reLAKSation 539
Wild Wild West:
Speaking at the recent Aqkva conference in Stord, Terje Aasen, the environment
manager for the county of Hordaland, provoked a strong audience reaction in
relation to his comments about the salmon farming industry.
Øyvind
Haram, information chief at FHL, told Kyst.no that Mr Aasen had suggested that
the salmon farming industry is made up of a bunch of cowboys that are only
concerned about profit. His presentation ‘Challenges in aquaculture in relation
to nature and the environment’ created widespread resentment throughout the
audience that led to a barrage of comments being directed to Mr Aasen during the
subsequent debate. His comment that the industry was a bunch of cowboys was a
step too far for much of the audience and led to a heated exchange of views.
After the conference, Mr Aasen said that he used
the reference to cowboys to fire up the discussion but that he stands by his
view that salmon farming is far from sustainable especially in relation to sea
lice and escapes. He said that the term sustainability has become something of a
hackneyed phrase and that the industry will struggle to prove their sustainable
credentials. However at the same time, most of the audience didn’t think that Mr
Asaen provided proof of his allegations either.
We, at Callander McDowell, did not attend the
Aqkva conference and therefore did not hear what Mr Aasen had to say. However,
the General Manager of Linga Salmon AS, Eriend Haugarvoll told Kyst.no that Mr
Aasen did not seem able to defend himself. This seems to be an increasing
problem as the debate about salmon farming develops. Much of the evidence now
seems to be based on rumour and gossip rather than scientific fact and even some
of the science is questionable given those who have financially supported the
studies.
This week, the New York Times reported that as if
the Loch Ness Monster wasn’t scary enough, the ‘Lox’ Ness Monsters could be
wreaking havoc in Scottish waters. This refers to the loss of 300,000 salmon
when cages broke free during a storm in Shetland. The New York Times referred to
a blog from the Blue Planet Society, a conservation organisation, which it seems
to have used as a source for much of its information. This blog’s headline is
‘Ecological disaster as 300,000 salmon are lost’.
Yet, whilst the Blue Planet Society claims to be
an NGO conservation organisation, they appear to have no address or no members
just a blog and a facebook page. This suggests the work of a solitary soul who
claims to be working to stop over-fishing and to protect marine life.
This marine expert asserts that the loss of
300,000 salmon is an ecological disaster. If the accidental release of live fish
into the sea is an ecological disaster we can only wonder how this expert would
describe the millions of tonnes of plastic waste that are currently circulating
in the Pacific and Atlantic currents, or the threat of leaking oil from the
Italian cruise ship that beached in a marine nature reserve or the indeed, the
Japanese Tsunami.
The escape of farmed salmon has been boosted out
of all proportion in terms of the environmental impact. These salmon are just
that salmon. They are not some Frankenstein fish or carrying some live
threatening disease. They are simply salmon just like any other salmon that can
be caught from the sea. They do not represent an ecological threat nor will harm
the environment. They are just fish.
Yet, the environmental lobby has worked to hype
farmed salmon to the point that even the respected New York Times repeats the
unsubstantiated claims simply because if they are repeated often enough they
must be true.
It seems that Mr Aasen has probably fallen into the same trap too
repeating the same old allegations about salmon farming without providing any
supporting evidence. In Norway, the salmon farming industry has come
increasingly under attack from all directions to the point that the industry
felt that it was necessary to counter the claims with a publicity campaign
entitled ‘Salmon is important for Norway’ (http://www.laks.no/).
Now former footballer Vegad Heggem claims that
this campaign is a white wash of what is happening in the salmon industry and
that it gives the consumers the wrong impression of salmon farming whilst it
continues to struggle with the issues of escapes and sea lice. Mr Heggem said
that the reputation of salmon farming has been shredded by the repeated escapes
and the growing incidence of sea lice. He argues that the PR campaign
embellishes the business and brushes over the main issues.
However, Mr Heggem is not
exactly impartial since he also owns part of a river and runs a wild salmon
fishing business.
Just as in the UK, Norwegian
anglers blame salmon farming for changes to their fishing. This is despite the
fact that it is acknowledged that wild salmon populations are suffering from
problems out at sea with fewer fish than ever returning to their breeding
grounds.
What Mr Heggem fails to
appreciate is that the only reason why the salmon industry believes it is
necessary to go through the washer is because people like him as well as the
environmental movements continue to throw the dirt. Sadly, it is the case that
even the least persistent dirt does need to be washed off.
More Dirt:
Our principal, Dr Martin
Jaffa, has just found himself being drawn into this trend of throwing the dirt.
The latest issue of Fly Fishing and Fly Tying includes a personal attack by
anti-salmon farming campaigner Bruce Sandison (see our website). Bruce seems to
take exception to anyone commenting on recreational salmon fishing other than
himself.
He also suggests that Dr Jaffa
has been selective in the use of data to support his case omitting to mention
many of the facts that Bruce considers to be important.
What Bruce fails to appreciate is that whilst Fly
Fishing and Fly Tying appear happy for him to use their pages to repeatedly
attack the salmon farming industry, the editor is not so generous in allocating
space to respond, nor many other editors. Letters to the Editor usually have to
be brief and writers are advised that they may still be edited. It can be very
difficult to get a view across to the readership that has not been subjected to
some form of cutting.
Bruce writes that how knowing how many rods were
responsible for how many fish being caught will help fish stocks is beyond him.
Of course the problem with the angling lobby is that much of the scientific
rationale about fish numbers seems beyond them too. What Dr Jaffa actually said
was that perhaps one reason why the west coast salmon catch may be down is that
the repeated rants by Bruce and his colleagues against salmon farming may have
deterred many anglers from visiting the west coast at all and had opted to fish
the East coast rivers instead. Could it be that fewer anglers might equate to
lower catches. It’s not exactly rocket science.
Open door:
According to Seafood source .com, the US has finally decided to remove the
long-standing anti-dumping duty on Norwegian salmon. A five year sunset review
has concluded that allowing the free import of Norwegian salmon will not harm
the US salmon farming industry. Actually, it never would have. The US market has
such a potential that the local industry could never produce sufficient salmon
to meet market demand. All the dumping duty achieved was to close the door to
Norway and open another one to Chile.
Unfortunately, back in the 1990’s the trend set
by the Scottish industry was to submit dumping complaints anytime prices
weakened. The tiny US industry opted to follow suit and whilst the Scottish
industry failed to exclude Norwegian salmon from the European market, the US
authorities were more amenable and imposed duties on imported salmon from
Norway.
At the time, the perceived market for salmon was
for whole fish and the duties only applied to this presentation. It would have
been possible to bring in Norwegian salmon fillet instead but the Norwegian
industry failed to recognise the opportunities and instead it was the Chileans
who developed this market.
The Norwegian Fisheries Minister Lisbeth
Berg-Hansen said that removal of the tariffs was a point of principle and that
is all it is. It is extremely unlikely that there will be a sudden demand for
whole Norwegian salmon in the US market. It makes no sense to transport whole
fish across the Atlantic when it is much more cost efficient to send fillets.
In addition, salmon prices are expected to remain
low in the American market this year as the industry goes into over-supply.
FishfarmingXpert report that several Chilean analysts believe that European
demand will not increase this year due to the problems in the Eurozone. They
also think that a number of farming companies tried to exploit the price boom
and put many more fish to sea than they had originally planned. As these fish
begin to reach harvest size, there is a likelihood that of over-supply in all
the main markets.
Yet, as we at Callander McDowell repeatedly
suggest, it is not over-supply that is the issue but rather under-marketing.
This is something that we continue to expect from an industry focused on
production and price instead of on market development.