reLAKSation 371. Callander McDowell
Lord Mandy: One story that does not seem to have registered with the international seafood community is the recall of Peter Mandelson to the British Government. Mr Mandelson has left his post of European Trade Commissioner after just four years to take up the position of Business Secretary. Mr Mandelson leaves Europe with a golden goodbye package of more than £1 million. He has since been replaced by Baroness Ashton of Upholland.
In order to take up a position in the British cabinet, Peter Mandelson had to be given a seat in the British Parliament. The simplest way to achieve this was to give Mr Mandelson a peerage like his replacement in Brussels. Peter Mandelson is now Lord Mandelson of Foy and Hartlepool.
Lord Mandelson’s departure from Brussels has coincided with questions over his relationship with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. Lord Mandelson had met Mr Deripaska, an aluminium magnate, prior to the European Commission’s decision to lift tariffs on aluminium which have benefited Mr Deripaska to the tune of many millions. Although Lord Mandelson has not declared the extent of his friendship with Mr Deripaska, the European Commission have declared that there has been no impropriety on his part and that he had not unduly influenced negotiations which have been endorsed by all 27 commissioners and the Members States. However, a suspicion of a conflict of interest remains, especially as it appears that his friendship began long before the date that Lord Mandelson first declared.
The questions have continued since his departure because Lord Mandelson has subsequently been a guest on Mr Deripaska’s £80 million super yacht this summer. Lord Mandelson has said that he was never asked for any favours nor did he offer any. He also said that his job as European Commissioner and now as Business Secretary is to make contact with senior economic and business leaders in the fast growing economies like Russia. It does therefore seem odd that he has never ever discussed aluminium during his time with Mr Deripaska.
Of course, it is not surprising that DG Trade has a selective memory. Throughout the whole period of the salmon dumping case, Lord Mandelson and his office refused to account for major discrepancies in the data supporting the complaint and now Lord Mandelson works for the very same Government department that submitted the safeguard application and supported the dumping complaint!!
Mr Russell, the Scottish Minister for Aquaculture has indicated that he will pursue a reinstatement of the MIP if he believes conditions merit such a change. However, it remains unclear whether the change in administration will be so ready to support the continuance of the salmon case. This may be especially so as more data, such as the comparative cost study, comes to light. We will consider this further in the next issue of reLAKSation.
Cheap with chips?: According to IntraFish, Sea Fish Industry Authority (SeaFish) Chief Executive John Rutherford has suggested that the UK’s favourite takeaway meal, fish and chips was ‘ready for but unexploited by’ cheaper species. Speaking at the recent Added Value Seafood conference in London, Mr Rutherford said that cod and haddock have dominated the fish and chip sector but pangasius, already widely used, could grow much more.
He said that whilst the UK has had a traditional preference for cod and chips, some fish and chip shops at the lower end of the market have been selling pangasius for over 18 months. Cod and chips typically sell for about £5 but he is aware of others where the price is as low as £3.75 and they are the ones selling pangasius.
The reality is that many fish and chip shops offer a very limited menu and often list their offering as ‘Fish’ rather than ‘Cod’ or Haddock’. In such instances, it is impossible to tell what fish they are using. It could be pangasius or it could be something else.
Mr Rutherford told the audience that ‘The customer won’t ask, the customer won’t know and the customer won’t care.’ This isn’t exactly true for many customers do care. It is just that their knowledge of the fish market is extremely limited and they are simply assuming that what they buy is cod. If the chippie was honest and listed the fish as pangasius or basa, the probability is that many wouldn’t buy it. They are too trusting of the word ‘fish’.
Mr Rutherford says he is very optimistic about the future of the market. However, we find his comments rather puzzling. As passionate believers in aquaculture, we are naturally pleased to see the increasing use of pangasius, especially in such a traditional sector. Yet, we wonder why Mr Rutherford sings the praises of this species. Surely, as head of an agency that supports the UK fishing industry, Mr Rutherford would rather see fish and chip shops serve alternative lower cost marine species caught from local waters. Fish like coley and pollock are widely advocated as alternative sustainable species, yet these are rarely seen on offer in fish and chip shops. It must make more sense to support local fishermen than transport pangasius flesh all the way from Vietnam?
News of Mr Rutherford’s presentation to the Added Value Seafood conference has coincided with naming of those who have reached the latest stage of the national ‘Fish and Chip Shop of the Year’ competition, which is run by his organisation. This year we have taken the opportunity to visit a couple of local chippies that have reached different stages of the competition to see whether, at least in our opinion, they merit their position in the contest.
Frydays of Radcliffe did not make it into this latest round of the competition, although over the years it seems to have always made some headway through the regional finals. Radcliffe is not a prosperous part of Greater Manchester and Frydays presents a slightly faded appearance in common with the rest of the town. Cod and chips to takeaway cost £3.25 and thus in Mr Rutherfords’ opinion, the fish must be pangasius, rather than cod. However, having bought a portion, we would like to challenge Mr Rutherford that £3.25 cannot buy cod and chips.
Whilst we would like to see a chippie from our region win this competition, we found the fish and chips to be a typical offering rather than the outstanding meal we would have expected, but then what can you expect for £3.25 these days.
One of the fish and chip shops that has reached the latest round of the competition is Fosters of Alderley Edge. This is at the opposite end of the spectrum to Frydays since Alderley Edge is in Cheshire’s Golden Triangle, home to many Premier League footballers and others who can afford to live in the most expensive area outside London. Fosters has a different air about it than Frydays and it charges higher prices with cod and chips costing over the five pound mark. Yet, despite the rich trappings (including a lemon wedge with the takeaway), the fish and chips were nothing particularly special and certainly not worth travelling for. High class customers in Alderley Edge certainly don’t get to buy high class fish and chips!
We would be very surprised if Fosters should win this competition. Our vote would go to Anstruther Fish Bar in Fife which has consistently served excellent fish and chips as its continued popularity ably demonstrates.
Up then down: Contrary to expectation, Scottish production actually fell last year when the anticipation was that it would rise. Scotland produced 129,930 tonnes in 2007, down 1.4% from 131,847 tonnes in 2006.
The Scottish Executive’s production survey for 2006 had forecasted a rise in 2007 to 142,556 tonnes based on farmers’ estimates. However, as the year unfolded, there was a belief that the figure would be more likely to be around the 136,000 tonne mark. In fact, when the Scottish Executive published their renewed Strategic Framework three months ago, they quoted a figure of around 135,000 tonnes. We can only wonder how they got this figure so wrong.
The production survey is produced by the government agency, the Fisheries Research Service. Surely, by July, they must have had some idea that the figure would be lower than the then rumours suggested. Surely, the Scottish Executive would have conferred with FRS before publishing such an important document as the Strategic Framework. It does little to instil confidence that the Framework is actually a true reflection of the needs of the salmon industry today.
This latest survey of Scottish production says that the drop in salmon output shows that the industry is continuing to consolidate and stabilise at a manageable production level. We are not sure how true this is. Production is still forecast to grow in 2008 to 136,775 tonnes so it isn’t really showing signs of stabilisation. The Scottish industry is however continuing to consolidate with the number of active farming companies falling from 32 to just 28.
The survey puts the lower production this year down to a decrease in the mean weight of the fish harvested from 4.7 kg to 4.6 kg. We think that this is an over-simplification. We suspect that the real reason fo the fall in production is that some of the larger companies have moved increasing volumes of production to Freedom Food, which means lower stocking densities and lower outputs. Whether this results in a better price or whether it just provides better access to some markets is unclear.
According to fishupdate.com, Michael Gibson, the former Chairman of the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation, said last year (Jan 2007) that the EU market is expected to grow by about 7% a year until 2010 with output increasing from its then level of 129,000 tonnes to 200,000 tonnes, a level which the SSPO considers sustainable. Based on this aspiration, the Scottish industry still has some way to go.
The publication of production data is not as newsworthy or relevant as it once used to be. During the period of the more recent dumping complaints, its release used to be eagerly anticipated to see how far the true figures diverged from those claimed by the European Salmon Producers Group. It was always a surprise that the dumping complaints submitted by the EUSPG were repeatedly made using their own production estimates rather than the official government data. Since the Fisheries Research Service reports have been based on fact, we have always found them to be the most reliable source of Scottish production data. Seemingly, the EUSPG preferred to use their own data, primarily because these annual reports didn’t support their case!
What is even more surprising was that the Scottish Executive’s ‘application for safeguards’ contained production data provided by the EUSPG rather than that supplied by their own agency. Could it be that even they did not consider the data to be sufficiently accurate? Time has shown that it is the FRS data, not that from the EUSPG that provides a truthful picture of salmon production in Scotland, even if the forecasts of future production may not be exact.