reLAKSation 489
Image still key: Jason Clay, Senior Vice President of Markets Transformation in the WWF has written a contribution to the recently published Nutreco booklet which looks at how we can feed 9 billion people by 2050. Dr Clay warns that over-consumption is likely to exceed the capacity of the planet. We’ll return to Dr Clay’s comments later.
Nutreco’s booklet, ‘How can aquaculture contribute to feeding 9 billion people in 2050 in a sustainable way’ has been produced as a follow up to the 2010 AquaVision conference. It contains contributions from a variety of those involved in the aquaculture value chain from politicians to retailers and not forgetting Dr Clay. Following the launch of the booklet, Knut Nesse of Skretting told IntraFish that although it had been eight years since the first AquaVision conference, the aquaculture industry still has room to improve its image among the general public. He said that there had been significant improvements but that the aquaculture industry must become somewhat better at telling our story, especially when it comes to issues of sustainability and reputation.
Image seems to be a major issue for the aquaculture industry at present with the Scottish industry currently investing in a study to identify how much any negative imagery affects consumer behaviour. Delegates at the recent Scotain Pride conference in Halifax Nova Scotia heard the results of a similar study in Canada. Certainly, our experience is that most consumers do not have a problem buying farmed fish as it is just an extension of the farmed meats they already buy. The real question however, is not about consumer response but rather as to why there is such negative imagery and from where it originates.
As we discussed in the last issue of reLAKSation, there appears to be a concentrated effort to undermine the salmon farming industry originating from a number of US based foundations, such as that run by the Packard and Moore families. Vivian Krause has identified a complex web of funding to a huge variety of organisations that are linked directly or indirectly to achieve a single aim of discrediting or counteracting the salmon farming industry. The WWF, whom Dr Clay represents, is part of this web. According to Vivian Krause, between 2000 and 2008, the WWF received $85 million for a variety of projects from these two foundations alone. Of course, not all this money was used to sway consumers away from farmed salmon. During this time, the WWF were given just over $5 million for aquaculture related projects. Whilst other groups have been engaged to undertake more direct demarketing work, the WWF have recognised that aquaculture is here to stay and that it is better to try to be seen to work with the industry towards a more sustainable future. Their main thrust has been the aquaculture dialogues and the launch of the ASC.
However, the underlying message remains unchanged as can be seen by recent comments from Dawn Purchase of the Marine Conservation Society, who have in turn received funding from the WWF (which illustrates how far the funding from these foundations spreads). Ms Purchase told Fishupdate.com that Scottish salmon farmers cannot continue to use fish oil if they want to get certified by the Aquaculture Stewardship Council as limits on the amount of wild fish used in the diet is a key component of the salmon standard. Through the development of these standards, the WWF is not saying that farmers cannot use fishmeal but if they do they will not be accepted as being sustainable (at least in the WWF’s opinion).
It is possible to see how the WWF tries to undermine the reputation of the aquaculture industry even when appearing to be working with the industry. In his commentary for the Nutreco booklet, Dr Clay writes that aquaculture can have unacceptable impacts. This, of course, is only the opinion of the environmental lobby including the WWF but not necessarily of the wider public. The WWF, like the MCS, argue that fishmeal should be withdrawn from aquaculture feeds arguing that the forage fish should only be used for human consumption. The public however are not so convinced and would rather eat the resulting farmed fish than that used for the feed. It is interesting that the WWF do not make more of an issue about the use of fishmeal in pet food. It is estimated that over 2.5 million tonnes of fish goes to make cat food and its significance is seen by the fact that a study in Australia found that cats each ate about 13.7kg of fish per year whilst their owners (the average Australian, whether a cat owner or not) consumed just 11kg.
In his veiled criticism of aquaculture, Dr Clay promotes the need to control the consumption of resources as dictated by the various US foundations. He has much incentive to do so with a reported salary of $253,406 in 2008. That is a huge reward for an employee of an NGO. It is even more that the pay of the Prime Minister of Britain and he runs a whole country. Dr Clay just looks at how to transform markets, presumably so that they do what he wants rather than what the markets want. With such a significant reward for his efforts, Dr Clay might be expected to be at the top of his game when it comes to his expertise but not surprisingly, Dr Clay appears just like many within the environmental lobby who seem to make it up as they go along.
Nutreco caused a little confusion in the media when they expressed their aspiration for ‘Feeding the Future’ because they actually produced two booklets, not just one about producing food for 9 billion.
One of the booklets focuses on aquaculture (linked to the Skretting website) whilst the other considers the wider agriculture sector (linked to the Nutreco website). What is interesting is that whilst most contributors appear in just one of the booklets, Dr Clay has contributed to both. His commentary is in parts similar in both and in others very different. It is especially interesting to compare what he has had to say to the two different sets of readers:
More From Less
The first line is from the Agriculture booklet, the second from the aquaculture one.
We only have one planet.
We only have one planet.
The math is simple.
The math is simple.
Population times consumption has to have a relationship to this planet.
Population times consumption must relate to one planet.
Right now the math does not add up.
We are currently living at about 1.3 planets.
Currently, we are living at about 1.5 planets.
Our global footprint exceeds the world’s capacity to regenerate by about 30%.
Our global footprint exceeds the world’s capacity to regenerate by about 50%.
If we continue like today, we’ll need the equivalent of two planets by the mid 2030’s.
If we continue as we are today, we’ll need the equivalent of two earths by the 2030’s but there are no extra planets.
If we all consume like a US citizen, we would need four extra planets.
We don’t have any extra planets.
but there are no extra planets.
We only have one.
We need more from less.
We need more from less and we need to restore this planet.
We must care for this one planet as if our lives depended on it… because they do!
We must care for it as if our lives depended on it….because they do!
Dr Clay says that the math is simple. If it’s so simple then how has Dr Clay got it so spectacularly wrong? He seems uncertain whether the human population is living at 1.3 or 1.5 planets; not something that is insignificant. Equally, he is uncertain whether our global footprint exceeds the earth capacity to regenerate by 30 or 50%; again not an insignificant amount. Interesting, Dr Clay has made our plight appear worse in relation to aquaculture than it is when speaking to the agriculture sector. This could be that this is because he is more critical of aquaculture than agriculture and that he believes that he can manipulate the aquaculture industry more easily than the agriculture sector even though agriculture is far more damaging in the environmentalist eyes than aquaculture can ever be. After all as Dr Clay says the 20 billion animals currently reared for food are responsible for 18% of greenhouse gases linked to global warming. He also highlights that 70% of our freshwater usage is attributed to agriculture. However, Dr Clay would fight a losing battle if he were to argue that food production should be cut back at a time when the forecasted increase in population will mean that we need to produce more food than ever; that is unless Dr Clay can manage to adjust the population figures too!
Talking it up: We, at Callander McDowell, have never been totally convinced by all the talk that salmon prices will remain strong for some time to come. Various analysts have consistently presented a positive view of price development for farmed salmon due to a continued short supply of fish from Chile. It was therefore of interest to learn from Seafoodnews.com that Rabobank have issued a report ‘The Salmon Industry Shifts Gear’ in which they suggest that Chile has now made dramatic gains in the US market at the expense of Norway. In May 2010, Chile had 29% share of the fillet market compared with 48% from Norway. By September, the Chilean share had increased to 32% whilst Norway’s share remained static. The biggest gain had appeared by December in which Chile had increased its share to 51% of the market whilst Norwegian fillets had fallen to 36%.
Even though Brasil is being touted as the new market for Chilean salmon, the US market is hard to ignore. It is inevitable that Chile should look to regain the market it lost as a result of ISA and this return and its speed is of little surprise. What is unclear is what will happen to prices. Rabobank suggest that prices must start to decline. The unknown is when and by how much? We may not have to wait long to find out.
A real puzzle: FishNewsEU.com report that Guy Linley-Adams, the lawyer appointed to advise the Salmon & Trout Association on how to fight the spread of salmon farming in Scotland has submitted a formal complaint to the European Commission on behalf of the owners of the Ullapool River in Wester Ross claiming that the UK Government has failed to designate an appropriate number of west coast Scottish rivers as Special Areas for Conservation for the protection of wild Atlantic salmon under the EC Habitats Directive. Mr Adams says that the Ullapool River is unusual in that the owners are 100% behind the designation as a Special Area for Conservation and are unable to understand why the Scottish Government is so opposed to such protection being afforded to the river.
Perhaps one reason why the Scottish Government is unable to establish the Ullapool River as Special Area for Conservation is that the owners allow fishermen access to the river to fish for salmon. How can a river be declared a Special Area for Conservation when fish are being fished there for sport?
There are three beats on the River Ullapool, of which the middle beat is generally regarded as the best. Loch Achall was once noted for its sea trout but, in common with many west coast rivers, stocks of sea trout have declined dramatically in recent years. The Ullapool River can be expected to produce around 70 salmon in a season. Salmon and sea trout fishing is available on the south bank, on the lower beat from Moss Bridge down to the sea. Permits at £6 per day from Lochbroom Hardware, Ullapool.’
Seventy salmon seems to be a rather good haul for such a small river. Perhaps, if these fish were left alone then the river would not need to be designated as a Special Area for Conservation.
Before the angling fraternity respond claiming that most of the fish are caught and then released, we would like to mention that one of our correspondents from the other side of the Atlantic had found that salmon that had been caught and released were found to suffer from reduced fertility. Could it be that the main conservation measure adopted by sports anglers has actually contributed to any reported decline in wild salmon stocks? Clearly this is something that merits further investigation by the angling lobby rather than wasting their time with official complaints in Brussels. However, as with most legal actions, the only real winners are the legal teams.