No thought: I have been looking at the annual reports from the Scientific Committee on Salmon Management (VRL) that are available on their website. These run from 2016 to present and what strikes me most about them is the similarity. Effectively, VRL use the same report every year but change the numbers if they need to be changed. I wonder whether they give any thought to what they are putting out or whether they simply churn out the same reports year in year out.
I get the same impression with the sea lice sampling reports from the Institute of Marine Research. They appear to be very similar year on year with mainly just the numbers changed. I wonder how much thought is given to exactly what the findings mean and especially whether the findings mean anything at all.
My view is prompted by a report in iLAKS from the Norwegian Food Safety Authority (Mattilsynet) that there is a high infection pressure on migrating salmon in Hardanger and a moderate pressure in Rogaland. This view is based on preliminary results from the monitoring sea lice on wild fish in POs 1-7. They also say that too few salmon smolts were caught in Sognefjord and Romsdalsfjord to assess any impacts on wild salmon, but they found a lot of sea lice on sea trout from which they conclude that sea lice will have a major negative effect on sea trout in many areas. It’s a bit of a puzzle why Mattilsynet felt the need to rush out their statement at this time especially as their administration director and head of aquaculture are away on holiday and these are only preliminary results.
The Mattilsynet press release is based on a statement from the Institute of Marine Research which goes into more detail. For me, it also raises a number of issues. The one that stands out and is buried deep in their statement is the fact that they say that as Norway has a long coastline, it is not practical to conduct fieldwork that covers all areas, so researchers use models to fill in the gaps. Surely, when IMR accepted this work, they were aware that the sampling work has implications for one of Norway’s most important industries and that extensive sampling would be required. IMR have over a thousand staff, and it is unclear why some of these employees could not be recruited to the NALO sampling programme for this one specific time of the year to ensure full coverage of the coastline.
The IMR statement links to their preliminary report of sea lice infestation. What is interesting is that even with their limited staff, IMR appear unable to maintain any consistency in where and when they sample. The following table shows the difference between the sampling sites for this year and 2024.
As can be seen, there are six sites that were sampled in 2024 but not this year and two sites that were sampled this year but not in 2024. Looking back to 2023, 2022 and even 2021, there are even more changes. For example, Forsand, which appears this year was sampled in 2022 but not 2021 or 2023. There is no understanding as to why these changes have been made but clearly it is not so easy to compare data from year to year when the sites and methodology change. With reference to methodology, the full data set reveals whether the samplings were carried out by net or trap and this varies between sites. Nets and traps can provide different results due to the way they catch fish.
There are also differences in the time sampled. The site at Etna in PO3 was sampled over a period of five weeks, whilst Flekkefjord in PO1 was sampled in just one week. This PO1 site caught a total of 25 fish whereas the site at Etne caught 612 fish. Perhaps if IMR sampled 612 fish in PO1, then wild salmon in that area may also be judged to be at high risk of sea lice infestation. It is clear from the sampling that IMR sample most in those areas they consider that salmon farming will have most impact. This is biased sampling.
It is also interesting that in PO4, the sampling site Herøyosen was sampled in week 22 and week 24 but not week 23. It is assumed that the omission of week 23 was because researchers decided to sample at two other sites in PO4 that week.
I was also attracted to another comment made in the IMR press statement. They say that in all areas surveyed by trawling, the indications are that the salmon smolt migration was early this year. In years that have been warmer, the migration can begin earlier than normal, and this is becoming more apparent with the influence of climate change. Thus, effectively the salmon smolts have been and gone before IMR have arrived to sample them. This is surely bad planning on the part of IMR, who have said that the timings of the samplings were scheduled last year. This seems to be a major error on their part. Surely the boats etc should booked for a time that covers all eventualities of the migration. Why should the salmon farming industry be penalised for a poor sampling just because IMR cannot plan for all eventualities. In total, the trawling expeditions have caught a total of 425 fish from four locations over a period of 4 weeks giving an average sample size per week of 26 fish. Looking at the trawl results from last year, most daily trawls caught only a handful of fish, not the 100 minimum recommended by Taranger in 2012.
The problem of catching so few fish is compounded because the failure to get a representative sample of lice infestation, which IMR fail to do anyway, means that they will fall back on their models of lice infestation. These, I know are already over-estimated because of the use of flawed science.
It all seems very haphazard.
What I would say is that comparing the interim results from 2025 compared to 2024, then this year has seen higher infestation levels than last year. However, this can be a consequence of the way that sampling has been conducted. High lice numbers on wild fish are not unusual in nature and thus the inference that wild fish might be at a greater risk may be somewhat premature and we must wait for the full data set to draw any proper conclusions.
Even Søfteland of ‘PO3/PO4 Knowledge Incubator’ has responded in ILAKS to the Mattilsynet news by also suggesting that they may have been too quick to release the claim that sea lice infestation pressure is high this year and perhaps they should have checked what they said first.
Mr Søfteland highlights one example of the difference between the knowledge relayed by IMR and Mattilsynet and that from others. In 2017, it was reported that the Granvinsvassdraget in the inner part of the Hardangerfjord was more or less dead with only two sea trout observed that year Yet, using camera technology 4,000 sea trout were recorded in the Granvinsvassdraget in the same year. In subsequent years, the numbers remained about the same plus there were more salmon than found many years ago. In 2021, the spring and summer were very dry, and yet 9,000 sea trout were recorded with 7,500 and 8,000 in the following years. Mr Søfteland asks how can there be so many sea trout in an area that is perceived to be such a high risk to wild fish?
However, Mr Søfteland does express some concerns. This is because prior to 2021, salmon numbers were also healthy in the Granvinsvassdraget but have been in decline since. Of course, this decline needs to be put into the context of wider declines across all of Norway which some are happy to blame on salmon farming, although the reality tells a very different story. Of course unless some thought is put into the wider issues and sea lice are seen in their true context, IMR and Mattilsynet will continue to issue meaningless statements that attack the salmon farming industry without any real foundation.
Dissent: I have previously mentioned that the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation (NASCO) held their annual meeting in Cardiff at the beginning of June. NASCO is not an organisation that actively publicises the outcome of its deliberations so there has been no news that merits any comment.
However, a press release from 22 accredited environmental NGOs has emerged that suggests that there is dissent about the approach to salmon conservation that NASCO has adopted. The NGOs have now called for urgent action, which suggest that NASCO do not see any action as being urgent.
Before considering the difference of opinion, it is worth just discussing the NGOs accredited by NASCO. According to their website there are 39 NGO’s accredited as observers to NASCO represented by two co-chairs. I did note that Wild Fish and Wild Fish Scotland have separate accreditation even though they are the same organisation. Seemingly of the 39 organisations, twenty-two turned up to watch the meeting. I do not know which NGOs these were, but it is interesting that the press release describes themselves as environmental NGOs because the NASCO list includes well known environmental groups such as European Anglers Alliance, the Faroes Sportfishing Association. The Federation of Irish Salmon & Sea trout Anglers, Foyle Association of Salmon & Trout Anglers, Scottish Anglers National Association and the Ulster Angling Federation Ltd. It appears that being an angler now equates to being an environmentalist.
The press release also highlights that these NGOs regarded as observers by NASCO, ‘joined discussion and played a key role in shaping future plans.’ This is yet further proof that NASCO is simply another representative organisation for salmon angling rather than an organisation really concerned about the conservation of wild salmon.
These ‘environmental’ NGOs may have written that they played key role in shaping future plans, but clearly NASCO didn’t listen otherwise these NGOs would not have felt the need to issue their press release.
NASCO has a ten-year strategy to ‘prioritise and drive actions necessary to slow the decline of wild Atlantic salmon populations’ but the NASCO NGO group are of the view that this does not have sufficient ambition or urgency. This group of observers therefore tabled alternative wording to strengthen this strategic goal in light of the stark warnings about the parlous state of wild salmon given during the meetings. However, the NASCO Council made the ‘ultimate decision’ to ignore the NGO proposal and keep the status quo. Hence, the NGO group have issued their press release to highlight their concerns.
The press release includes a number of quotes such as that from Nils Olav Gjone, co-chair of the group who is attributed as representing Noske Lakseelver although their website has no mention of him. It seems he comes from the Holmfoss Salmon Association who are not accredited by NASCO as an observer. Mr Gjone says that as NGOs we are not idealists – we are scientists and fisheries experts, something I might dispute but regardless of his comments it does beg the question that as scientists and fisheries experts, how have wild salmon arrived at the parlous state mentioned whilst under your watch?
The second co-chair, Robert Otto from the Atlantic Salmon federation said that we hoped that NASCO would exhibit leadership at this time, when urgent action is needed. Interestingly, I heard Mr Otto speak at the Wild Salmon Connections meeting held earlier this year in London. He sat on a panel discussing salmon farming to whom the audience were prevented from asking questions. His view of salmon farming is perhaps why the press release also highlights the forthcoming scientific papers that NASCO have promoted. The press release says that these papers will make a significant contribution to efforts to better regulate the impacts of salmon farming. Unfortunately, these NGOs are badly misinformed, but this is not surprising.
The press release, as promoted on the FMS website, also includes comment from their Chief Executive Alan Wells who says that real leadership is required from all of the parties to NASCO so in Scotland we need to show this leadership through delivery of the Wild Salmon Strategy at pace and scale. However, as I have discussed previously, the Wild Salmon Strategy is never going to help restore wild salmon in Scotland because it fails to address the real issues. How many times have I heard that wild salmon are subject to factors that can be addressed and factors that cannot. Yet unless we investigate those that are not a potentially easy fix, wild salmon will remain firmly on the path to extinction.
The press release ends by saying that NGOs remain committed to the cause and will continue to advocate for stronger protection. However, if the NGOs are committed to the conservation of wild salmon there are two immediate actions that they can take.
- Demand an end to the killing of wild salmon for either sport or commercial reasons.
- Start a proper dialogue with the salmon farming industry. Fr example in Scotland, I have repeatedly requested the opportunity to address the FMS aquaculture committee and have been rebuffed at every attempt. Wild Fish, with their two representatives, are another NGO who highly criticise salmon farming but run a mile from any attempt to engage in any discussion. The sooner they stop talking about salmon farming and discuss the real issues why salmon are in decline the better chance they have at slowing down the decline.
Clearly, with such dissent in the ranks, NASCO does not have the full support of the wild fish sector. My own view is that NASCO is highly overrated as a conservation organisation as it stifles any construction discussion. Its credibility relies on cooperation from governments who are also constricted by its outdated system. If wild salmon are dependent on NASCO to guarantee their future, then there is very little hope.