This is why questions should be asked: The Norwegian Government has announced the new Traffic Light assessment for the 13 production areas. Their assessment is that three production areas will be classified as green (PO1, PO12 and PO13) and farms in these areas can increase production by six percent. One area (PO3) will be classified as red which means farms must cut production by 6% for the third time. The remaining nine areas are classified as yellow, and they are not subject to change.
Simon Nesse Økland of Bremnes Seashore, who operate in PO3 told iLAKS that the Storting has asked the government to develop a more comprehensive knowledge base about the impacts of salmon farming on wild salmon and this should be given priority before any new decisions are made as to the classification of each production area. In addition, Mr Økland says that the timing of this announcement is difficult to understand because it comes just before the main holidays with a hearing deadline in the middle of the summer on 31st of July. Mr Økland also points out that this is likely to be the last assessment of sea lice used this way and it is wrong to proceed with new cuts while the regulatory system is under political and professional review.
Meanwhile, the Minister told the media that:
“I am concerned that more areas than before are classified as yellow and this is happening despite the goal of reducing the impact on wild salmonids. I would like to remind you that the Traffic Light System in itself, is not, and is not intended to be sufficient to reduce the impact on wild salmonids from sea lice.”
I think I have missed the point over the years because I thought that the purpose of the Traffic Light System is to protect wild salmonids from the alleged threat of sea lice infestation, but clearly, I was wrong. It seems that all the time and expense invested in the Traffic Light System is for no purpose at all. When it is said that the Traffic Light System is not working, it seems this is because it was never intended to do so. It is not surprising that the government are resisting a thorough examination of the Traffic Light System because it would show that it has all been a total waste of time,
In contrast to the response from the industry to the new Traffic Light classifications, the Norwegian Hunters and Fishermen’s Association (NJFF) has said that the new classifications don’t go far enough and that it is time that the government puts an end to production of farmed salmon in open pens. Their spokesman Øyvind Fjeldseth said that those who fish for wild salmon have compensated for reduced numbers by shorter fishing times, stricter quotas, river protection measures and bans on certain types of fishing gear so now is the time for more stringent measures to be taken against salmon farms. It is interesting to note that whilst Mr Fjeldseth demands more stringent measures for salmon farms, he doesn’t suggest that those who fish for wild salmon should just stop killing them. Unusually for the wild fish sector, Mr Fjeldseth responded to an email and said that salmon farming is only one of the issues threatening wild salmon that his organisation looks into. That may well be, but I don’t see Traffic Light measures taken against any other of the claimed impacts on wild salmon.
Mr Fjeldseth also suggests that whilst red areas have mortality levels above 30%, yellow areas also can have mortality levels approaching 30%. He added that the government accepts that 30% of wild salmon can die as a result of sea lice but then the government also seem to accept that the Traffic Light System was never intended to reduce the impact of sea lice, so it is unclear what the government appear to accept and what they don’t. Certainly, what they don’t appear to accept is that there is a need for a new debate about sea lice.
In January, the Minister sat in the front row of the Aqkva conference and listened to me outline a range of concerns about the science of sea lice and the Traffic Light System. It is hard to believe that she left the room without any questions about the established narrative against sea lice. Perhaps she is so reliant on her advisors, that my presentation covered parts of the science with which she is not familiar
One aspect of the Traffic Light System of which I am sure she is clear is the idea that mortality varies between the different colours with green less than 10%, yellow between 10% and 30% and red over 30% as highlighted by Mr Fjeldseth of NJFF.
The problem is that these percentages are promoted as an indication of what is happening in the fjords. In red areas, the claim is that 30 out of every 100 smolts migrating from local rivers are expected to die from sea lice infestation. However, no-one has been able to prove that this is what happens. The percentage mortality rate is largely determined by laboratory research, but it is often the case that what happens in laboratory experiments of parasitic infection cannot be extrapolated to the real world. Most parasitology research concerns human parasites where there is a clear distinction between laboratory work and what happens in real life.
In addition, this generalised percentage mortality must be considered against the overall background mortality of 97% which occurs for reasons so far unknown. If mortality due to sea lice is 30% then the background mortality must equate 67%. In yellow areas with an average mortality of 20%, then the background mortality would be 77% and in green areas, with average mortality of 5%, the background mortality would be 92%. Such variation seems unrealistic, especially with the changing classifications along the coast. As, PO4 changes form red to yellow, does the background mortality alter too. The question is how to determine whether the fish are actually dying from sea lice or from the background mortality. It seems that we have to rely on the views of VRL and the Expert Group to say which.
Sea lice have been considered a problem for wild fish since the late 1980s and during the intervening time, no-one has really put an actual number of how many fish are lost to sea lice. The usual method is to predict mortality using the Taranger formula on fish that have been sampled and some wild fish people then extrapolate the percentage to the local population (unless the sampling doesn’t show high infestation).
The only time that I have seen a specific number claimed for mortality of wild fish due to sea lice is in the VRL annual report, of which the latest version (no 22) was recently published.
The report includes a section about sea lice, which VRL say is the greatest threat to wild salmon. The section includes a sub-section headed impact. This states:
“Impact – Sea lice have significantly reduced the harvestable yield in several Norwegian salmon stocks. The loss of salmon yield 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). “
It is important to note that this report is dated 2026 yet the impacts of sea lice are reported for 2010-2014, 2018, and 2019, the latest of which is now seven years ago. With all the expertise that make up VRL, it seems incredible that the last time they estimated an actual number for fish dying from sea lice was so long ago. The obvious question is that if they could estimate the number of dying fish in 2010-2014 and again in 2018 and 2019, why can they not provide an estimate for numbers dying for all the years since then. It seems that they prefer to rely on using the same paragraph of explanation for all the years since 2020 and here it is repeated again in 2026. VRL appear to be so confident in their estimations, that they clearly believe that there is no need to keep re-estimating the number of fish that die and that we should just accept what they say.
VRL and the Expert Group are also very keen to say that any science they consider must be published in peer reviewed journals. One such paper that has come to my attention is by Svenning et. al. (2006) and concerns predation in the river Tana. Although the paper is now old, it suggests that one million smolts leave the Tana every year and this equates to 20% of the total Norwegian smolt output or 5 million smolts.
Martin A Svenning from NINA published a report in March this year which was detailed by Salmon Business in which he estimated that predatory pike are eating at least 250,000 smolts a year in the Tana.
Wild fish returns have fallen dramatically over the last twenty years, but some research has suggested that production of juveniles and hence smolts has not dropped in the same way, so it is possible that smolts are still leaving Norwegian rivers in their millions. Certainly, if at least 250,000 smolts are consumed by predatory pike in the Tana, there must be still a significant amount left to continue their migration.
If there is some reduction in smolt numbers to say 4 million, then the estimated loss of salmon smolts from VRL in 2019 represents about 1% of smolt output. Even if smolt output has halved over the last twenty years, the loss of 39,000 smolts still only represents 1.5% of total smolt output. Is this really the greatest threat to wild salmon, especially as the loss of smolts to pike is six times greater than that attributed, but not proven, to be caused by sea lice. Perhaps it is not surprising that VRL are now so reluctant to put a number on mortality of wild salmon due to sea lice.
This is not the first time that I have compared VRL’s estimation of smolt mortality due to sea lice with other mortality, such as by exploitation. In 2019, anglers caught and killed 83,179 adult fish as they returned to their home rivers to breed. At the same time commercial nets caught and killed a further 46,242 adult salmon bringing the total to 129,421 salmon, which were prevented from breeding by their premature deaths. VRL do not consider the loss of these breeding fish to be a greater loss to wild salmon populations than the loss of an estimated 38,000 smolts. Whilst the numbers of adult salmon killed is recorded and confirmed, VRL cannot prove that any of the 39,000 smolts they estimate died from sea lice actually died as predicted. It is just an estimate and one they now seem reluctant to update.
It should also be noted that VRL and the Sea Lice Expert Group have at least one scientist in common at the moment, so it is inevitable that the views of one group are shared by the other.
Finally, it is also worth mentioning that FHF have recently closed a call for applications to undertake a desk-top research project to investigate the possible reasons why wild salmon are in decline. VRL are supposed to be the experts in wild salmon populations and although they continue to suggest that sea lice represent the greatest threat to wild salmon, it would seem that FHF, at least, are not so believing, preferring instead to consider that there may be other more realistic reasons why wild salmon are in crisis. Perhaps not everyone has undeniable faith that VRL have got it right. That is certainly a question we should all be asking.