Against a background of declining fish stocks, it is very hard to understand how any part of the aquaculture industry can be accused of dumping? Yet dumping complaints have become an increasingly common feature of aquaculture production. One such dispute is between independent European salmon producers and the Norwegian salmon industry and, despite the intervention of the World Trade Organisation, this dispute has still not been resolved. The European Commission, on behalf of the European producers, continues to maintain its right to impose trade measures against the Norwegian salmon industry. These measures take the form of a minimum import price (MIP).

Independent Scottish and Irish producers have claimed that the Norwegians have been over-producing salmon and dumping excess fish into the European market. They argue that these fish have undercut the price of Scottish and Irish salmon and, as a result, the very livelihood of these farmers has been threatened. Yet, at the same time, these independent producers maintain that their own salmon is a high quality product for which consumers are willing to pay a premium price. However, if these producers are receiving a premium for their fish, then imported Norwegian salmon must be selling at a lower price and thus by inference, undercutting the price of European produced salmon. The key question is whether this is really dumping?

The problem for European producers is not that Norway is over-producing but rather that it is under-marketing. However, the same can be said of the European industry. Consumers might have expressed a willingness to pay a premium for European produced salmon but when faced with a choice in the supermarket, they have been unable to distinguish sufficient difference between European and imported salmon and have simply opted for the salmon that represents the best value for money. It is this failure to persuade consumers to pay a premium price that has driven European producers to submit their dumping complaint.

Four years after submitting their complaint, the question which these farmers have yet to answer is whether it has been better to instigate a major trade dispute or would their situation have been much better if they had invested in a market-led strategy aimed at persuading consumers that it is worth paying more to buy their salmon. The reality is that this salmon dumping case has simply been an excuse for poor marketing and as a consequence, European farmers have failed to benefit from the trade measures imposed by the European Commission. This is because they are designed to protect the farmers against dumping and as no one is dumping salmon, the measures have had no effect.

By coincidence, a report from the UK’s Aquaculture Information Bureau has found that European trout farmers, who brought a similar case against the Norwegian industry, would have benefited more if they had focused on promoting their produce rather than rely on dumping duties to protect them. The European Commission should take note and immediately remove the MIP so that the whole industry can get on with producing salmon that consumers actually want rather than blaming others for their own failure to capitalise on a growing market demand for their salmon.

By Dr. Martin Jaffa