Losing the initiative
The recent departure of four Norwegian and Scottish salmon farmers from the Global Salmon Initiative raises questions about its relevance
One of the latest comments on Twitter from the Global Salmon Initiative (GSI) posed the uestion Did you know more than 100 million people depend on aquaculture for their livelihoods
I had to blink twice when I read this figure, for while I am a passionate advocate of aquaculture, I cannot believe the industry has grown so much to encompass the livelihoods of so many people.
The estimate of 100 million dependent on aquaculture comes from a scientific paper which looked at how the influence of aquaculture is calculated. The paper has since been cited a number of times, each of which has increased the credence of the actual figure.
In industries like salmon farming, such figures usually refer to the number of jobs created and it could be implied that this is to what the 100 million refers, but it is not. The figure is those dependent on aquaculture for their livelihood and includes not just the farmers and their workers, but also their families, those involved in processing, distribution and even retailing. It is therefore not surprising the figure is so large.
The UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) record that the number of people actually working in aquaculture is a more realistic 19 million, but it is important to point out that well over 90 per cent of these workers are farming fish in Asia, many of whom are scratching a living from subsistence farming of warm water pond fish such as carp.
This is a far cry from the modern salmon industry that GSI represents. The number of jobs that salmon farming creates is a tiny fraction of those employed in aquaculture worldwide.
Salmon farming is a very different proposition to much of the wider aquaculture industry. It does not seem that those who speak for the GSI understand the difference.
The GSI is not as forthcoming and transparent about itself as it is with the data it wishes to share. Although the chief executives of two of the member companies are co-chairmen, the organisation does not appear to have any management, or at least be willing to share any information about its management. I have now discovered it has a convenor , a Canadian named Avrim Lazar. He appears to specialise in sustainability issues. Although he has worked in a variety of sectors he has devoted much of his time to the forestry industry.
The appointment of a sustainability specialist simply reflects the route down which GSI is being guided by the environmental sector. However, with this focus on sustainability I suspect that the GSI has a limited shelf life. This is because salmon farming is inherently sustainable and hence doesn't need to be moulded to the preconceptions of others, especially those that may be completely unrealistic.
It seems that I am not alone in this view. Four companies have le GSI Scottish Sea Farms, Scottish Salmon Company and their Norwegian based parent companies Leroy Seafood Group and SalMar], with industry sources citing unrealistic targets. For example, GSI said all farms should be accredited by the ASC by 2020 but this may not be feasible for many existing sites.
The reality is that millions upon millions of salmon meals are already eaten by willing consumers every year and it is only recently that any, and that is the smallest drop, has been labelled as ASC certified. Consumers don't need salmon to be labelled as sustainable for them to buy it. This is because sustainability is simply not an issue for most consumers. The environmental sector is trying to force sustainability on the public whether they want it or not.
GSI will struggle simply because it is trying to drive an issue that is low on the consumer agenda. Consumers have more pressing concerns than worrying about whether the salmon they eat is sustainable or not. They leave such matters for others in the food supply chain to decide.
Of course, GSI is not just about forcing the introduction of ASC certification. It is also supposed to be a forum for the exchange of ideas to help solve some of the wider issues affecting the industry.
The trouble is that concerns such as sea lice are already being tackled across the whole industry. Solutions to these concerns will be sought regardless of whether they are discussed within GSI or not.
Perhaps rather than create another forum for discussion, GSI might be better directing their attention towards those efforts that are already underway, as might be those from the environmental sector who wish to help minimise the already low level of impact of salmon farming on the environment. If GSI removed the sustainability blinkers, it might better see the wood for the trees.
Dr Martin Jaffa is the founder of marketing company Callander McDowell and has been involed in the aquaculture industry for more than 40 years. A version of this article first appeared in his weekly blog, reLAKSation at www.callandermcdowell.co.uk
GSI is trying to drive an issue that is low on the consumer agenda”