Comment

BY DR MARTIN JAFFA

Think outside the box

An aquaculture strategy for England needs imagination, not unrealistic ambitions

Earlier this year, Seafood 2040, a collabora� ve project from across the seafood industry, sought tenders for a new English Aquaculture Strategy. The idea was to create a pathway for growth of the aquaculture sector in England over the next two decades. At the � me of the original proposal, I wrote in Fish Farmer that I thought that this strategy was a rather pointless exercise. I argued that if aquaculture were to prosper in England, it would have happened regardless of any coordinated strategy. I was not convinced that commissioning a new strategy in 2020 would lead to any further industry growth.

The fi nal report has now been published via the Seafi sh website (www.seafi sh.org). I was very much looking forward to reading about a new dynamic aquaculture industry for England, but I am afraid any enthusiasm quickly evaporated. I was hoping for new radical, outof-the-box thinking but instead, it off ered li� le that has not been said before. I suspect that this strategy, like others before it, will simply end up on a shelf gathering dust.

For me, there are two fundamental ques� ons which have not been addressed. The fi rst is, if we do grow more fi sh then who is going to eat it? Secondly, if there were increased demand, which is probably unlikely, then who is going to grow the forecasted aquaculture products?

The new strategy aims to help meet the extra requirement of fi sh if and when the public increase their consump� on from 129.3g now to 280g of fi sh per week in 2040. This equates to an increase from 0.9 to 2 por� ons of fi sh per person per week. Achieving this increase is one of the key aims of the wider Seafood 2040 project but I am not persuaded that such a target will ever be met. Home fi sh consump� on has been in decline for several years and although it has picked up slightly during the Covid-19 pandemic, it will require a major change in public a� tude to achieve the Seafood 2040 goals and I cannot see that happening.

Seafi sh launched their “Love Seafood” campaign in October but it has failed to a� ract much public interest. This is not surprising given the limited budget, but It will take more than loving seafood to change public behaviour. I suspect that in the coming years, far from seeing home seafood consump� on increase, it is likely to con� nue its downward trajectory.

Below is a screenshot of the last three videos posted by Love Seafood on the You Tube channel, highligh� ng how much interest has been s� mulated by the campaign.

Left: Love Seafood’s videos on YouTube Above: Carp could be a profi table niche market

So, as it stands now, the goal of ge� ng the Bri� sh public to eat two por� ons of fi sh a week would seem to be just a distant hope. I appreciate that 20 years is a long � me, but I have watched consump� on drop over a similar period.

Even though demand is unlikely to increase, there is s� ll a ques� on of who would produce any of the fi sh forecast in the strategy, if my view of the demand is mistaken. The strategy considers a range of species, but space here does not allow me to discuss each one. Instead, I shall just look at the forecast for Atlan� c salmon. Produc� on is forecast to expand from 500 tonnes in 2020(!) to 14,232 tonnes in 2040 and all this produc� on is forecast to be produced by RAS (recircula� ng aquaculture systems).

I am not a great fan of producing harvest-sized fi sh in RAS, but I can understand the argument put forward for doing so if the farm is located right next to places of high consumer demand. Much less clear is why anyone would want to grow 14,000 tonnes of salmon in RAS in the same Bri� sh Isles where exis� ng producers are forecast to har-

“The goal of ge� ng the Bri� sh public to eat two por� ons of fi sh a week would seem to be just a distant hope”

vest 300,000 tonnes from net pens. It makes vest 300,000 tonnes from net pens. It makes no sense, commercially, economically, or as common sense. The strategy does not make clear who would be willing to invest the huge sums of money required in RAS when there is no commercial benefi t from producing fi sh this way. I am reminded of two things about RAS. The fi rst is that a speaker at a conference in Paris in the late 1980s said that RAS only makes sense for small fi sh or for species with a high economic value; and secondly, RAS only came to the fore when anglers’ organisa� ons started to see this as a way of separa� ng farmed salmon from wild, and hence reversing the declines of wild fi sh that were blamed on salmon farming,

In addi� on to salmon, the strategy forecasts 669 tonnes of na� ve sea water species and 281 tonnes of exo� c seawater fi nfi sh. These are barely worthy of considera� on to the point that even the strategy fails to highlight what species of fi sh these may be. It just seems other species have been thrown in to bulk out the report. The strategy also forecasts nearly 6,000 tonnes of sea-raised trout. The same issues apply to trout as they do to salmon.

The reality is that by 2040, we are unlikely to see any marine fi sh aquaculture in England unless someone establishes a farm to meet yet unknown demand for a high value species like turbot. Seafi sh helped develop some of the original techniques for farming turbot but as there was no market here, the fl edgling industry relocated to Galicia where there is high demand.

The story for freshwater fi sh is not much be� er with 18,439 tonnes of trout produced by 2040 together with 253 tonnes of exo� c fi nfi sh and 1,186 tonnes of na� ve species. Much of this produc� on is forecast to be produced in RAS with the rest produced in fl ow through ponds. This is just unrealis� c. Why would anyone want to invest in RAS for farmed trout when they are producing it in net pens in Scotland?

The strategy also includes shellfi sh but that involves a whole other set of issues which I may discuss another � me. The reality is that this strategy was never going to be ground-breaking. Unlike Scotland, there is too much compe� � on for space to make a viable aquaculture industry a reality. It would need a complete change of government a� tude to bring about radical change such as banning all fi sh imports, which is not going to happen.

This doesn’t mean that England cannot develop an aquaculture industry. It just needs to be a diff erent sort of industry and that requires out-of-the box-thinking. I am not sure Seafood 2040 is ready for such an approach.

Back in the 1980s, RELU – the Rural Economy and Land Use programme – looked at every possible way the tradi� onal agricultural farmers could diversify to make more money. Fish farming was considered but was largely dismissed. A decade later, RELU commissioned the University of S� rling to take another look at aquaculture and their recommenda� on was for farmers to grow � lapia in RAS in their barns. A number of small enterprises were established but all failed, primarily because the specifi c market for � lapia wasn’t bothered by its freshness. 24

Above and right: Will the English consumer be persuaded to eat two por� ons of fi sh a week?

“There is too much compe� � on for space to make a viable aquaculture industry a reality”

THE WORLD OF AQUACULTURE

They were happier to buy cheaper imported fi sh from the overseas than locally produced more expensive fi sh. This s� ll applies and imported whole � lapia can be readily accessed from specialist ethnic markets.

RELU actually missed a major opportunity to develop aquaculture in England by integra� ng produc� on into exis� ng terrestrial farms. There is a very simple reason why this remains a viable op� on and that is the market has no external compe� � on. The fi sh is carp, and the market is to supply ethnic Chinese consumers in the UK. The USP is that this specifi c market wants the fi sh supplied live and current fi sh health regula� ons prevent live fi sh from entering the UK from overseas.

The beauty of carp farming as an integrated produc� on is that they do not require constant a� en� on. They will grow readily in sta� c freshwater ponds boosted by some of the farm wastes generated elsewhere. The one catch is that the marke� ng of the fi sh must be a coopera� ve venture. No single farmer can produce enough to make a dent in the market, but numerous farmers can ensure that the market is provided with a regular supply. This is very low-tech, low-cost, low maintenance aquaculture, quite the opposite of everything to do with RAS. If we are to have an aquaculture industry in England, we need to start thinking

... made by professionals for professionals!

diff erently and not just following those that might already be heading for a fall.

This might sound very unappealing to many, but new aquaculture does not have to eschew the old ways. What is important is not the produc� on, but that there is an untapped market ripe for picking. FF

FishFarmer Magazine 92 x 130 mm_B.indd 1

profiwork SalmoFix

www.fiap.com

29.10.20 11:39