reLAKSation 53.
Crystal
Balls!!: The keynote address
given by Patrick Dixon of Global Change at the recent AquaVision conference
certainly gave food for thought. Yet, whether fish farmers found it of any
relevance to their industry remains to be seen.
Liberally
laced with buzzwords and elaborate images (www.globalchange.com/ppt/nutreco2/nutreco.htm)
Dr Dixon’s presentation focused on the future, something to which the fish
farming industry has been relatively unresponsive.
To
shed light on what the industry has missed, this self styled futurologist looked
at the trends, which might affect the industry in years ahead. However, without
a crystal ball to shed light on the future, Dr Dixon, like the rest of us, can
only take a stab in the dark.
Controversially,
Dr Dixon said that “don’t believe in market research” because this only
tells you what consumers want now, not, more importantly, what they will want in
the future. Yet, all the trends, which he cited as likely to influence the
industry in the future, such as animal welfare, genetically modified organisms
and health scares are all actually things which influence the industry now.
Although
his examples are nothing new, the underlying message is spot on. The fish
farming industry has been all too ready to look backwards rather than to the
future. For example, some sections of the industry continue to be fixated with
production-led strategies, which have led to continuing problems throughout the last
decade. Meanwhile, those strategies which are market-led, have been largely
ignored, even though they represent the real future of the industry. This is
illustrated by the fact that yet again the issue of dumping is raising its ugly
head, although from a slightly different direction.
Dr
Dixon has a catch phase, which sums up his philosophy “Take hold of the future
or the future will take hold of you”. Although, his long presentation covered
a variety of different issues, this is one message, which the fish farming
industry could well heed.
Group
Strategy: Allan Wilson, the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural
Development, has announced details of the working group whose task it will be to
produce Scotland’s first aquaculture strategy. Strangely, only six out of the
twenty-three members represent the aquaculture industry, the remainder represent
the environment, the banks, the local authorities and other similar
organisations.
According
to Intrafish, Mr Wilson has said that he is confident that everyone will be able
to look beyond the confines of their own interests to create a framework
beneficial to the country as a whole, but we, at Callander McDowell, are not
convinced.
There
is simply too much focus away from the industry itself and too many other
interests to be confident that a sensible strategy will emerge. Such a strategy
must encourage the continued expansion of fish farming and most especially of
farmed salmon.
Sometimes
it requires someone without any direct connection to the industry to really
bring sense to the overall requirement for such a strategy. Speaking at
AquaVision, Dr Patrick Dixon of Global Change has predicted that the commercial
fisheries sector will decline completed within 50 years. If this should occur,
then there will be a clear need for aquaculture to provide all supplies of fish
and seafood. This cannot happen if we become concerned about every single
environmental issue. The reality is that the industry must not be dictated to,
but rather work in partnership to achieve the necessary growth.
However,
the reality is that many current near shore sites are not ideal for the expected
expansion, and thus there must be renewed emphasis on the development of open
sea farming. This is unlikely to happen if left to business alone and therefore
Mr Wilson should ensure that his department acts as the catalyst to push growth
offshore.
Made
in Norway: During our regular checks of the retail sector, we recently
came upon some packs of salmon fillets, which were labelled as Scottish, but the
wording on the back label stated ‘Farmed in Norway’.
This
is clearly a packaging error, although not an isolated incident. It is however,
an indication that many stores are now acquiescing to the new labelling
legislation, especially on packs of fish. Only one store group has yet to make
any real effort to implement new labels on new prepacks, whilst all have work to
do on the fresh fish counter, but this must come shortly.
The
interesting aspect of the new labelling is that for the first time, it is
possible to identify the country of origin, especially on salmon, when
previously we could only make an educated guess.
In
the UK, labels have at one time or another identified Scotland, Norway, Ireland
and Chile as the country of origin on fresh salmon, sometimes on the same
product at the same time, mixed together. The key question is whether this new
knowledge of the country of origin will have any effect on consumer purchases.
This question was asked by Brian Simpson of SQS who said that given a choice
between Scottish and imported salmon, it would be interesting to see which they
choose. According to Intrafish, he’d challenge the idea that the home-produced
product is not being preferred.
Yet,
more than one store group has been offering their customers both Scottish and
Norwegian salmon at the same time, all clearly marked. One even offered Irish
salmon as well, giving customers a three way choice. In every case, it would
seem that customers are not that discretionary and just picked up the nearest
pack, irrespective of its origin.
There
has been a suggestion that unlike their English counterparts, customers in
Scotland are more concerned about buying locally produced fish, yet Chilean and
Norwegian fish have been openly on sale in Scottish stores and have been just as
equally chosen by consumers.
This
just shows that perhaps country or origin is not an issue. As long as the salmon
industry puts the salmon in the form consumers they want, at a price they want to
pay, then producers will find a ready market.
The fact that one major store group continues to sell ‘Scottish salmon produced in Norway’ just shows that not one customer has complained. Perhaps, this is more of an indication that more informative labelling is not that interesting to the customer!