Callander McDowell
Callander McDowell
reLAKSation no 419
Chile’s loss, France’s gain: FishfarmingXpert reports that according to BIM Business Research & Intelligence, the shortage of Chilean salmon has had a profound effect on salmon exports from the UK with increased sales to the US market.
However, whilst exports to the US have increased by 32% making the US the main market for Scottish salmon, the total export volume to May 2009 has remained static at 17,000 tonnes. This means that the US boom has come at the expense of exports to the French market which is no longer the main export market for Scottish salmon.
The switch away from the French market is rather surprising, not only because Scottish Label Rouge salmon is the fish of choice in Paris, the gourmet capital of Europe according to the SSPO, but also because Scottish Quality Salmon is currently undertaking a targeted promotional campaign of Label Rouge Scottish salmon across the whole of France with funding of £215,000 from the European Fisheries Fund and Scottish Government. The task of increasing market share will be made increasingly difficult from an even lower level.
Meanwhile, as salmon volume transfers from France to the US, Norwegian exports to France continue to increase. According to Kyst.no, the volume of fresh salmon from Norway has grown by 3.8% from January to August 2009 to 15,547 tonnes (83% fillets and 15% whole fish) as compared to the same period last year.
The problem for Scottish Label Rouge producers is that if French consumers find that the Norwegian salmon offers as good eating for less cost, there will be little incentive to return to the more expensive Scottish salmon once supplies start to pick up.
Whilst the US market looks more attractive in the short term, it will inevitably become increasingly competitive once Chilean supplies start to recover. The danger for Scottish producers is that they may be then squeezed out of the US market and then find it difficult to get back into France.
Still sustainable?: This week Billingsgate Fish Market’s Seafood Training School held their annual celebration of sustainable seafood which culminated with the presentation of the Sustainable Seafood Award 2009. Seven speakers championed different fish and shellfish including oysters and haddock, and after hearing about and tasting each of the championed species, the meeting voted on the one which was considered worthy of the sustainable seafood award. Details of the meeting and the presentations can be found at: http://www.seafoodtraining.org/celebrating_sustainable_seafood_at_billingsgate_school.htm
In theory three of the species championed, Hastings Dover Sole, South West Mackerel and Alaskan pollock, had an advantage since all are certified as sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council. By comparison, the rainbow trout and halibut presented at the meeting were both farmed and therefore not considered for certification as sustainable by the MSC although the eventual winner of the award was in fact the trout.
The choice of winner was somewhat subjective since it is almost impossible to compare such different fish and then judge whether one is more sustainable than another. The choice of winner was made more difficult because Alaskan pollock had just been the subject of a very contentious article published by the Economist magazine.
The article was considered contentious by some parts of the seafood industry because it linked the Alaskan pollock fishery with that of the troubled Bluefin tuna. The Economist suggested that these were examples of how to pillage the oceans, although whilst one was deliberate, the other, Alaskan pollock was accidental.
The Economist reports that there are two ways to over-fish the sea. One is to ignore the scientific advice and plunder stocks regardless, whilst the other is to accept the advice and then discover it isn’t good enough. There are now accusations that this second type of over-fishing is exactly what is happening to stocks of Alaskan pollock. The pollock fishery is one of the largest and the most intensively managed fisheries in the world.
Last year, it was argued that the pollock population was low although the MSC said that it was within the natural range of variation for the species and that a recovery was expected this year. The Economist said that Greenpeace now argue that the fishery is far from recovery and is actually on the point of collapse. However when the Economist published its article, the data for this year had not been released. The full report isn’t due until November but according to the Anchorage Daily News, the latest survey has found that pollock numbers are lower than expected based on 2008 figures.
Reduced numbers of young fish are expected to increase pressure to reduce the quota further below the 815,000 tonnes set for 2009, the lowest ever level since 1977 and 46% down on the 2006 quota.
Doug DeMaster director of NOAA’s Alaska Fisheries Science Center has suggested that the decline in biomass is part of a cyclical fluctuation and is not the result of over-fishing whilst Jon Hocevar of Greenpeace told IntraFish that the pollock fishery is often cited as the model of fisheries management, yet the fish population has declined sharply in recent years due to unsustainable rates of fishing.
We, at Callander McDowell, wonder whether one reason why Alaskan pollock stocks may be under increased fishing pressure is their certification as a sustainable fishery. This has clearly increased demand from markets where pollock was never previously consumed. SeaFish recently highlighted that pollock now figures in the top ten of most popular fish in the UK. Peter Hajipieris of Bird’s Eye, who championed Alaskan pollock at the Billingsgate meeting, said that pollock had been brought into the UK market as a replacement for cod, which was then claimed to be over-fished. Alaskan pollock is now widely used in fish fingers and other coated fish products and this widespread use may well be contributing to its decline.
Peter Hajipieris was asked at the meeting why; if Alaskan pollock is certified as sustainable, do packs of so few pollock products, especially in the frozen sector, carry the MSC sustainable logo. His answer was that high demand had meant that supplies of certified pollock were not so readily available and they now had to source fish from stocks that had yet to be certified. This surely presents a dilemma since the main driver of Alaskan pollock consumption is its sustainable credentials and if the fish sold is not from a certified fishery then how can consumers be reassured that the pollock they are buying is actually sustainable?
The question now is whether the decline in Alaskan pollock stocks is the result of natural fluctuations in population or the fault of over-fishing? The answer is irrelevant. Instead the question should be directed as to how fisheries are judged to be sustainable. We have always believed that stocks can only be considered sustainable when the catch is equal to or less than recruitment and ideally, the catch should be set well below recruitment so the stock continues to remain healthy.
It has been argued that quotas are an indication that fisheries are well managed as they change with fluctuating populations, but quotas are also a feature of uncertified fisheries and have been used even in the most detested fishing regimes. Quotas are more a reactive method of management rather than proactive. Surely the most sustainable of fisheries are those that are the most proactively managed.
We have always felt that aquaculture is the best management tool available to wild catch fisheries since every fish that is produced by farming is one less fish that needs to be caught from the wild. By comparison, sustainable certification seems to put increased pressure on stocks as the supply chain responds to calls to deal only with sustainable fish.
Despite supposedly being the best managed fishery in the world, the participants in the Billingsgate meeting clearly didn’t feel that the Alaskan pollock fishery merited this year’s sustainable seafood award. Could this be an indication that the wider seafood industry may also have issues with the sustainable credentials of this fishery?
Like a phoenix: ‘Seafood Fortnight’ is back. At the end of last year, the SeaFish Board were told that the annual ‘Seafood Fortnight’ promotion (formerly Seafood Week) had not helped develop consumer awareness of the two-a-week message as had been hoped. The decision was therefore taken to adopt a different approach running all year rather than just the short two week campaign. This new approach was due to start last April.
We wonder whether news of the demise of ‘Seafood Fortnight’ reached all the supply chain for this week ‘Seafood Fortnight’ appeared in stores belonging to the Morrison’s supermarket chain. Last year, Morrison’s, in our view, made the most effort of any of the retailers to promote ‘Seafood Fortnight’. Instead of restricting the promotion to around the fish counter, every store displayed promotional material next to the entrance so that every customer could not fail to see that the promotion was underway. Perhaps, taking the message away from the fish counter increased customer awareness and as a result, the supermarket chain decided unilaterally to repeat the promotion again this year.
A visit to a Morrison’s store this week was just like stepping back in time, except the store had not made as much effort as last year to promote their campaign. A notice was hanging from the ceiling near the fish counter highlighting ‘Seafood Fortnight’ as part of their Best of British campaign. The fish counter also displayed ‘Seafood Fortnight’ material. The main similarity to last year’s promotion were the packs of chilled seafood on display that carried two-a-week stickers. Some stores also displayed a leaflet about fish but not specifically about the ‘Seafood Fortnight’ promotion.
Whilst any attempt to promote fish and seafood must be welcomed, the problem with this promotion, like most of the past Seafood Week/fortnight promotions, is that they are too focused around the fish counter. This means that the only people who see them are those who are already committed to buying fish and seafood. Those customers who never, or rarely eat fish, or who buy only frozen fish are unlikely to see the promotion or even understand it.
In our opinion, one of the reasons why the ‘Seafood Fortnight’ failed was that it only reached existing fish consumers. Many of these consumers know that eating fish is good for their health but those who don’t buy fish will not be exposed to the message. Morrison’s did a good job last year because they took the message away form the fish counter. This is exactly what is needed in the wider marketplace, not just in stores but out into the wider community. This will not be easy but if the two-a-week message is to reach a wider audience then it cannot be left in the vicinity of the fish counter.
It will be interesting to see whether this attempt to revive ‘Seafood Fortnight’ will be judged by Morrison’s to merit further repeats in future years. Will this be a case of the Phoenix rising just this once or whether it will rise again?