Committee says: On Thursday evening the Norwegian government reached an agreement with five other political parties to postpone proposed changes as laid out in the recent aquaculture white paper. Any changes will be resubmitted to the Storting during 2026 with the goal of implementing them within 2 to 4 years. In total there are six key recommendations but the most important is that
A more comprehensive and thorough knowledge base for the environmental impact of aquaculture, including the industry’s actual and relative impact on the Norwegian wild salmon population, will be developed. A broad range of researchers and professionals will participate in this work, and there will continue to be transparency about methods and models.
This is the right way forward, especially broadening the science base away from a small scientific clique.
I will discuss the main points in a future issue of reLAKSation, but meanwhile I hope that the Scottish Government and the Marine Directorate now implement a similar review with immediate effect. After all, much of the science used in the assessment of risk to wild fish comes from Norway.
Meanwhile, the Traffic Light System will remain in place for what little good it has done
Hiding away: Karin Boxaspen, who is the voice of the Sea Lice Steering Group, as well as being a long-time researcher at the Institute of Marine Research has joined with her colleague Ørjan Karlsen to write another response in Intrafish and iLAKS. This time they have reacted to another commentary from a scientist who is unhappy with their sea lice narrative. This is from Jens Christian Holst, a former researcher at IMR and who pioneered some of the original sampling methods used today.
Jens Christian wrote recently in a commentary that between 2017 and 2020, he regularly wrote to IMR about his increasing concerns that he now considered the methodology of sampling using trawls to be flawed. He also wrote about this in commentaries in the media because of IMR’s lack of interest. In his most recent commentary, he also reviewed five data sets that he believes strongly supports his hypothesis. They are too detailed to discuss here.
In another post Jens Christian argues that the Steering Group were not correct to suggest that their work on the Traffic Light model uses all available data, which he says is not correct. He says that they only use data from 2011 yet there is a wealth of data from 1996 onwards which they do not use. Jens Christian says using this data will help calibrate the model and prevent the current bias in the trawl data.
As someone who questions the whole basis of the model, I am not sure how this data will improve the model, yet at the same time Jens Christian was at the forefront of this research and therefore his views should be considered. It is easy for the Expert and Steering group to dismiss my concerns as someone without the backing of their large research institutions. Their dismissal of Jens Christians views must be an added concern.
In both Intrafish and iLAKS, Drs Boxaspen and Karlsen simply dismiss Jens Christian claiming that time has not stood still for twenty years. They say that there have been changes since 2012 which include the sampling procedures as well as certifying everyone who counts the lice.
In their response, they say that the number of trawls has also increased. Up to 2016, trawling occurred in just 2 or 3 fjords but from 2017, they now trawl for four consecutive weeks in 5 or 6 fjords. They say this data is readily available at nmdc.no (although experience would suggest that they are very slow in uploading the most recent data sets).
The two colleagues from IMR say that the reason they don’t use older data is because they have significantly more comprehensive and better data available. I have reviewed all of the NALO data that has been published by IMR. The latest trawl data for 2024 totals 1825 fish from five fjords. I believe that only 19% of the trawls were successful in catching any fish at all and these ranged from a haul of just one fish up to 166. Most trawls (52%) caught less than 10 fish.
An analysis of the lice infestation of the 1825 fish caught by trawling is shown in the following graph.
Sixty five percent of the fish caught were lice free. Almost all the fish carried infestations below 11 lice which some consider the level at which small wild fish are compromised. The trawl data would indicate that there was very little risk to wild salmon in Norway in 2024.
Jens Christian writes in one of his commentaries that the results from some of the early trawls in May to June 2001 in Sognefjord were frightening with an average of 85 lice per fish and over 200 fish on a single fish. At the time he said that IMR issued a press release stating that 95% of migrating smolts had already died due to sea lice infestation. I have looked for this press release but only can find one from that time that states that both salmon and sea trout smolts have probably been severely affected with figures indicating that there will be a high mortality. From my perspective, it would have been interesting to see the full dataset because an average of 85 lice per fish could mean many fish with no or very low numbers and just a few with high lice counts, something which is common in nature.
Jens Christian writes that at the time he was genuinely concerned about the lice counts and he regularly expressed his concerns to salmon farmers, but then in 2007 he saw a report that in 2002 fishing around the Sognefjord was completely normal. The alleged 95% mortality of smolts was not reflected in subsequent catch statistics of returning adult salmon. This is when Jens Christian began to have doubts about the trawl methods
He concludes that a group should be established to review that data, but I would go much further. The salmon farming industry should establish its own Sea Lice Expert Group to challenge the views of the established scientific clique. There is no reason that they should hold a monopoly on the science. It is not a prerequisite that some should work for IMR, NINA or any other institution to be an expert in sea lice science. In, fact what is needed is a more open view, especially to new evidence, rather than a reliance of modelling to show exactly what impact sea lice have on wild salmon populations. There are plenty of scientists who do not work for these institutions who also have a valid view.
Up in smoke: Responding to various commentaries in Intrafish which question the existing science about sea lice, Paal Mugaas and Sigurd Hytterød of Norwegian Salmon Rivers, the spokes group for Norwegian salmon managers and anglers have resorted to using the tobacco argument. They highlight the book Merchants of Doubt (2010) as a ground breaking account of how a small group of scientists with political and financial interests systematically cast doubt on established science to the benefit of industry and conservative ideology. I think I might be considered part of the group discussing sea lice science who the two representatives of salmon anglers compare to the scientists who promoted tobacco, but I would be grateful if Messrs Mugass and Hytterød would show me where my financial and political interests lie, because they are not something of which I am aware. Interestingly, Jens Christian Holst ended a recent commentary by saying that he is not paid for his work because someone might call what he does tobacco research.
Messrs Mugass and Hytterød then refer to the latest report from the Scientific Committee for Salmon Management (VRL) which they say claims that sea lice and climate change are the biggest threats to wild salmon, which returned to Norwegian rivers in record low numbers last year. They say that the industry response from Sjømat Norge is that there is a debate between scientists about the degree of impact. However, they go on to say that when sea lice in certain areas kill 50% of the smolts on their way out of rivers, there will be automatically 50% fewer salmon returning than should have done, regardless of other threats. They add that the only reason why stock objectives have been met is because angling has been reduced to a minimum level.
They finish by saying that their organisation is not a research organisation but that they adhere to the scientific consensus when it means that rivers must not be fished. They suggest that anything else would put their livelihoods before the survival of the species and they wouldn’t want that. Maybe they then would recommend a complete moratorium on killing wild salmon in Norway. I very much doubt it, but they expect the salmon industry to adhere to their view of the scientific consensus without question. I will be discussing the latest report from VRL later in this commentary but here I would like to consider data relating to wild salmon caught from rivers around the Hardangerfjord. This is an area that is classified as red in the current Traffic Light System.
There are 743 rivers in Norway detailed by Statistics Norway that are listed as recording fish catches after 1993. I must admit I am not sufficiently familiar with the geography of salmon rivers, in Norway which is why I have focussed on the rivers around Hardangerfjord. There is a scientific paper by Merz in the Journal of Marine Biology Research from 2013 that has a map of the Hardangerfjord showing a total of 27 rivers. These may or may not be the most representative of salmon rivers in the area, but they are detailed in the paper by Merz and currently this is the best view of the area I have.
Of these rivers, there are five for which I cannot find any record and of the remaining twenty-two, records show that 12 have such low catches over the period of 1993 to 2024 that they are no discernible trends. This leaves ten of the rivers with a significant catch, all of which are graphically shown below drawn from data available on the Statistics Norway website.
Five rivers have catches that have decreased over the 32 years, which if VRL and Norwegian Salmon Rivers are to be believed, is exactly what is expected. Yet the other five rivers all show increased catches of salmon over the same period. The Steering Group report shows that PO3 which includes Hardangerfjord has been classified as red for every year but one since 2016. By all accounts, wild salmon catches should have collapsed but clearly, they have not. I have heard that research trapping in the Etne river, which has seen a longer-term decline, is this year, producing one of the highest levels o migrating fish.
Returning to the two gentlemen of Norwegian Salmon Rivers, Even Søfteland of PO3/PO4 Knowledge Incubator has responded to their criticism of the salmon farming industry suggesting that their clear lack of knowledge is directly harmful to wild salmon and sea trout.
Whilst Norwegian Salmon Rivers prefers to suggest that challenging the established narrative on sea lice is akin to the actions of the tobacco industry. Mr Søfteland highlights the way that since 2018 the Salmon Tracking programme has increased the knowledge of wild salmon and sea lice. He says that the knowledge gained through this programme builds opportunities informing new knowledge, about paradoxes in knowledge and about inadequacies in existing knowledge. It is not about spreading disinformation.
I have sent my graph of wild salmon catch decline from differing coasts to Mr Mugaas but of course, he has not replied. I now suspect that they believe that this graph drawn from Scottish government data has been manipulated in a tobacco like way. If this is what they believe then I hold no future for wild salmon in Norway. Many of the scientific community have reacted in exactly the same way. They are not interested in hearing evidence that might question their own views. The problem is that they are unable to separate the declines in salmon returning to Norwegian rivers from the presence of a salmon farming industry. This is most apparent from the report of the Scientific Committee for Salmon Management (VRL) that I will discuss later.
The following graph shows the decline in salmon returning to Norwegian rivers alongside the same data for Scotland.
I would suggest that the rate of decline is extremely similar. Whilst both Norway and Scotland have salmon farming industries, Scottish salmon farms inhabit one coast which accounts for less than 10% of the Scottish stock. Therefore, the bulk of the stock is found in rivers where there is no salmon farming activity at all. If Norwegian declines are due to salmon farming, then why are Scottish returns declining at an almost similar rate even though most fish in Scotland do not interact with a salmon farm. I would ask this question of VRL, but I know they won’t answer.
Impact: The Scientific Council for Salmon Management (VRL) have just published their 21st annual report in which they discuss the various threats to wild salmon including, of course, sea lice. However, before you read the next section, I would like to remind readers that VRL’s new report was published at the end of May 2025.
The section or the report concerning sea lice (page 72) includes the following text (page 73):
“Sea lice have significantly reduced the harvestable surplus in several Norwegian salmon stocks (VRL 2017, 2019, 2020a). The loss of salmon spawning is estimated at 50,000 salmon annually in the period 2010-2014, 29,000 salmon in 2018 and 39,000 salmon in 2019 (VRL 2020b). Western Norwegian stocks are particularly hard hit, and modelling from the Norwegian Scientific Council suggests that between 6 and 20 stocks are critically endangered or lost as a result of sea lice.”
It is now nearly six years since VRL last estimated how many salmon smolts might die as a consequence of sea lice associated with salmon farms. If they could make such an estimation in 2018 and 2019, why can’t they provide such estimates for 2020 through to 2025. I would suggest it is because their estimates are simply meaningless and have no relevance to what is happening in Norwegian fjords.
As they admit, their modelling suggests that between 6 and 20 stocks are critically endangered or lost as a result of sea lice. It doesn’t take an academic qualification to understand that there is a massive difference between suggesting 6 and 20 stocks are endangered. Which is it? 6 or 20? Do they not know?
In my opinion, VRL are so fixated that sea lice are the greatest threat to wild salmon, that hard data is of no consequence to their predictions. It’s not surprising that they never respond to any attempt to exchange views. It reminds me that if anyone sees a fish infested with hundreds of lice, the automatic response will be that this level of infestation is the fault of salmon farming without realising that high levels of infestation are entirely normal in wild populations of sea lice.