The traffic lights - are they suitable for regulating the aquaculture industry?

In recent months, a lot of important information has been presented that can contribute to a better understanding of the system. First, the control group and the expert group published their reports for 2021 so early that extensive consultation input has been submitted from various actors. Then the international evaluation committee presented its accurate report to the Research Council of Norway just before Christmas. Finally, the trial over three weeks gave a very good insight into various aspects of the traffic light system. This is a summary of some main points.

I must point out at the outset that I am one of the lawyers who have represented the fish farmers in PO 3 and PO 4 in various cases related to the traffic lights. However, in this article I present only my own opinion.

About the experts’ assessments

It is clear what the purpose of the assessments made by the experts (the expert group and the control group) is in the traffic light system. Based on various surveys and model assessments, the experts provide annual assessments of how much wild salmon smolt they believe dies due to salmon lice from the fish farms.

Both the international evaluation committee’s report and the other professional reviews have contributed to clarifying the content of these assessments. In the expert group’s reports, it has been particularly difficult to get hold of the presentation of uncertainty. The great uncertainty is related to the fact that there are very complicated events in an ecological system that one is trying to describe. The evaluation committee emphasises, among other things, the central importance of expert assessments and points out that it is important to clarify where such assessments are included in the expert group’s reports.

In the court case about the traffic light system, one of the topics is whether there are errors in the basis of the expert group’s assessments. Regardless of whether that is the case or not, the expert assessments are uncertain. The expert group and the control group’s report also focus on developments in the past year. When preparing the reports, the expert group can base itself on measurements of conditions such as temperature, salinity, etc. The assessments of the expert group and the control group are therefore far less uncertain than the professional assessments the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries (NFD) must make before the traffic lights are set. They must assess the state of the environment going forward in time, and must therefore take into account that the expert group’s assessments may be based on abnormal conditions in terms of temperature, salinity, current and other conditions that vary from year to year.

The Ministry’s decision - case processing

When determining the traffic lights, NFD must assess the likely impact of salmon lice from the fish farms on wild salmon. The assessment applies to the individual production area in the time period the lights apply to - i.e. two years from the time the lights are set. As mentioned, this is a different assessment than that made by the expert group and the control group. NFD must therefore carry out its own investigation of the actual circumstances in the case.

NFD must also carry out additional assessments for those POs where it is considered to set a red light and reduce production. Such a reduction cannot be implemented unless it is environmentally necessary. This is also a complicated assessment where NFD can rely to a small extent on the work of the experts.

As mentioned earlier, NFD accepted in 2021 that the expert group’s and the control group’s reports were published and an input meeting was arranged. After this meeting, NFD has received a number of extensive comments on the reports.

The conclusion on the traffic lighting for 2022-2024 is not clear at the time of writing this. It may be related to the fact that it takes time to review the extensive comments.

At the same time, the appeal court case shows great disagreement about which legal framework applies to NFD’s decisions about the traffic light system. These are questions that can be clarified when the court’s decision is available.

Stock development and the fish farmers’ contribution

When adopting the traffic light system, the Storting assumed that this should be a predictable system where the fish farmers, by increasing their efforts to solve the lice problems, could influence the light colour. The facts show that this is not the case. The expert group’s assessments of the situation in Western Norway in the period 2017 – 2021 do not conclude that the situation has improved, despite the fact that during this period the fish farmers have implemented a number of measures to reduce the amount of lice in the fish farm facilities during the period when the wild salmon smolt swims out of the fjords.

In my opinion, a particularly challenging aspect of the traffic light system is that you cannot see a connection between the effort the fish farmers make and the light colour that is set in the PO. When this is not the case, the system violates the Storting’s assumption in the decision and at the same time increases the probability that the traffic light system will reduce farming production without achieving any environmental benefit. One possibility to reduce the risk of production reductions without environmental effect is to place greater emphasis on the development of wild salmon stocks. Although there are also uncertain connections here, it should be emphasised whether the wild salmon stocks in the PO increase. It is the wild salmon stocks that this system aims to strengthen.