Minister: The Norwegian Minister of Fisheries was recently invited to speak at the Norwegian Seafood Federation annual conference where she told the audience of her plans for fish and seafood in Norway. She spoke about many different issues ranging from consumption to sea lice. Of course, it was her comments about sea lice that piqued my interest.
Firstly, she said that Norway has a good knowledge base when it comes to the environmental impact of aquaculture, especially in relation to sea lice, but yet she suggests that this knowledge must be developed. To do this she has sent out letters of expectation to various research groups to strengthen the existing knowledge base about sea lice. One letter has been sent to the Institute of Marine Research to develop a more comprehensive system of risk advice which would take into account all the impacts. A second letter has been sent to the Norwegian Veterinary Institute to look specifically at how sea lice associated with salmon farms affect wild salmon. Significant funding is to be allocated for further research.
Finally, the Minister said that just because the knowledge base can be improved does not mean that Norway does not have sufficient knowledge to be able to operate and regulate aquaculture but in the current climate, there is a need to look at how regulation can be further developed.
A report written for the 2024 meeting of NASCO, of which Norway is a member, detailed that their sea lice group reviewed a total of 2784 papers and documents for relevant information. This would seem to add up to a significant amount of cumulative knowledge, which begs the question as to how much more knowledge is actually required. I would argue that it is not more knowledge that is needed but a proper discussion about all the existing knowledge to ensure that the best and most appropriate knowledge is applied to any regulation. What I find most puzzling is why there is such a reluctance to engage in this type of discussion. The Minister has indicated that Norway already has sufficient knowledge to implement regulation even though after nearly ten years of existing regulation, the stocks of wild salmon the regulation is supposed to protect remains in crisis, which suggests that the regulation is not working. In which case it could be argued that perhaps the underlying knowledge is not as strong as it could be.
The Storting’s Aquaculture Committee recommended a review of the existing knowledge, but this has yet to take place and that fact that the Minister has contacted two of the major research institutions to request research of new knowledge suggests that the existing knowledge which these institutions have discounted is unlikely to be ever discussed. Sadly, it is likely that the Norwegian salmon farming industry will continue to be subjected to the flawed science that has so far prevented the recovery of wild salmon stocks.
The established research institutions may be regarded as powerful drivers of the science but just because they are so powerful does not necessarily mean that they have the solutions.
Talking shop: The latest issue of Fish Farmer magazine includes a two-page article looking at the annual sea lice conference organised in Norway by the Norwegian Seafood Research Fund (FHF). The title says that unfortunately this conference is one of the organisation’s most important events. I presume that the use of the word unfortunately, refers to the fact that after several years of such conferences, the issue of sea lice remains unresolved.
According to the article, FHF’s 2026 Action Plan has elevated sea lice control into a distinct strategy area with a focus on what farmers can do to solve the challenge of sea lice.
One of the main themes of the conference was to look again at non-traditional forms of farming to help reduce lice, such as closed and submerged farming systems. However, this was not the first year that such methods have been discussed and they still leave many unanswered questions.
Unfortunately, whilst the conference focused on practical solutions of how farmers should deal with the lice on farm in order to meet the requirements set by the regulation to meet low lice levels especially during the spring migration, FHF didn’t appear interested in letting farmers hear that the regulation itself may be flawed and that such restrictive lice control may be unnecessary. Based on the content of the conference, FHF appear to be encouraging farming companies to spend millions on new technology that will have no impact whatsoever in protecting wild salmon that the regulations are supposed to save. In much the same way, the Minister has announced that new funding will be available to for further research yet, there this money will not be used to consider whether the science on which the existing regulation is based actually answers all the right questions.
FHF have indicated that they will consider holding a new meeting to discuss existing science and its impact on wild salmon, but I suspect that they will be reluctant to take the lead on pursuing such urgently needed discussions.
Meanwhile: Whether it is because they have been the subject of so much criticism or something else, but the Sea Lice Steering Group more publicly announced that they will be holding a seminar in Bergen next month to discuss ‘new’ science of sea lice interactions. They announced their intention to be more visible in their response to the International Sea Lice Group report.
It is still surprising that the Sea Lice Expert Group comprises of just members of the scientific community and does not include even one representative from the industry who are impacted by their decisions. The fact that this seminar is being advertised is a step in the right direction as it allows the group to hear views other than those of their own making, although the groups stresses that they are only interested in hearing ‘new’ science, whatever that means. Individuals such as myself have been invited to both attend and offer to present, which for me is an opportunity that is too good not to miss. I have applied and have passed the vetting process so hope to see other interested parties in Bergen in April. I have been working on some ‘new’ analyses of data that I believe has not been yet considered. It will be interesting to see the response.
I will share this ‘new’ information with readers of reLAKSation in a forthcoming issue.
Congratulations: Fish Farming Expert has reported the news that the Sustainable Aquaculture Innovation Cluster (SAIC) has secured a five-year funding package from the Crown Estate Scotland worth a total of £7 million. This is really good news for at long last SAIC has sufficient funding to organise a much-needed sea-lice conference to discuss the issues of the science of sea lice. In their former incarnation SAIC were supposed to host the international sea lice conference but ran out of money. However, such an international conference is not what Scotland needs. Instead, a more focussed discussion as to whether current regulation is the right way forward is urgently required.
Wild: The angler’s representative organisation ‘Wild Fish’ has issued a letter in response to the Rural Affairs Committee letter on salmon farming. Wild Fish say they are encouraged by the committee’s letter which expressed disappointment at the pace of government action and their recognition that significant environmental and welfare concerns remain.
Wild Fish’s support of the committee’s letter comes as no surprise given that some of the committee member’s questions were based on the submissions from groups like Wild Fish. In my opinion, this showed there was really very little understanding of the salmon farming sector at all. This can be illustrated by a question posed to a member of the government team as to the length of the salmon production cycle, something which should be common knowledge after such a lengthy inquiry.
Wild Fish end by stating:
“Wild Fish is adamant that an immediate moratorium on new salmon farms and salmon farm expansion s is required, followed by a managed transition to end open-net salmon farming and prioritise the recovery of Scotland’s wild salmon populations”.
Sadly, however adamant Wild Fish remain, they are clearly not interested in prioritising the recovery of Scotland’s wild salmon because they are doing nothing about it except to harass restaurant owners to take salmon of the table. Yet this approach is never going to bring back Scotland’s wild salmon, and neither will be demanding the closure of Scotland’s salmon farms.
If Wild Fish really cared about wild salmon, they would be encouraging everyone from all sectors to work together to understand and address the issues.