in 2006 and 17% down in value. Higher prices caused by higher production costs may well push down exports even more in the coming months.
Salmon farmers may prove to need much more help than a new strategic framework!
Selective thinking: According to the Scotsman, Scottish Minister, Richard Lochhead, used his visit to Oslo for the North Atlantic Seafood Conference to announce that he hoped to soon free Scotland from the European Common Fisheries Policy. He is to establish an expert panel to promote better management of Scottish fisheries for the benefit of the industry, communities and the environment. Scotland has already negotiated a deal which allows them to decide how days at sea are shared out.
Whilst seeking to sever ties with the EU on the Common Fishery Policy, Mr Lochhead does not appear so keen to distance Scotland from the EU’s trade policies, especially that which brought about the imposition of a Minimum Import Price on imports of salmon from Norway. IntraFish reported that Norwegian Fisheries Minister Helga Pedersen hoped to talk about the trade measures with Mr Lochhead when they met in Oslo. There are no reports of the outcome of this meeting. It is however unlikely that there will be any positive news for the Norwegian industry since Mr Lochhead’s department have actively supported the dumping allegations from the outset and do not appear to be willing to change their stance even though Norway is now a major investor in the Scottish industry and responsible for many jobs and livelihoods.
The meeting between Richard Lochhead and Helga Pedersen came at the same time that IntraFish reported that Norway is expected to wait for the outcome of the EU’s own review of the salmon antidumping measures before deciding on what action they take next to force the removal of the MIP. According to IntraFish, the results of this review could be made public within the next two weeks. If the EU decide to leave the MIP in place, then Norway could decide to take the matter to a WTO arbitration panel although the EU have up to 15 months to implement the WTO’s ruling.
The problem for Norway is that they have played all their cards and have nothing left to bring about an early resolution to this ongoing dispute. Norway has always had a strong case against the dumping charges but has never fought the dispute with the right cards. Instead, they have always incorrectly dealt their cards and as a result, have failed to stand up to the challenge of fighting this and past dumping cases. It is only necessary to look at the unilateral action taken by Norway in the run up to the 1996 dumping case. They destroyed 4 million smolts and implemented feed quotas. Norway then argued that this action showed that it was taking a responsible approach to salmon farming. However, far from demonstrating their responsibility to salmon farming, it actually made them appear guilty. If Norway was not actually dumping salmon, then why take this unilateral action? In the same case, Norway accepted the EU’s salmon agreement, but if Norway was innocent of dumping, why sign up to this agreement with its various control measures? Even the WTO case, which Norway claimed it won, has turned into a hollow victory with Norway unable to force the EU to remove the MIP. Norway will now have to wait for the desired outcome at the EU’s convenience.
This dispute could have been resolved at the outset, long before the EU undertook their investigation. Unfortunately, Norway wasn’t ready for the fight.
The £12 fish supper!: The commentator ‘Donsider’ writing in Fishupdate suggests that £12 for a portion of cod from an eco-friendly fish and chip shop is simply a form of daylight robbery. He is of course referring to Michelen starred chef Tom Aitken’s new environmentally sustainable fish and chip shop in central London. Tom Aitkens has received a great deal of publicity about his latest venture with appearances at the Barcelona Seafood Summit and write up’s in many magazines. Tom Aitkens has even won a place in the Observer’s Food Monthly top 40 eco-foodies. The question is does the reality live up to the hype? We, at Callander McDowell, are not so sure.
So what has been said about Tom Aitken’s new restaurant? According to the Observers Food Monthly, Tom Aitkens is a now true militant on the subject of fish stocks and sustainability. He has vowed to serve only fish that has come from sustainable sources. Fish will be wild and not farmed because he believes that feeding fish to fish is morally wrong. He has spent the last year researching about fish and the more he has learnt, the more outraged he has become. He is determined that the fish he serves is both ethical and sustainable.
The fish he serves will be mostly line caught because it is the nets of vast trawlers that have put stocks in peril. Most of his fish is sourced from small family boats in Newlyn, Plymouth, Hastings, Lowestoft and Peterhead owned by fishermen with pride in what they do and have expertise and morals. It is also sourced from places where fishing has been approved by the Marine Stewardship Council. He told Seafood International that it’s about getting a better deal for small fishermen and promoting eco-friendly practices as well as educating people.
He has made a film about the sustainable fishing industry and this will be played in the restaurant. He has also produced an inch thick manual for staff recording information about suppliers and the fish. He said that if the customer wants to know more then their questions will be answered. He wants to persuade customers to eat species other than haddock and cod and thinks that they will be converted on taste alone.
He has also extended the ethos of the shop to include the potatoes, which are organic, the furniture, which is recycled and he has scrapped menus to save paper.
Finally it has been reported that a portion of cod will cost £12 at ‘Tom’s Place’, chips not included with Pollock £11.50 and Scampi £20; prices that ‘Donsider’ finds hard to believe.
So what’s the reality? Before we review ‘Tom’s Place’, it is worth looking at the prices. The Observer actually got the pricing wrong in their article. To sit down and eat cod and chips in ‘Tom’s Place’ will cost £12.50. This compares with £9.95 at ‘Toft’s’ fish and chip restaurant in North London, £11.75 at the famous ‘Seashell’ just out of central London, £14.50 at Mitch Tonk’s ‘Fishworks’ chain and £16.75 for haddock and chips at the up market Sheeky’s restaurant. Where ‘Tom’s Place’ is expensive is that take-away meals are only £1 cheaper whereas ‘Tofts’ charge £6.80 (cf £9.95 for sit in) and the ‘Seashell’ £7.05 (cf £11.75).
‘Tom’s Place’ is a small shop situated a couple of minutes of the fashionable King’s Road in London’s Chelsea. Prices here are more expensive than in other parts of London, so £12.50 for cod and chips is not really overpriced.
A visit to London allowed us the opportunity to take a guest for a late lunch at ‘Tom’s Place’. It is a small establishment and unlike most ‘chippies’ in that the deep fat fryer was located at the back of the shop facing away from customers. Downstairs there are about four tables, which were all occupied. We were advised that if we waited 10 minutes, a table would be free.
Looking round Tom’s Place, it quickly becomes apparent that it is all rather understated, certainly with regard to its environmental and sustainable credentials. There is a menu board which actually provides little information other than the dish and the price. On the counter by the till, there were a stack of books including Tom’s recipe book but also the Marine Conservation Society’s Good Fish Guide which were all for sale and a pile of A4 printed leaflets detailing the take away menu. (He might have done away with menus to save paper but he used plenty to provide these photocopied sheets).
After our wait, we were shown upstairs to a totally empty dining room. (We were later joined by three other tables). The upstairs is decorated with posters of people who we guess are part of the fish supply chain but other their name, no information is supplied. Perhaps it is included in the film that was playing on the TV but as there was no sound, the pictures made little sense.
The menu on the ‘Tom’s Place’ website differs slightly from the take out menu and that on the board. The one on the website (www.tomsplace.org.uk) leads with the statement that’ All our fish are delivered daily from the West Country, mainly from Newlyn. They are fresh from the daily catch and are therefore subject to availability’. It doesn’t actually say this in the restaurant so Tom Aitkens is not actually misleading customers by offering MSC certified cod. On the original menu, the cod is listed as coming from well managed and regulated sources, but on the menu board it is MSC certified. We asked the waitress where the cod was caught and she started to tell us about the MSC. When we asked again where the fish came from, she had to go and ask. So much for the one inch thick staff manual! She returned to tell us that it came from the Pacific. This is just a little further than the West Country and clearly isn’t fresh.
If ‘Toms Place’ wants to be perceived as a true pioneer in the provision and use of sustainable seafood, the first thing should be to provide clear information about the fish and where and how it was caught. As it stands, ‘Toms Place’ offers little different in the way its food is described than any other fish and chip shop. The fact that cod is labelled as MSC certified implies that the other fish is not, yet there is no attempt to substantiate why the other fish are sustainable at all.
When interviewed, Tom Aitkens said he was keen to persuade customers to try alternatives to cod and haddock. Why then put cod on the menu at all even if it is MSC certified. After all, it may be judged to be sustainable but is it really environmentally friendly to ship the fish half way round the world?
The website menu states that all the fish is fried in beef dripping even though Tom Aitkens had previously said that customers would have a choice between rapeseed oil and beef dripping. We were not offered any choice. We ordered the Pollock and the Megrim Sole and they came hot and steaming with accompanying chips. The meal was OK but not outstanding. We have certainly had better. (The Anstruther Fish Bar springs to mind).
The website, but not the shop menu, provides one other detail on sourcing and that relates to the breaded scampi. The menu states that this comes from the ‘Amity’ in Peterhead, the fishing boat that found fame in the BBC TV series ‘Trawlermen’. The title of the series clearly implies that the Amity is actually a trawler. Tom Aitkens has previously riled against trawlers for their destructive practices and yet it seems that again his principles have been sacrificed to meet customer expectations. Whilst the Amity primarily fishes for langoustines, and not fish like other trawlers, they do have an inevitable by-catch of species such as cod and haddock as Jimmy Buchan writes on his blog published on the Seafish website. He has recorded catches of several dozen boxes of fish alongside his catch of prawns.
Our view is that ‘Toms Place’ has a long way to go before it can be considered to be a truly sustainable chippy. We suspect that if it proves to be a success, it will because of Tom Aitkens’ name and not because of its eco-credentials. The problem is that its eco-credentials are clearly flawed. Besides the problems we have highlighted, Mr Aitkens has dismissed using farmed fish even though they offer the best route to sustainability in our oceans. Mr Aitkens should listen to some of his colleagues in the fish restaurant business such as Mitch Tonks of Fishworks. Mr Tonks has just released a DVD of recipes in which he states that’ I don’t have a problem with farmed fish. I think they are great. If we are going to start preserving local stocks then we really do need to start eating farmed fish’.
