Callander McDowell Information

We support this view because we do not believe that dumping has taken place at all. We have always argued that the dumping actions have nothing to do with dumping at all but rather about the perceived market image of Scottish salmon. The fact that the independent farmers do not achieve the price premiums that they believe that they have a right to expect is blamed on imports of Norwegian fish which they believe are of inferior quality and therefore should cost less than their own. Yet, when imported salmon is sold at a lower price, the independent farmers claim that the Norwegians are undercutting their prices. It seems that when a price differential does occur, these independent farmers prefer to call it undercutting rather than a premium. It seems to us, that they cannot have it both ways. Having taken fifteen years to bring the dumping case to the European Court, we hope that the Norwegians do not blow the opportunity. It seems that much of the case revolves round the question of the domestic industry in Scotland and the level of representation. Certainly, the first issue raised by the Norwegian Government in their case to the WTO questions whether the application for investigation was ‘made by or on behalf' of the relevant ‘domestic industry'. We believe that this is a non-starter and we understand from reports in IntraFish that Jan Magne Juuhl Langseth of the law firm Schjødt has taken a similar approach in his case on behalf of Fjord Seafood. The WTO trade rules are clear about the definition of the domestic industry Part I: Article 4 defines the domestic industry: " 4.1 For the purposes of this Agreement, the term "domestic industry" shall be interpreted as referring to the domestic producers as a whole of the like products or to those of them whose collective output of the products constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of those products, except that when producers are related to the exporters or importers or are themselves importers of the allegedly dumped product, the term ‘domestic industry' may be interpreted as referring to the rest of the producers.". This means that even if just one farm is locally owned, it could be described as being the domestic industry. This is irrespective of whether there are hundreds of other farms under foreign ownership but farming locally. In this case, the EUSPG can claim to represent the domestic industry even though they account for less than 20% of European production, which is less than the 25% needed if all the farms in Scotland, included those in foreign ownership, were classified as being the domestic industry. This doesn't mean that the Norwegians shouldn't argue that the claimed level of representation was inaccurate because it was, and it is on this basis that the regulation should be annulled. We will have to wait and see whether Norway argues its case successfully or not. The jury is still out. Sustained: There has been a great deal written in recent weeks about the question of supplies of sustainable fish. This follows the actions of Greenpeace, which has held rooftop protests to persuade supermarket chiefs to delist fish species from supermarket shelves that they consider to be threatened. In response, stores such as Wal Mart have said that they will in future aim to source all its wild caught fish from fisheries certified by the Marine Stewardship Council. We, at Callander McDowell wonder whether this is an unrealistic target especially as after ten years, the MSC certify only two fisheries that are capable of supplying sufficient volumes of fish to world markets. Clearly, there is a long way to go before supermarket fish counters can stock a good choice of sustainably sourced fish. This ignores the possibility that increased demand for sustainably sourced fish will place increased fishing pressure on certified stocks. Seafood.com make the point that the supermarkets are lurching from crisis to crisis because instead of standing up and defending their fish sourcing policies, they have given into this pressure, which does not come from their customers but from NGO's such as Greenpeace. The problem is that Greenpeace is not always right and in some cases has not thoroughly checked the facts behind its claims. This is apparent from the fiasco over skate, which they claim are threatened yet suppliers maintain that only one stock is under threat whilst other remain viable. They seem to have a point since Waitrose, the most sustainably responsible supermarket is still happy to stock skate on its fish counters. The problem is where will all this end? So far the focus has been on wild caught fish but Greenpeace's agenda extends to farm raised fish too. In their report ‘ A recipe for disaster' Greenpeace ask whether aquaculture is the answer. In response they state: Aquaculture has been promoted by the industry and Governments as being the solution to sustainable fisheries, and has great appeal to retailers because it supplies a steady cheaper supply of seafood of standard size and quality. Unfortunately with the exception of some herbivorous shellfish and herbivorous freshwater fish farms based on closed recirculating pond systems, most aquaculture exacerbates the problems of over-fishing and breaks the principles of sustainable fisheries. Clearly, it won't be too long before Greenpeace are taking to the rooftops to remove farm-raised fish from the supermarket fish counter! Even those who claim sustainable production may not be exempt!