Talk, talk, talk: iLAKS published an opinion piece written by the member of Norwegian Parliament, Olve Grotle which was titled, More Knowledge, More Dialogue and More Cooperation, a sentiment that I fully share.
Mr Grotle wrote that sea lice are the central focus of the new white paper and regardless of whatever Parliament decide, the knowledge of the impact of sea lice on wild fish should be strengthened and a forum should be established for better dialogue and cooperation between all parties.
He suggests that when it comes to marine fisheries, there is good cooperation between the Institute of Marine Research, the Directorate of Fisheries, the Fisheries Agency and the fishing industry. He says this should be an inspiration for aquaculture because when it comes to aquaculture, the situation is not the same. This is especially true when it comes to sea lice in relation to consensus, dialogue and trust. This is most apparent in the production areas 3 and 4 where the situation is very tense due to questions over the real impact of sea lice on wild fish.
Mr Grotle does not believe that the situation will change irrespective of the new proposals in the white paper. He says that there is now an opportunity to facilitate the acquisition of more knowledge about the impacts of sea lice in wild salmon. He adds that it is important to also gain a better understanding of the challenges wild salmon face not just near salmon farms but also in rivers and out at sea.
He says that he has no opinion on what should be covered but the mandate should be to provide answers to a wide range of questions. He also has an opinion of who should be involved in this work, but it should include not just existing researchers but professionals from outside the established research community. He says that there is everything to gain from this approach.
Mr Grotle says that his view is not intended as a criticism of the established researchers, but he is aware that others have been critical of some of the scientific work included that which has been peer-reviewed and published. This is why he believes that there should be a separate and permanent forum that can improve the knowledge and dialogue between industry, the authorities and research. He points out that in 2015 the then fisheries minister set up the Scientific Committee for Resource Research in which researchers from the Institute of Marine Research work with the fishing industry, represented by the Norwegian Fishing Associations, the Directorate of Fisheries and the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries as observers. He suggests that some similar arrangement could work for the aquaculture industry.
Clearly, the current system where a group of researchers, whose own research is being used to assess the impact of salmon farms without any independent oversight or involvement of the industry who are the recipients of the decisions makes no sense. Our knowledge is constantly evolving as a new paper from Canada shows. This reports that the removal of salmon farms has made no difference to lice infestations on wild salmon. Yet the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Salmon Management maintain sea lice from salmon farms represent the greatest threat to wild salmon. How do they account for high sea lice infestations when there are no farms? In my experience, the established scientific community just ignore such research if it doesn’t fit in with their narrative and simply don’t respond when challenged. This is why establishing a new wide-ranging forum is the best idea to come out of the white paper to date.
Finally, I would mention that whatever Mr Grotle has said about the Norwegian industry applies equally to Scotland, where the scientific community prefer to hide away avoiding any debate about their influence on regulations applied to the salmon farming industry. The new Sea Lice Risk Framework is a case in point, a flawed regulation based on flawed science and the blinkered influence of a wild salmon lobby. Like the Traffic Light System in Norway, the Sea Lice Risk Framework will do nothing to protect wild salmon but will do everything to harm a thriving, economically viable industry in areas where every job is important.
Lifting the veil: According to iLAKS, the most important point about the new Norwegian white paper is that both farmers and other stakeholders should have faith in, and trust it, when it is implemented. This is the view of Knut Wiik Vollset, a researcher at NORCE, who is described as a wild salmon expert who has studied the impact of sea lice for a number of years and who was also leader of the Sea Lice Expert Group.
Having researched the impacts of sea lice on wild and farmed salmon for the last fifteen years, I might now describe myself as a sea lice expert and as such I would like to make it absolutely clear that I have no faith at all in the new proposals described in the white paper. I also have little trust in those who suggest that the proposals offer a viable solution for the Norwegian salmon farming industry.
For example, Professor Vollset has co-authored more than one scientific paper with Martin Krkosek of the University of Toronto. Dr Krkosek is a close colleague of anti-salmon farming activist Alexandra Morton and has authored many works attacking salmon farming. It seems that unless proved otherwise, those who co-author scientific papers are likely to share similar views and therefore it is extremely difficult to accept that these scientific studies that are part of the tangled web of sea lice research are not offering impartial science.
Sadly, as I have often mentioned, the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Salmon Management (VRL) claim that sea lice are the greatest threat to wild salmon in Norway despite a lack of any real evidence to support their claim. As the members of the committee work for all the main research institutions, there is unanimity amongst all researchers. This is reflected in the views of the Sea Lice Expert Group. There does not seem to be any dissenting voices arguing for a different viewpoint. Certainly, my own experience is when presented with hard evidence and alternative science, the Sea Lice Expert Group weren’t interested in any discussion, they just sent off a one line email dismissing all the evidence and science except their own.
When asked if the salmon industry could keep within a lice quota that is based on a level equivalent to a green light in the Traffic Light System, Professor Vollset replied that it would be possible but that the industry will require major restructuring. Presumably, this will mean the industry spending billions on moving to new systems like snorkel, cages, or the overkill Watermoon technology promoted by Sondre Eide, who like the wild salmon people is not interested in considering the possibility that sea lice associated with salmon farming are not linked to the decline of wild fish stocks.
What is interesting is Professor Vollset, the wild salmon expert, has not said anything about whether the new sea lice quotas or the subsequent major restructuring will stop the decline of wild salmon stocks. I have yet to hear any predictions of the increase in the numbers of wild salmon that will result from the introduction of the proposals contained in the new white paper. This is because the wild salmon experts in VRL simply have no idea what impact sea lice have on wild salmon. Their models say there is an impact so there must be one, despite real life evidence to the contrary.
The new white paper consigns the Traffic Light System to the waste bin, but in doing so, there must be a full investigation into the question of why the Traffic Light System did not work. It surely isn’t enough to say it didn’t work so let’s move on. Clearly, if the Traffic Light System didn’t work then why should the new sea lice quota. Sea lice data is available for every farm, so it is is simple to see whether some farmers in a PO took a more relaxed view believing that it made little difference overall. I simply don’t believe that was the case, but it is the only excuse I can see that might be promoted as a reason for the Traffic Light failure.
Professor Vollset was not the only scientist to be interviewed by ILAKS. Geir Lasse Taranger was asked about the change to which he replied that sea lice quotas were recommended by the Myklebust Committee as a way of reducing sea lice levels. Of course, he doesn’t mention that this committee was made up from the established scientific clique. He argues that reducing sea lice levels will result in lower mortality and higher fish welfare although clearly experience shows that treating repeatedly for sea lice to maintain them at ultra low levels results in increased mortality. Thus, the inference will be that it is new technology that will be required to keep out sea lice. What Dr Taranger does not say is that the outcome will be to bring about a halt in the decline of wild fish numbers as well as the fact that preventing sea lice is no guarantee for improvements in fish welfare. As the new wild fish disease report shows, fish, whether wild or farmed can be challenged by a wide range of disease issues.
Finally, iLAKS asked IMR researcher Anne Dagrun Sandvik, who has been involved in sea lice research for several years. Her view is that the new proposals are not strong enough. This is because the Traffic Light System failed to ever produce a green classification across all thirteen production areas despite incentives to encourage farms to maintain the lowest lice levels possible. She appears to suggest that if this didn’t work for the Traffic Lights, then why should it work for a sea lice quota?
Dr Sandvik and I appear to agree that the sea lice quotas will not work but for very different reasons. She appears to suggest that the regulation will not be strong enough to achieve sufficiently low lice levels along all of Norway’s coastline to make it have the appearance of being universally green as if this green coast is the answer and everything will be fine. The focus is totally on maintaining low lice levels as if this is the solution but what has been forgotten is that the point of the regulation is to protect wild salmon and both the old and new regulation have and will fall short in this regard but the evidence clearly shows that sea lice, whether at high or low levels, are not the reason why wild salmon are in decline. It is only necessary to see that Norway’s salmon rivers are threatened even where sea lice are not regarded as a problem.
The trouble is that there is a scientific minority who cannot divorce themselves from the idea that sea lice associated with salmon farms are the greatest threat to wild salmon. They are of course entitled to their view, but the sad aspect for wild salmon is that they refuse to consider any other view. They have expressed this view for many years and cannot now be mistaken. Therefore, if they refuse to discuss whether the threats to wild salmon could be greater from elsewhere, they cannot be shown to be wrong. Their pride appears to come before the future of wild salmon in Norway.
As I have suggested previously, the future of wild salmon will ultimately depend on whether the Norwegian Government is prepared to oversee a discussion about the causes of wild salmon’s decline with a much wider audience than the established scientific view, or whether they intend to impose these new regulations on the industry regardless of whether they protect wild salmon or not.
It seems a small request to make considering the potential damage that might be done to one of Norway’s greatest industries and the ongoing decline to Norway’s wild salmon. What harm can arise from engaging in open discussion now before new measures are imposed? Surely only good can come from talking.
Lax or lox: The Herald newspaper published yet another negative article about salmon farming. The paper appears interested in reporting the views of a handful of anti-salmon farming critics. The flavour of the month is London based Animal Equality, a charity that campaigns to end all forms of animal farms. When they once responded to a comment from me, they expressed no interest in hearing about the progress the sector has made. They just want rid of salmon farming, even though the sector has proved the best way yet for the charity to obtain media coverage.
This time the charity claims that if the penalties were applied to the salmon farming sector in Scotland as they are in other countries, then they would have to pay millions in fines for non-compliance. Animal Equality say that the Scottish Government must hold Scottish salmon companies accountable for the irreparable damage they are causing.
Here again industry critics are making claims of irreparable damage without providing a shred of evidence in support. This is the same in Norway where just because a clique of blinkered scientists claim that sea lice associated with salmon farming are responsible for the collapse of wild salmon stocks, the salmon farming industry is being penalised despite these scientists being unable to supply any direct evidence to support their claims other than by conjecture and models.
Back in Scotland, if the claims made by others were to be believed, the seas around Scotland are a disaster zone almost bereft of any marine life, yet the study of Loch Ewe has shown that the small area affected under a salmon farm can recover within a short time. Recently, a 37-year study of one of Scotland’s freshwater lochs (Loch Arkaig) has shown that there has been very little impact at all from the local farm in terms of changed nutrient load.
I see that the Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust (SIFT) have complained about salmon farming’s use of wrasse. Yet, a major DEFRA study from 2012 recommended that wrasse were an ideal bait fish for lobster pots and the fishery for wrasse developed accordingly. Is it a coincidence that SIFT are avid promoters of sustainable fishing using pots and traps.
However, it seems that Animal Equality’s concerns relate to the impact of any fish that have escaped from salmon farms over the years. Yet Animal Equality provide no evidence to support their concerns. They told the Herald newspaper that escaped salmon could result in the spread of sea lice, disease, and DNA. This is simply conjecture and not borne out by any evidence. It is unclear how sea lice on escaped fish represent any threat to wild salmon, but then, most critics of salmon farming have no real understanding of sea lice biology or ecology. It is easy to suggest that escaped salmon spread disease without specifying what disease and which farms are infected. Finally, the whole question of the genetic integrity of wild salmon is questionable when claimed differences between fish from different river catchments has not been proved. The whole argument of genetic introgression has more to do with attacking the salmon farming industry than reality.
It is important to remember that groups like Animal Equality have only one agenda and that is to bring about the closure of all salmon farms. They are not interested in anything else.