A case to answer

And much of it could be trouble of its own making.

 

The salmon industry has always had few friends outside the immediate seafood circle, partly because it has been hugely successful economically and it has made some high-profile individuals very rich.

 

This envy has now filtered down to animal welfare groups who are quite skilled in getting their message over to the public – even if it is what the industry sees as a distorted message.

 

It poses the question: “Is it time for the salmon industry to take a long hard look at its image and try to do something about changing it?”

 

A recent survey by Kantar TNS, the leading business analytics organisation, suggests that the reputation of the salmon industry in Norway is “sinking like a stone”.

 

The Kantar TNS report says that Norway’s aquaculture industry scored a reading of just 29 out of 100 in a country where aquaculture is the second most important industry after oil and gas, producing thousands of jobs and a great deal of prosperity for once neglected coastal regions.

 

Kantar says the industry’s reputation has never been worse.

 

As expected, views were particularly strong among people in the Oslo city area and those between the ages of 30 and 44 who say they have lost confidence in the industry.

 

The salmon industry as we know it today barely existed 50 years ago. It currently generates almost three million tons globally with Norway, Scotland and Chile the largest producers.

 

Henrik Horjen, the former Head of Communication at Seafood Norway, the national association for the fisheries and aquaculture, and Robert Eriksson, CEO of Seafood Companies, conclude in the Kantar report: “There is no use in communicating one’s way out of the problems. There must be underlying improvements.

 

“Aquaculture lit up many lights in coastal communities, not least in the North. It has contributed to jobs and welfare and has been cheered on by society,” they add.

 

But the issue now is: can the industry manage the transition from slogans to sustainability and animal welfare, or has perceived greed put a lasting stain on its reputation?

 

Slogans have long been a part of salmon aquaculture. Companies frequently boast that their fish provides so many million meals a year to a hungry world. That is true to a degree, but the people who buy salmon are not starving. They are mostly affluent and well fed.

 

Horjen said earlier this year: “We have to take the bull by the horns. Where we are now is not a permanent place. We have to take action.”

 

But what action? Standards and problems differ from company to company as does their way of dealing with issues.

 

The Kantar report says problems with sick or dead fish have not necessarily increased over the years; what is new is that the industry’s shortcuts toward increased share value and profit have become more visible.

 

Paradoxically, the companies can take the blame for that, says the report. With extensive PR and lobbying muscles and an enormous wallet, the industry has pushed its arguments into an increasing number of areas in society.

 

The industry wants decisive influence, not only in its own cages but also in the management of wild salmon, tax policies, research, and animal health, to mention a few.

 

The report says they “…have screamed from the Oslo Stock Exchange, from the ‘refugee camps’ (countries like Switzerland where many go to avoid tax) outside parliament and the government, at the dinner table, and every other place they could access”.

 

“Now they have received answers. They have been seen. But not in the way they wanted to.

 

“Instead, the attention has been on illness and death, fish that should have been discarded but were exported, the wild salmon about to disappear, and profits that do not want [to pay] ground rent.”

 

The newly-elected Labour government has made it clear that it wants the industry to clean up its act and has already introduced new proposals, on welfare and cleaner vessels.

 

The industry reaction has been: “Fine – but let us not rush things. Changing over to emission-free boats, for example, is going to be very expensive.”

 

So it is, but the reaction once again is to stall whenever it can.

 

Dag Sletmo, Senior Analyst at Norway’s DNB Bank, believes that the public’s close attention to the industry has exacerbated the current negative reaction.

 

“The problem may not have worsened significantly, but the attention paid to the industry has greatly increased,” he said.

 

The industry has received much more attention since the introduction of the land tax, especially around fish health and mortality issues, and this has made people concerned .

 

The writer Simen Saetre believes that people saw a lot of problems with the production process, such as winter ulcers.

 

“The public thought these ulcers were disgusting,” Saetre says. “People also saw pictures of dead fish in cages, even those that were supposedly sold for food, and pictures of salmon infested with parasites.”