http://www.biology-online.org/articles/marine-seaweed-detoxify-organic-pollutants.html

page 10

When we posed this question at Runde we were told that seaweed removes little pollution from the sea – documents we trust tell us otherwise. 

Our dialogue with marine biologists have not reinforced our trust particularly as we are told(privately) that many reports are censored and that those that speak out loose their jobs.   It is nearly impossible for a qualified marine biologist to find work if he or she has upset anyone in either the industry or the state.

It was interesting to hear a very senior official from the fiskeriedirektoratet tell the meeting at Trondheim that taretrawlers have the same rights as any other fishing boats and that the old law of first right applies to them as to any fisherman – he was quoting from a 1995 law – we had a copy of the 2011 update which denies that.

This article from the BBC paints a intriguing picture of how the state and industry can become so entwined that the work of either is hampered, it is called regulatory capture.

The regulators are promised work in the industry they are supposed to regulate, as a result regulation comes second.  In the case of Fukushima the cost will be the highest for any disaster ever.

It is possible that every person on this planet may be paying for that soon.

 
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24332346

There are some distressingly similar characteristics here.  For instance the rawstoffchef in FMC biopolymer O:D: Kvilhaug worked for the fiskeriedirektoratet as a case handler for 12 years, there are many other instances.

We work in conjunction with a number of organizations and pass information though most of ours is freely available on the internet

• • when we were told about Thiamine deficiency affecting many birds and animals in Scandinavia and the north it was not difficult to find an article detailing the one of the  sources of this essential vitamin as plant material.
    https://www.pnas.org/content/106/29/12001.full

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiamine

  It is reasonable to assume that if the defense mechanism of tare is triggered then many species of animals would not choose to be in the seaweed forests.  It is logical to assume that there is a general

page 12

• • lowering of the amount of thiamine available as a result to those animals at the top of the food chain such as birds.

We contacted Lennert Balk the lead scientist in this work and he agreed that this was a strong possibility.

Some countries such as Chile and Peru have had a very aggressive seaweed harvesting industry.  We have evidence to suggest that the seaweed beds in Brazil suffered collapse from overharvesting –  though we have only vague reports.

It was noted that in January 2012 there was a very large die off of marine mammals and birds along that coast.  Reasons given varied from mobilovirus to pollution, but finally the state declared it was starvation

https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0509/What-s-causing-mass-pelican-and-dolphin-deaths-in-Peru

Lennert Balks article  states that many observers are unable to distinguish between starvation and the effects of the Thiamine deficiency syndrome.  There have been large die-offs of birds along the Norwegian coast put down to the presence of large numbers of mackerel removing food normally taken by the birds however attempts at finding out if there has been any research done on this matter have led nowhere with no response at all from ornithological groups or individual scientists.

https://www.pnas.org/content/106/29/12001.full

Commercial scale seaweed harvesting in the west is a relatively new phenomena – the income is impressive – we have information that the best alginates fetch up to 180 dollars per gram – if the yield per load is between 5 and 10 tons per boat then the income is indeed huge and would account for ecological consequences coming second

Page 13

Recent articles and papers talk about ecological disaster concerning our seas –  the enrichment is approaching catastrophic proportions – the channel coasts of France and the uk are annually covered by huge drifts of Ulva species of seaweed. (this is the same in many parts of the world)

This type of plant takes over after ordinary seaweeds have been removed. 

Decomposing seaweed on the Brittany coast have led to the deaths of many mammals – horses, wild boars and even the death of at least one man – the cost of the annual clean up is over 160 million euros and is born by the French Government.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/aug/10/france-brittany-coast-seaweed-algae

 – officially it is due to effluent from pig farms but no one can say that the annual French seaweed harvest is not having an effect.

Even Seaweed cultivating can have an effect – in Shingdao china there is an annual slick of this type of seaweed – 2013 the slick covered over 30,000 square kilometers.

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1284156/cause-qingdaos-green-tide-algae-mystery

The effects of our seas becoming enriched are well documented – a major effect is the increase of harmful algal blooms.  These are population explosions of microscopic algae which as a by product of their metabolism produce toxins such as domoic acid which are nerve agents. Normally these would effect shellfish and make those eating them very sick, however in the USA these toxins are reportedly becoming airborne effecting all on or near the sea.

http://www.rense.com/general63/redtide.htm

Norway is not immune from this either – we have an organization monitoring this

(http://algeinfo.imr.no/eng/html/11/

In the USA harmful algal blooms have been increasing massively – but the sickness that occurs from this is not as major an issue as the occurrence on the coast of Peru and Chile in the 70s where over 500 people died from a cholera epidemic – this is caused by contamination of drinking water however in this case it was carried in the sea by an unusual enrichment of algae – the bacteria attached themselves to the drifting plants and were carried from place to place along the coast – this document from the lancet publication details the events – the article goes further to mention marine enrichment.

http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/docs/005-390/005-390.html

We are told repeatedly by fmc biopolymers that there is no documented proof that taretråling does any harm.  Repeat anything enough and you will come to believe it –        

However in view of the reports and scientific documents and the health of the Norwegian coast it is foolhardy to allow this to continue without further research.  One vital element of which should be careful analysis of what has happened in

Page 16

other countries(by independent researchers) concerning this industry and why so much of the world currently only grows seaweed  and doesn’t harvest it from the wild as it has done in the past!!

• Our communications with marine biologists worldwide indicate a culture that is not perceptive of new ideas. 

• It has few specialists and few who dare publicly to call in question the activities of large companies using the sea,  nor produce information that may harm the seaweed harvesting industry.

• There is also a  suspiciously consistent ignorance of the activities of commercial seaweed harvesting companies with environmental charities and organizations. 

Dette papir kommer fra Stopptt.com

Bertram Sømme  95093533

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

Page 1

Why Taretråling should be stopped

Seaweed harvesting on the scale that it is currently undertaken needs to be researched before it is allowed to continue for the following reasons

•   Historically there is evidence that it has been stopped in other countries due to changes it has wrought in the environment and ecology

• There are currently major changes in the ecology of the worlds oceans – the cause is supposedly unknown.  However if you combine the amounts harvested by all countries then the amount is considerable.  No research is or had been conducted on the overall effect. 

•  Seaweed binds an estimated 30 million tons of co2 endangering this is foolhardy.

•   Seaweed removes many dangerous chemicals and heavy metals from the sea – it is a vital defense against pollution

• Norway top marine biologists have admitted in public they know nothing of the defense chemicals seaweed produces when under stress – the effect this is having on the ecology is unknown.

• Norway’s top marine biologists have admitted in public they know nothing of the thiamine deficiency in seabirds that has been described decimating seabird populations.

• Senior members of the fiskeriedirektoratet have been quite happy to make statements in public about taretrawlers and the current regulations which are untrue (at Trondheim)

        Page 2

•  Attempts were made to prevent the first prosecution of taretrawlers for trawling in areas which were set aside for ecological reasons.

•  Senior members of fmc biopolymers are or have been employed by the fiskeriedirektortet and other marine protection organizations demonstrating captive regulation and a clear conflict of interest.

• Taretråling now occurs along the entire length of the coast where there is enough weed to harvest – this has never happened before

http://www.netalgae.eu/uploadedfiles/Norwegian_seaweed_industry_WP12.pdf

In the late 1800s a Japanese firm engaged in seaweed harvesting found that removing the weed from the seabed

Page 3

constantly led to unwanted species taking over the place of the original plant.

 This led to cultivation as the only way forwards and is continued to this day.

There is ample evidence to suggest that something similar is happening on the coast of Norway with the disappearance of sukker tare and other plants in skagerak

 

This is from the  xx seaweed symposium 2010 in California

http://www.isaseaweed.org/pdf/XXISSFinalProgram.pdf

    This article mentions the possibility of marine enrichment as a possible cause – as seaweeds remove large amounts of

Page 4

nitrogen, phophate and other chemicals it is entirely possible that a change in the amount of seaweed along Europe’s coasts may be responsible.  Figures for the amount of Nitrogen that laminaria Hyperborea removes per year are very high – it is an estimated 480 tons per 20 square kilometers if the figures from the crown services document are to be believed.

(this again from the crown services document)

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/media/358662/initial_environmental_consideration_of_large-scale_seaweed_farming.pdf

Further if the amount of Laminaria Hyperborea on the Norwegian coast is accurately accessed then the amount it removes is well over 100,000 tons per year. 

To endanger this by allowing a American owned company (from a corporation with with possibly the worlds worst record of environmental pollution, permanent environmental damage, record fines for price fixing cartels and even record fines for fraud ) totally free access is reprehensible to say the least.

 

http://www.netalgae.eu/uploadedfiles/Norwegian_seaweed_industry_WP12.pdf

       Unfortunately we have not been able to find out how this figure was arrived at.

      This information comes from Netalgae sponsored by the European Union and other organizations.  The documents also have information on the harvesting in

Portugal, France, and Spain. 

https://hal-agrocampus-ouest.archives-ouvertes.fr/file/index/docid/840572/filename/3744.pdf     http://www.netalgae.eu/uploadedfiles/Portugal.pdf

http://www.netalgae.eu/industry-directory.php

The combination of all this harvesting must be having a profound effect on the ecosystem – in fact France is still harvesting Calcified seaweed which is against the ospar agreement – the uk also harvested this for some years before it was banned.

   Taretråling is illegal in the uk, in fact there is only one license for harvesting in the uk, and that is a one man operation and that is cutting by hand.  

     The netalgae document on Norwegian taretråling echoes all the other literature we have seen – essentially it says that the forests are harvested before they reach maturity – in other words there is a systematic attempt at lowering the amount of wildlife in the seaweed forests – apparently this is to produce a better alginate extract – but it may also have the effect of reducing the amount of food and its quality available

Page 6

for our fish and birds

There is no doubt that the areas harvested are severely reduced in wildlife after the harvests and are not allowed to recover – this quite obviously affects bird and other wildlife as seen in this paper by sv lorentzen.

Essentially it says that the skarv are unable to survive after taretråling – this is noted in many parts of Norway by other observers.  If it affects Skarv (cormorants) it also effects other birds – but unfortunately there seems to be no or little research on this issue.

  The crown services document mentions iodine in the plants

• apparently it is used as a defense mechanism by the plants.

• https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/9/823/2009/acp-9-823-2009.pdf

• http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/10/toxic-algae-coral-reefs/

We have found a report indicating this to be a powerful tool.

• many terrestrial plants have a similar mechanism.

Page 6

• One of the most researched is the acacia tree

  – the poison is produced within 20 minutes of an attack – signals are passed to other plants rapidly and they also produce the poison.

In one nature reserve a group of 300 kodu were fenced in and had no other food – they all died within a very short period.  It is reasonable to assume that the effect of major disturbance in a seaweed forest would be similar.  If signals are passed from area to area it is possible that the overall effect would be to empty the forests.

https://spectregroup.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/acacia-self-defense/

After harvesting we have observed drifts of seaweed washed ashore at Hustadvika – sometimes as much as a metre deep – the stalks are completely bare of epiphytes.  This is not a one off occurrence but happens every time they trawl and they trawl in the same area at Hustadvika for up to a year. 

Unfortunately there seems to be very little research on the iodine  issue – we asked the biologists present at the taretråling meeting in trondheim in public, if they knew anything about this – they answered they knew nothing – present were many leaders from the havsforsknings institut, nina etc.

Taretråling started in September of 2012 at Hustadvika – shortly afterwards we noticed that all the cod livers inshore had turned black or looked as if they were bruised.  The livers were also severely reduced in size having a weak jelly-like appearance

Later we noticed other species had similar – but they were all inshore, futher out the livers were normal.  We contacted the mattilsynet  – they told us this was normal but could not tell us why. They also refused our offer of liver samples.

Later we also wrote to the havsforsknings institut but received no reply. 

    Many of the papers we have read talk about fish livers being the first sign that there is something wrong with the environment.

  We asked the mattilsynet if the livers were poisonous as many people here liked to eat them – in reply we got a article saying that you should not eat cod livers at all as many were too polluted https://www.matportalen.no/matvaregrupper/tema/fisk_og_skalldyr/ikke_spis_fiskelever_fra_selvfangst this led to a further article mentioning over 30 places on the coast of Norway  that are so polluted that nothing from the sea should be eaten 

http://www.miljostatus.no/Tema/Hav-og-kyst/Miljogifter_marint/Kostholdsrad/

If this is the case then we should be looking to seaweed to clean up this mess

The Norwegian coast has a large number of wrecks containing everything from Mustard gas to high explosive – clear documented evidence shows that many species of seaweed remove tnt and other substances from the seas.  Many Marine biologists point out that seaweed is the liver and lungs of the sea.

I had originally asked to present a 10 minute video on taretråling and some rather surprising effects such as the Thiamine issue and the Iodine release, instead I felt very angry – I felt I needed to clear up some issues which were quite apparent, so instead I presented some papers I’d downloaded.

I mentioned iodine being used as a weapon by seaweed, the same as terrestrial plants

https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/9/823/2009/acp-9-823-2009.pdf

– I mentioned a paper I had on terrestrial plants actually having such a effective chemical weapon that it has been observed killing large numbers of animals

https://spectregroup.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/acacia-self-defense/

– I mentioned another on seaweed killing coral

http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2011/10/111017-corals-reefs-fiji-seaweed-chemical-warfare-animals-science/

and yet another the mechanism of iodine being released by seaweed – then I asked if anyone present, in particular the marine biologists knew anything about this – there was a resounding no – I then asked if anyone wanted the papers waving them in the air – again a resounding no.

I mentioned Lennert Balks work on thiamine deficiency and how it is possible that this is the cause of major seabird die offs in the Baltic and north of Europe,

https://www.pnas.org/content/106/29/12001.full

I said I had a film of a bird displaying the symptoms mentioned in the papers, I said I had sent an email to Laurentzen and the havsforsknings institut on both subjects but received no reply.  I then asked those present if anyone knew about this and again a resounding no – I then asked if anyone wanted to read the papers and was met by the same result.

I then mentioned a paper talking about the state of our seas and how 500 people had died in a cholera outbreak in Chile, Peru and Bolivia due to marine enrichment –

http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/docs/005-390/005-390.html

the paper was from the lancet the oldest medical journal in the world – would anyone like this paper – the result was as expected – i then said all this information and more is on our website  http://stopptt.com/ – my point had been made.  In all around 2 minutes.

There was a little dinner afterwards in the miljødirektoratet – one of my fellow guests asked a marine biologist who had been doing statistics on fish populations after and before taretråling, if he could have a copy of his raw data – it was explained that this was difficult as there was so much – no problem came the reply, I can let you have memory sticks – it is public material isn’t it?  the reply was yes of course it was – “then that should be no problem”  – “ahh, but it is gigabites of material” replied the marine biologist – “no problem, just let me have it – I can even let you have a hard disc.”  the marine biologist was not happy with this and walked away – my fellow guest said “I am not surprised.”

This was the tone for the whole meeting – the concerns of the public are not being met in any way, and when they are there is likely to be some twist.

Here is a snip from a paper on the Fukushima accident – before the accident it was not a problem and the state was happy to let it drift – but one cannot say the same now – and it is happening here

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24369244 To think that this article mentions global warming, acidification of the seas and more and yet there is no mention at all of one of the worlds biggest industries removing seaweed forests on a global scale – we know seaweed binds something like 30 million tons of co2, the stuff on the Norwegian coast over 100,000 tons of nitrogen per year – dangerous chemicals are removed from the environment and yet there is no mention anywhere – this is truly bizarre.

http://www.fiskeridir.no/om-oss/telefon-og-e-post-til-ansatte/ressursavdelingen/reguleringsseksjonen/terje-halsteinsen

Terje Halsteinsen gave a talk on the regulations and rules concerning taretrawlers – questions of electronic tracking and more.

Unfortunately he stated that taretrawlers, that is the seaweed harvesting trawlers were treated in the same way as any fishing boat  with the same rights and privileges, he went further to explain the law of first right, that is the law that says that the person who has established use over a long period of time has the first right.

He quoted from a outdated law, my colleague Johan put him right with a up to date copy of the regulations regarding fishing boats and fishing, it says that taretrawlers have the right to trawl regardless of first right.  The original law stated that no trawling is to be allowed within 1 nautical mile of any areas used for lobster, crab or any other kind of activity.  It is very strange that such a senior official should not know the current regulations.

It is also very sad that an American owned company (fmc biopolymers) should be able to walk all over Norwegian fisherman’s rights.  But that is apparently the case.

After this there was a talk by the miljødirektoratet stating a little of their history and what their job is and their affiliations

Followed by an interesting talk  from vikna kommune, Ivar Grindvik https://www.venstre.no/artikkel/2011/02/13/vikna-venstre-arsmelding-2010/

He mentioned major changes in the environment and how concerned everybody was particularly as the fisheries minister owns the biggest salmon farming business in the country – he mentioned that he felt that if the marine biologists were to work with local people it could be a very good combination – there have been big changes in the bird populations since the trawling started, but that could be due to other factors.  He went on to mention co2 and how seaweed binds this, how this was a big international issue  – and should be tackled at the local level –  “this is the job of us politicians. ”

he finished with “The rights of local people are being brushed aside for a monopoly.”

Martin Nilsen from Froya Kommune  https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Nilsen

said that there was no great conflict in Froya with the taretrawlers but there had been some mention of crab fishermen and their equipment.  He then said that the picture was not clear over what happened to immature fish which lived in the seaweed forests once they had been cleared – this is something that needs research.

He also mentioned growing seaweed and how there are big possibilities and that there is a firm cultivating sugar kelp nearby.

Odd Inge Viken from Roan Fiskarlag spoke next  http://www.proff.no/selskap/roan-fiskarlag/bessaker/-/Z0IC0VB3/

He said that after taretrawling pollock (lyr) had diminished hugely in numbers.  I do know that there have been appeals from Roan Kommune to the minister concerned and that there have been no results from the meeting.

here is a little snip from that document

Next to speak was Jan Henrik Sandberg from Norges fiskarlag

https://no.linkedin.com/pub/jan-henrik-sandberg/6/100/5a4

Said that Norges fiskarlag has always been skeptical about taretråling

Feel that the trial harvesting of 30,000 tons in the lofoten areas has not been researched enough, a letter sent to the fiskeriedirektoratet went further and said this was not good administrative practice.

Taretråling had been left out of the

Marine strategy plan for Trøndelag

Research strategy plan has 21 research updates

And the regions marine development plan

Further there was not enough information on the sea urchin problem(there are a number of unanswered questions we have too), not enough known about the effects on immature fish, he also mentioned the decrease in pollock(lyr) numbers and quoted figures from fmcs own site to support this.

This cartoon shows quite nicely how many view the research done on tretråling – it says they’ve soon been harvesting for 50 years, fishermen were also out early and are not yet finished with research.

The next speaker was Ole Damm Kvilhaug rastoffchef at fmc biopolymer

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ole-damm-kvilhaug-88670a44/

Said he felt this meeting was  more constructive than the previous meeting at Runde http://www.google.no/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CEEQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fiskeridir.no%2Fcontent%2Fdownload%2F26871%2F243270%2Fversion%2F1%2Ffile%2Freferat-taremote-runde-16-17-april-2012.pdf&ei=f3lUUsroGse84ATfjIGACA&usg=AFQjCNGuPLeiSgwosXAlHkJfv8UwauRfQA which he felt had been confrontational.

He explained a bit about his background which included being a trawler skipper in the north sea, university in Tromsø, 12 years as a case handler for the fiskeriedirektoratet and 2 years with Rogaland county where he developed taretråling in  that area.

He then spoke about FMC and the history of taretråling on the Norwegian coast.

After his talk Johan Breivik asked him about the illegal trawling at Hustadvika (the first and only proven case of illegal taretråling in Norway)   He explained it was a combination of poor maps etc. He fully supported his men and said that they were good workmen and not out to do anything bad.  in fact shortly after the incident one of the skippers who trawled the bay retired.

Elin Stølen asked if they could remove the seaweed washed ashore after taretråling, Ole Damm explained they were not allowed to do this.

I asked him about fmc corporations record concerning the environment, i mentioned polluting the Mississippi river, and various other cases, i also mentioned the production of carborufan or furadan http://www.lionconservation.org/lion-poisoning.html  and explained that it was having a devastating effect  on the wildlife in Africa, and after causing the death of over 1 million birds in the USA was banned there – i went on the mention the mining of lithium and explained that it is destroying permanently one of the most fragile ecosystems in the world – he explained he knew nothing of this.

Strange that such a senior executive should be so lacking in knowledge of the corporation he works for – its also interesting to note that he did not ask for any information from me on these matters, but others did!

Trond Kjønnø http://www.valagro.com/en/corporate/group/algea gave us a talk on the company he works for ALGEA
.

The theme for the talk was “minimum environmental impact”  this is also on Algeas website.  the site also explains that this company is active in over 40 countries.

One very interesting fact that came out was that Algea thinks that harvesting from the wild is not such a good idea and wants to concentrate on cultivation –

Double clicking will enlarge the image.

During questions he was asked by Torjan Bodvin if there had been any long term research done on the impact on this type of harvesting in the areas they were harvesting on the ecosystem. (The type of harvesting algea does is clipping the fronds by machine – not removing the whole plant as in Taretråling.)

Trond explained that Algea had none.  But had done some research on birds in conjunction with researchers.  He was  asked if it could be called sustainable if they had no documentation – he replied it is sustainable for the seashore because we leave a good deal of the plant to grow again.

Torjan Bodvin http://www.imr.no/om_havforskningsinstituttet/ansatte/b/torjan_bodvin/en

It was  interesting to see Torjans concern as he later said in an interview with NRK http://www.nrk.no/sognogfjordane/taretraling-er-blitt-milliardnaering-1.11288758 that  that there were no big consequences from the current harvest in North trondelag.

Einar Sandes presentation was statistics on fish and seaweed catches http://www.rafisklaget.no/portal/page/portal/NR

Jens Wathne spoke about tracking seaweed harvesting trawlers    http://www.fiskeridir.no/fiske-og-fangst/elektronisk-rapportering

– there has been a great deal of controversy about this with all kinds of accusations from environmental organizations and individuals but no one was able to present a good enough case until we filmed a trawler fishing illegally – in spite of a great deal of prevarication and attempts to get the case dropped we continued.  We finally got the case through after filming a policeman telling us how difficult it was to get a decent prosecution, that the maps were on paper and not in the trawlers – and that the trawlers used paper charts anyway so they could not be all that precise over their position.  Our video shows 4 landmarks in line and the trawler on the wrong side with his gear out.  It is immensely difficult to position a ship from land accurately.   From the west coast – Trondheim – southwards the coast is divided up into harvesting areas.  Each is allowed to be harvested for 1 year then it must be allowed to recover and harvesting begins again in 4.  Our prosecution (the first in Norway) took nearly 2 years.

The picture underneath is of Ole Damm Kvilhaug announcing tracking of all taretrawlers at the meeting.  Essentially he said he was very happy that this has come about as it will stop a good deal of speculation and trouble. http://www.google.no/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDAQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fiskeridir.no%2Fcontent%2Fdownload%2F26875%2F243286%2Fversion%2F1%2Ffile%2Fole-damm-kvilhaug.pdf&ei=5lZJUr_eGMPl4QSE-YA4&usg=AFQjCNFkHAVE14E6n5WrKo7oN7CwbtUiiQ&bvm=bv.53217764,d.bGE

Unfortunately it is not the ais system we had hoped for and is completely under the control of the fiskeriedirektoratet and the taretrawling skippers themselves with no public oversight.

The day was finished off with a remarkable tasting of various seafood preparations made with seaweed – by the cooks at Stokke Sjøsenter.  While this in no way excuses the mass seaweed harvesting currently ongoing on coasts worldwide it is clear that this is excellent food.

This lecture was Presented by Nils T
. Hagen

What i found most interesting was the mechanism of the natural control of sea urchins, it appears there there are several, and that they are functioning. The main mechanism is by a nematode worm. We tried to find out information about this from Theirry Chopin in Canada (who is one of the worlds experts on seaweed http://www2.unb.ca/chopinlab/lab/present/thierrychopin.html  ) 2 years ago, but got nowhere – we still have a lot of unanswered questions about the mechanisms involved, it is clear they wont be answered in the present climate. One rather worrying feature of this problem is the experimental use of quicklime to control the predation – worrying because it might negatively effect the predacious (parasitic) nematode population – we understand there is also a predacious gastropod and that might be effected  – but then this is not our job, we have professionals for that.

There were no clear answers  –  did manage to find out that it has not happened because of taretråling (in some areas) and that nobody knows quite why however as the area (trondheim to lofoten) has only just recovered it seems dangerous to allow taretråling in the area.  There are reports which state that there is often a population explosion shortly after taretråling. http://uin.no/Ansattsider/nth.aspx

This lecture was Presented by Nils T. Hagen

Much of the information presented at the meeting  was about the opening of harvesting north of Trondheim – this is a contentious issue as this large area has been the subject of a plague of Sea urchins for many years, in fact the devastation was so much that there was simply not enough seaweed to warrant harvesting until recently.

From a private discussion with a representative of the miljødirektoratet https://www.miljodirektoratet.no/ they had presented no objections to opening this area for harvest as they have no negative information.  During our conversation it was clear that they had no information about my documents ( downloaded from the internet)  and  their contents in fact they were surprised, VERY.

What impact it would have had on their decision though is something else.   They were given a number of printouts.

Several times during the meeting i pointed out that this meeting was about tarehøsting in Norway – NOWHERE ELSE – there seemed to be no awareness at all of what is happening elsewhere  or even that our oceans are connected– of the negative consequences of harvesting in other lands – even little of the negative consequences of seaweed cultivating – there is an annual slick now  some 30,000 square kilometres in area in the yellow sea  due to a problem associated with cultivation.   http://ir.yic.ac.cn/bitstream/133337/3513/1/World’s%20largest%20macroalgal%20bloom%20caused%20by%20expansion%20of%20seaweed%20aquaculture%20in%20China.pdf

Why is it important that Norway should think about the bigger picture?  Norway has the largest amount of Laminaria Hyperborea apparently in the world – as I mentioned at the meeting it removes approximately 480 tons of nitrogen per 20 square kilometres (our marine biologists kept on pointing  out that there is over 50 million tons on the Norwegian coast – nearly 6,000 square kilometres – however no one at the meeting, in spite of frequent requests from many present – could tell us how they arrived at this figure)– harvesting it, disturbing it over such a wide area is going to have an effect – particularly as the gulf stream runs alongside the coast.  (how do I know this?? http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/media/358662/initial_environmental_consideration_of_large-scale_seaweed_farming.pdf Sure you have to read quite a bit to find it, but its there alright)   That means that well over 100,000 tons of nitrogen are removed annually from the sea by just our seaweed – worldwide seaweed binds over 30 million tons of co2

Svein Håkon Lorentsen presented more work on the negative impact of taretråling on skarv or cormorants

– apparently it is considerable and it also effects the eggs there not being enough food – I have written to Mr. Lorentsen concerning the Thiamine issue and sent links to the main document, but received no reply https://www.pnas.org/content/106/29/12001.full  Why Ornithologists are not very concerned about this report I don’t know – feedback from Lennert Balk (main author of the Thiamine report)indicates this.

• I was unable to ask Mr.Lorentsen about this at the conference but in the end it did not really matter –
• Reading this should set off alarm bells – it certainly did with me.
• I have contacted many organizations such as the uk RSPB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society_for_the_Protection_of_Birds the Norwegian ornitologisk forening https://www.birdlife.no/organisasjonen/english.php  and marine protection groups concerning this – a great deafening silence is the result but I know the documents are being read.

The introduction to the meeting was given by Terje Sørvik https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terje_S%C3%B8rvik

Essentially he said that the meeting was being held to address concerns about the impact of taretråling and in general seaweed harvesting and a much deeper concern that not enough was known about the consequences.

The next Talk was given by Henning steen – a great deal of information about the seaweed laminaria hyperborea – the one that is being harvested by the seaweed trawlers – one surprising bit of information was that some of the seaweed was dated at nearly 20 years of age

Henning Steen https://www.imr.no/om_havforskningsinstituttet/ansatte/s/henning_steen/nb-no

No mention of ecological consequences but a great deal of video of the seaweed forests

Before and after harvesting –

19 and 20th September Johan Breivik and I – Bertram Sømme from Stopptt, attended a meeting about Commercial seaweed harvesting on the Norwegian coast in Trondheim hosted by Nord and Syd Trondheim Fylkeskommune and others

Present were some 60 people from the major state marine biological organizations – from the Fiskeriedirektoratet – from the Kommune (councils) up and down the country – from the Miljødirektoratet – the environment agency and from the seaweed harvesting industry including Fmc, Algea, the Taretråwler skippers and perhaps the most important of all several very concerned private citizens.

Arneberg		Ellen		Fylkesmannen i Sør-Trøndelag
Bekkby		Trine		NIVA
Bertelsen		Bernt		Fiskeri- og kystdepartementet
bertram		sømme		stopptt
Betten		Ola		Fylkesmannen i Møre og Romsdal
Bjørgo		Sigurd		Sør-Trøndelag fylkeskommune
Bodvin		Torjan		Havforskningsinstituttet
breivik		johan		stopptt
Bremnes		Hallgeir		Biotrål AS
Brødreskift		Jan		Fiskeridirektoratet region Trøndelag
Ekli		Monica		Fylkesmannen i Sør-Trøndelag
Eliassen		Jens_Eric		Tingvoll kommune
Ellen		Hoel		Sør-Trøndelag fylkeskommune
Ely-Aastrup		Hilde		Fylkesmannen i Nord-Trøndelag
Fjermedal		Anne Brit		Fiskeridirektoratet region sør
FRONTH NYHUS		PA
Garstad		Ulf		Fisker
Garte Nervold		Gunhild		Fylkesmannen i Nordland
Gorseth		May Brit Myrholt		Fylkesmannen i Nord-Trøndelag
Grindvik		Ivar		Vikna kommune
Grindvik Blikø		Magny		Fiskeridirektoratet region Trøndelag
Grydeland		Jan Helge		Roan kommune
Hagen		Eli Merete		Fiskeridirektoratet Region Vest
Halsteinsen		Terje		Fiskeridirektoratet
helstad		øyvor		Frøya kommune
Hovland		Frode		Sogn og Fjordane fylkeskommune
Hoxmark		Jens Odd		Privatperson Tromøy Aust-Agder
Irgens		Magnus		Miljødirektoratet
Jakobsen		Ole-Einar		Fiskeridirektoratet region Møre og Romsdal
Jansen		Turid Susort		Rogaland fylkeskommune
Johansen		Gunnar		Fiskarlaget Midt-Norge
Kjønnø		Tron		ALGEA AS
Knudtsen		Solveig Skjei		Nord-Trøndelag fylkeskommune
Kvilhaug		Ole Damm		FMC Biopolymer AS
Lilleng		Dagfinn		Fiskeridirektoratet
Lorentsen		Svein-Håkon		Norsk institutt for naturforskning, NINA
Lorentsen		Elling		Norges Fiskarlag
Lorgen		Karl Anton		Fiskeridirektoratet region Møre og Romsdal
Martin		Nilsen		Frøya kommune
meinert		jurgen		norske sjømatbedrifters landsforening
Norderhaug		Kjell Magnus		NIVA
Olsen		Ketil		Nordland fylkeskommune
Roald		Sverre Ola		Fiskeridirektoratet region Møre og Romsdal
Sandberg		Jan Henrik		Norges Fiskarlag
Sande		Einar		Norges Råfisklag
Sandnes		Arne Håkon		Molde kommune
Sandstad		Marianne		Fiskarlaget Midt-Norge
Sefland		Inger Mette		Fiskeridirektoratet region vest
Sigstadstø		Eirik		Fiskeri- og havbruksnæringens forskningsfond
Sira		Inger Helene		Tingvoll kommune
Slettvåg		Arve		Møre og Romsdal fylkeskommune
Steen		Henning		Havforskningsinstituttet
Stuevold		Guri		Sør-Trøndelag fylkeskommune
Stølen		Elin		privatperson (fra Sogn og Fjordane)
Sørvik		Terje		Nord-Trøndelag fylkeskommune
Ulriksen		Vidar		Fiskeridirektoratet Region Vest
Ulsund		Carina		Fylkesmannen i Sør-Trøndelag
Utvær		Hanne Marie		Fiskeridirekoratet region vest
Viken		Odd Inge		Roan Fiskarlag
Wathne		Jens Altern		Fiskeridirektoratet
Øyen		Ketil		Biotrål AS

Why important? Because these citizens are deeply worried that there is not enough knowledge about the consequences of the industry – that the signs that there is something wrong are being ignored.  These are ordinary people who are prepared to spend several thousand Kroner and their time to let their voice be heard and to find out more. (one could say it was the job of the others to be present)

This is clear indication of the concern the public has over this issue and its  not being addressed.

The meeting was held in the very splendid Clarion Hotel in Trondheim – full of vast open spaces and artworks – a impressive demonstration of wealth and status –

We asked the organizers of the conference if we could present a little video we had made – we were told we could – but as events turned out there was some confusion – fair enough it was not a good video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHkAMGAQf1I but then you can make  your own mind.

However the national television was there – NRK  – they got the video so it is entirely possible that it will get a far bigger audience. However as always they left before the fireworks began.

The message we (Stopptt) got from the meeting was clear – our little organization is having an impact – out website and blogs are carefully read and scrutinized by the taretråling industry – private individuals and many others – we know this, because we were told this at the meeting (we  have a counter on our old site http://stopptt.com/ it currently reads 38,000)   –

The attitude of some marine biologists present was disturbing to say the least

On the surface this has a number of results but one clear one is that  we should be extremely worried about our oceans and the knowledge that is not being distributed, discussed or followed through  –  It is not right that the type of work Stopptt does should be left up to individuals such as us, but it is clear no one else is going to do it.

I would to make one last point  – quite a few scientists have been in contact and have collected papers.  Thank you for that.

Due to the video footage we took at the meetings we should be able to do a comprehensive report in the next few days, but it is quite a task connecting names to faces. It would be useful if there was some feedback (particularly concerning inaccuracies)- I have disabled comments here but you can contact me on stopptt@stopptt.com – finally there is only one form of bad publicity and that is no publicity – negative comments are welcome.

The meeting about Seaweed harvesting in particular Taretråling was most interesting – in spite of reams of rather irrelevant facts nobody fell asleep – in fact I would say that everyone paid a great deal of attention over the 2 days.

My video recorded a great deal – probably not to use in a later video but more as an aide memoir – my report is going to be rather long, but I will say this –  some of the scientists present exhibited a form of behavior which clearly demonstrates their fear of information over which they have no control.  To demonstrate this in public is pretty extreme, at its best it makes them look foolish and at the worst immature.  I made my point with their help!

This meeting was for the leaders and representatives of the counties, I think they learnt a good deal about the system and how it works.  I hope and trust they are in no way satisfied by this performance, in fact a little disturbed.  My intention and hope  is that they will find out for themselves – hopefully a full report will be here tomorrow.

I will also offer a little apology – for my theatrics at the end of the meeting.

This is our latest video on Taretråling or seaweed dredging.  It details important documents (each snip has a link at the top of the page where the document can be seen in its entirety) and asks a number of fundamental questions.

We asked the havsforsknings institut some of these questions and in spite of a maximum of 21 days wait for a reply have received none. We also asked a Scottish university engaged in seaweed research if they knew anything about Thiamine deficiency related bird die offs – they had never heard of this.

It seems that there is a surprising lack of knowledge in the marine biological world about factors which could be of considerable importance when making decisions about the safety of such issues as commercial seaweed harvesting or even cultivating.

Meeting in Trondheim on Taretråling on the 19 and 20th September.