Category: Facts & findings

Twisting the truth.

A very important issue for us/me is proof that the trawlers are keeping to the boundaries set by the “state.”

This is important because the companies involved think it is – could be because if they harvest out of bounds then they are guilty of breaking a bond – the bond is the idea that seaweed trawling is ecologically sound.

If youve read any articles on this site you will understand that it clearly is not but i dont think many state officials read my posts, but they do read the newspapers and that is something they very much want to avoid because it could jepardise the already fragile harvesting rights.

My little group has already won a case against the trawlers for fishing illegally so another would be quite a coup though what i want is the destructive industry to cease entirely.

The Trawling lanes are something ive had quite a bit of experience with, i know where they are.

The maps are on the Fiskeriedirektoratets home page.   The FDR is the Norwegian regulatory body that enforces the laws and regulations appertaining to any marine harvesting/fishing.

Here is a snip of the lanes directly outside the area i live in

this was a snip from the fiskeriedirektoratets website 2019 – that is 7 years ago – it should be no difficulty in working out when these sites were harvested because they are once in a 5 year cycle.

This time a littie visit to Askevågen rather sho0k me – i could clearly see 2 seaweed trawlers fishing in 2 harvesting zones beside each other.  The next few days i filmed one of the trawlers fishing in yet another zone beside the other 2 – a clear breach of the law.

A call to the FDR and i was told the gps coordinates id given were correct but the trawlers were not fishing, they were waiting for a cargo ship.

This is Tarehav harvesting outside Male.

This is Tarebas harvesting just in front of me

 

And this is the cargo ship they were “waiting” for.

With all hatches open clearly waiting for them

How did the fiskeriedirektoratet know the seaweed trawlers were not harvesting?

I was told by their official that they could tell from their secret ais monitoring system.

Clearly this was not true – how did he know they were waiting for a freight boat, clearly not from ais tracking – because then he would know it was already there – no he had been told and the only people who knew exactly what was going on would have been the seaweed trawlers themselves.

An interesting little thing is that the Trawlers agreed to tracking only if it was kept secret – could that be because they harvest regularly in places they are not supposed to, that are out of bounds – clearly the FDR are not keeping track of them at all – all the convictions i know about for fishing illegally have come from private individuals – not the FDR themselves.  So it is clear why they agreed to tracking and why only the FDR has access.

Incedentally nearly all the seaweed trawlers are 14.5 meters long because eu law states that 15 or over has to have ais tracking – the trawlers only have ais tracking because of the controversy involved.

Here is Tarebas fishing near Rotvika a few days later.

AHAAAA i have a case and from the first day of checking.

So after being contacted by the FDR i was urged to check the maps on their website and this is what i found

The seaweed trawling lanes have been changed from south to North to east to west.   There was even a little post on the site saying page updated a week or so after i had contacted the FDR – but i felt that if this was so important to them i would only dig myself into a hole if i pursued it further.

I understand the industry is desperate for raw material – that is why they send cargo ships 1400 km to collect the material (there is not enough between here and the deppo at Haugesund near Oslo) – presumably that is also why they changed the direction of the harvesting zones.  This is collusion – they are supposed to be regulating the harvesters, not actively helping.

Nearly 50% of the massive seaweed beds of laminaria on the Norwegian coast are empty – they say it is global warming but then the uk where seaweed trawling is not allowed would be the same – if you read the articles on this site you will learn what happens after the seaweed trawlers have been and why so much of the seaweed beds have dissapeared.

Seaweed trawling on the Norwegian coast is for harvesting the big Laminaria Hyperborea for the production of Alginate.

Alginate has a lot of uses but mainly in food.

The industry is run by massive American Corporations who seem to care little about the marine environment – supported by Norwegian Marine biologists who are not afraid to stretch the truth.

From an Ai

Key Findings on Prosecutions for Illegal Seaweed Trawling in Norway

  1. Hustadvika Case (Confirmed Illegal Trawling):
    • Details: At a 2013 meeting in Trondheim organized by the “Stopp Taretråling” group, a case of illegal seaweed trawling at Hustadvika was discussed. This is noted as the first and only proven case of illegal seaweed trawling in Norway at the time. The incident involved a trawler operating in a restricted area, attributed to poor mapping rather than intentional misconduct.
    • Outcome: Ole Damm, a representative from the Fisheries Directorate, explained that the incident was due to navigational errors and supported the trawler crew, stating they were not acting maliciously. No specific fines or prosecutions were detailed, and one of the skippers involved retired shortly after. There’s no indication of formal legal penalties beyond the acknowledgment of the violation.
    • This from an AI – there was a prosecution and there was a fine – the case only went through because we filmed a state official lying.

 

21. April, 2025 bertram 0

The worlds worst pollution – and its connected to Taretråling.

The Truth about Fluoro chemicals Taretråling and Dupont.

We all have used fluorine based chemicals.

They cover our frying pans, our clothes,shoes, and are in every walk of life.

Names like Gor tex, Teflon, Tefal. It is even used on dental floss by such companies as Jordan

The most commonly used is called polytetrafleuroethaline P.T.F.E.

Hidden beneath is a mountain of evidence showing how harmful and dangerous these substances are.

The most outrageous thing is that we have been fooled into using PTFE in situations where it is heated – very few know that if PTFE is overheated it gives off a gas which is in section 2 of the chemical weapons register – it is well known however in the skiing and electronics industry and has been banned, but not yet on cookware. (Perhaps because the income is so enormous?)

The gas is called PERFLEUROISOBUTENE (P.F.I.B.)

The way with which we have been duped is sickening, especially as PTFE is also used in firefighting and on firemens uniforms

These chemicals were introduced by Dupont company.

In the last 20 years research has shown that these chemicals are in our drinking water, rain water, plants, trees and foods In fact 98% of those tested also have it in their blood.

Dupont knew that the chemicals were deadly and caused numerous illnesses and disease – here is an extract from an article by Dr Mercola

The attorney further found documentation showing that for four decades, 3M and DuPont had conducted secret medical studies, revealing potential health problems in rats and rabbits as early as 1961. Thus far, more than 3,500 individuals have sued DuPont for damages.

A panel of scientists convened to determine the chemicals’ effect on human health, resulting in more than three dozen peer-reviewed papers finding PFOA chemicals are linked to ulcerative colitis, pregnancy-induced hypertension, thyroid disease and testicular and kidney cancers.13

Weight Management Efforts Impacted by Your Choice of Cookware

While those living in the Ohio Valley suffer an increased risk of these health conditions, levels of PFOAs in your tap water, stain-repellent clothing and furniture, and absorbed from your nonstick pans may be enough to trigger weight management problems. A recent study linked perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a close cousin to PFOAs, to weight gain and obesity.14 Previous studies have associated the chemicals with immune dysregulation, hormone disruption and cancers.

Dupont is involved primarily with defence, in fact it is so succesful that it has been forced to sell of some of its interests to avoid americas monopoly laws.

One of the other industries it is involved with is the destruction of our seaweed forests yes Dupont is a major player in TARETRÅLING.

Most are unconcerned about Taretråling because it is supposedly well regulated by the havsforskningsinstitut, and has been going on the Norwegian coast for over 60 years.

Having spent many years studying the industry and all it involves there are some serious questions which need answering.

Not least, why is Norways tareskog disappearing?

It cant be temperature because the seaweed forests in the uk are as normal – even in portugal.

Taretråling is conducted by dragging a 3 meter wide steel sled through the seaweed forest, this is connected to an enormously powerful specially constructed trawler.

This rips up the plants but damages and destroys 2 times more plants on average than are harvested.

This is from a Irish state paper.

the paper

This is what it says about Taretråling (mechanical seaweed harvesting with a trawler)

the paper goes on to say that many of the Norwegian scientific reports are biased in favour of the industry and so cannot be relied on.

It is interesting to note that an attempt to introduce taretråling in scotland was met by a massive protest. Even David Attenborough joined in with a letter to the times in protest.

Similarly a massive protest against harvesting in southern ireland – that has been stopped but is still going through the judicial system.

There is no question of taretråling in Northern ireland because of a study in 2007 which said this

Formalin tank at Smørholm

All the harvested Tare has to be sprayed with this, otherwise the deadly poisonous gas Hydrogen sulphide is released – the smell of which we all know from rotting seaweed.

This is also released in the sea. Many animals cannot tolerate the poison and so leave the area.

This paper written by Svein – Håkon Lauritzen among others makes a strong note.

This is of importance because gaddids – the cod fish family, eat seaurchins.

Some 2000 sq km of seaweed forests above Trondheim were found to have disappeared in 2000. The area had become a seafloor desert occupied by seaurchins.

Since this is the only paper detailing this we have found it is also safe to assume that other fish are also effected..

Worse still the Leppefisk industry for salmon farming is responsible for removing vast numbers of these fish – they also eat seaurchins.

As taretråling occurs in bird reserves and many of those birds rely on fish it is sensible to assume that the industry has led to a serious decline in numbers

It is important for people to know every accommodation is made for the tt by the state even allowing them acess to bird reserves in spite of the above.

Essentially it looks very much like the damaged stortare left behind is responsible for removing many of the major seaurchin predators by slowly releasing poisons.

During the lectures we have held with Dupont at the molde museum this was bought up.

Harald Bredahl for Dupont said not only had he never heard of defence chemicals in seaweeds but he discussed this with senior marine Biologist Henning Steen from the Havsforskningsinstitut who said he had never heard of this either.

Being well aware of the status of the 2 individuals concerned and the importance of the issue we found many papers on chemical defenses of seaweeds – this is most distressing as these people are responsible for the health of our coast.

We have been involved with trying to stop Taretråling for many years.

Having read many papers from N.I.N.A – Havsforskningsinstitut – and others they all have one thing in common – they say that the forests do not return to their former biodiversity for between 6 to 9 years. The harvesting cycle has been in many parts of Norway every 4th year

As the only deppo taking in seaweed for the Alginate industry is near Karmøy it is contrary for good business practice to transport raw material further than necessary, financially and environmentally. Therefore we must assume there is a good reason for this. The only one that comes to mind is that the seaweed forests on the coast of norway are too damaged to support the industry.

Map of Taretråling zones from the fiskeriedirektoratet.

We have had some successes with a prosecution for illegal fishing.

In 2018 and 19 we held lectures on TT in the molde museum and in 2020 we held a lecture on zoom about fleuro chemicals. Both were part of the Molde Clima festival.

We also produce brochures detailing the dangers of tt and fluoro chemicals.

films – they are currently on Youtube

It is quite clear that hidden truths about both Taretråling and the production and use of fleuro chemicals are showing signs of being discovered with articles in most of Norways daily papers and indeed the worlds press about the most significant and dangerous pollution ever.

Currently we are also engaged with writing a book and a play both of which are nearing completion.

We also run a website called stopptt.com.

We are BertramSømme and Friends.

 

 

26. March, 2023 bertram 0

Salmon farming, run by impatient children?

https://www.nrk.no/vestland/slar-alarm-om-havbruk_-nesten-kvar-fjerde-fisk-doyr-i-merdane-1.16326349

 

It says nearly every 4th fish dies in the nets at its worst.

It is easy to think of fish as – what,nothing – unfeeling, just responding so stimulus like machine.

I guess that makes it easier to eat, or fish.  But they are animals, they play just like all animals, they feel and they feel distress

just like us and all animals.

Consider, every type of agriculture on land has to have certain things in place for it to work.  Growing medium, fertilizer or in the case of animals feed, oxygen, suitable conditions – extraction of waste products, control of pests.

Not fish rearing.

Thats why its so lucrative and thats why its wrong in every way.

These fish are subject to continuous attack from fish lice, the fish lice attacks lead to fungal infections and so the fish are slowly eaten alive.

Some just die, others die from one of the many diseases that have been bought about by the industry itself, yet others die from the treatment for these diseases and lice treatments.

Its not the fault of  the fish lice – they are a perfect part of nature, its just that they were not designed by nature with salmon farming in mind.

Just like on land, vast amounts of pests gather where crops are sown because their job in nature is to keep the numbers down, by doing this they also keep their target species healthy as the weak and sickly are selected first———————— thats nature.

The article says Totalt døydde 92,3 millionar laksar og 5,6 millionar regnbogeaure i fjor.

In toto 92.3 million salmon and 5.6 million rainbow trout died.

Edgar Brun leader of the vetrinary institut responsible for animal welfare says this

“Meiner du at næringa ikkje er vaksen og ansvarleg nok?

– Ja, eigentleg. Ungdommar gjer mykje rart. Men næringa byrjar å bli vaksen og då må me forventa større ansvar for fiskens helse og velferd.”

“do you mean that the industry is not grown up?  Yes apparently.  Children do many strange things.  But the industry had better grow up, they must also have more responsibility fro the fishes health and welfare.”

Comparing the industries leaders to undisciplined children seems fair – production above all, including the welfare of the industry

This is how many industries concerning the sea are run – seaweed trawling is riddled by lies and deciets – the destruction of the seaweed beds and marine life along the coast of Norway after seaweed trawling is quite obvious – the same with salmon farming and now cod farming.

If one studies pollution world wide it is surprising how much has its origins in the usa – rephrase that, how much of it has its origins with American companies.

It is almost as if business is a sport, the winner is the one past the post with the most prestige(money) and EVERYBODY WANTS TO BE A WINNER?

Business and its regulation is designed so the company and executives can get away with releasing horrible toxins, or products that lead to the release of those toxins.  Seemingly it doesent matter how many people die or get the most horrendous illnesses , even though those people are the ones that enable the “game” to continue by being customers.

We are part of nature, nature is in us and part of us – we are not separate therefore we should have the imagination to understand the suffering of these poor fish and the rest of nature and to stop it.

11. March, 2023 bertram 0

Cleaner fish. 6 species taken from the wild for salmon farming because they eat fish lice.

In the 60and 70s i used to catch wrasse on the south west coast of england.

Always in the seaweed, and more often than not with the most beautiful markings and colours.

But there was a strange thing, they had teeth in their throats as well as in their mouths.  The teeth were on plates, presumably 2 plates worked against each other to grind things up.

I later learnt that indeed they were just for this.

Their food includes crabs,shrimps,hermit crabs, shellfish— and seaurchins. ( the destruction of the Norwegian seaweed forests are mainly attributed to seaurchins)

Of course it also includes fish lice this is why they are so important to the salmon farming industry.

Along the the coasts of many countries in europe and many other lands there is now a massive fishery for those fish. ( and other species)

They are caught live and transferred to the salmon pens where they live for up to 6 months before dying.  In other words there is a concerted effort to wipe out these species.

i have read a number of papers on wrasse, they hint that some species are territorial and are in fact gardeners.  That is they care for their patch by removing herbivores, and species of seaweeds they dont like.  Herbivores would include seaurchins.

Serious information seems remarkably difficult to come across – the question is why?

Here is a snippet from a  reply to a request for information to the scottish government concerning wrasse for the wrasse fishery.

It is dated 2019

STATEMENT OF REQUIREMENTS
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this contract is to inform Scottish Natural Heritage’s views and build our
evidence base on the biodiversity implications of the fishery for cleaner fish , focusing on
the relevant protected sites and species. This will enable us to develop appropriate
advice on activities affecting features and relevant management measures in an area
which is currently data poor and consequently poorly understood. The contract will also
inform our thinking on the need to include cleaner fish species in the monitoring of the
MPA Network and enable SNH to assess the feasibility of this and develop appropriate
methodologies. The output from this project will also feed into wider work relating to
inshore fish species and support the Scottish Government inshore fisheries strategy

 

In other words THEY DONT KNOW what effects cleaner fish (wrasse) have on the ecology and what effects removing such a large number of fish will have in totto – several years after the fishery started.

This is what the Norwegian havsforskningsinstitut has to say –

Forskere og fiskere har samarbeidet for å finne ut hvordan man kan gjøre leppefisket mer bærekraftig. Svaret kan finnes på dypet.

The leading sentence says – fishermen and researchers work together to see how one can make (lip fish – wrasse have big lips) leppefiskeriet

more sustainable – the answer is found in the deep.

In other words the answer to a more sustainable fishery is to catch more –

There are several more articles in the same vein – some more information on the fish themselves but it is fragmentary.

But here is one reinforcing the standpoint of this article

This involves many countries and has this to say  –

This project, and report, was initiated by researchers at the Institute of Marine Research (IMR) and builds upon several years of scientific work linked to the biology, fisheries and use of wild wrasse and lumpfish. Interactions with colleagues from Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, and the United Kingdom highlighted critical knowledge gaps which must be addressed to achieve sustainable fisheries of cleaner fish with minimal negative environmental impacts. Funding from the Nordic Council of Ministers enabled us to establish the present network of scientists and managers. Key topics were identified and discussed in meetings and workshops during the project period.

Again merely reinforcing the standpoint of this article that not enough research has been done, and this fishery has been ongoing since 2010 in Norway.

Question – does this show a disregard for the environment in spite of the current issues, that can be laid squarely at the door of big business?

An article from the Norwegian press

150,000 cleaner fish die every day, it is a animal tragedy without parallel.

This is not limited to Norway, but every country with salmon farming.

This is not sensible utilization of a natural resource.  If we want our seas to be a resource for future generations we have to do far better than this – Perhaps our research organizations are too close to industry  and our politicians are desperate to please the same.

 

 

 

8. March, 2023 bertram 0

M.A.D.E. New book.

During the last 25 odd years  ive been harvesting and reading material concerning – yes very concerning – pollution and those companies that willingly produce it.

The pollution concerns of course nature but it also concerns us, inside,the stuff that is poisoning us to the benefit of a company/corporation.

As this is such a wide subject ive narrowed it to the 2 that are involved with destroying the marine environment by seaweed trawling.

Dupont and FMC.

First details of some of the pollution and chemicals produced by the two – a study of PTFE (teflon dupont) which affects nearly all of humanity – there never has been any pollution like this – a study of the worlds most deadly insecticide Carbofuran or Furadan (FMC) how it seriously affected a small community in the us and worldwide.

The book includes the involvement of the EU – by giving enormous grants for seaweed harvesting, by sponsoring websites advocating the changing of laws to enable this industry and more.

A critique of the Norwegian havsforskings institut and some of the senior marine biologists working there – including a critique of several research papers – also many from other countries.

A study of why seaweed trawling is so destructive and the connivance of marine biologists in ensuring the industry continues.

A study of captive regulation and how it affects us on a local and international level and how pr agencies and politicians are bound up in this

There is a great deal more but final editing is under way and hopefully it will be released soon.

 

Incidentally, the title is a joke, because this is so serious that its laughable.

MADE comes from Much ADo about Everything which is inspired by the play much ado about  Nothing by Shakespeare – if you want to know why i chose that – read it.

 

https://www.shakespeare.org.uk/explore-shakespeare/shakespedia/shakespeares-plays/much-ado-about-nothing/

7. March, 2023 bertram 0

No take zones – is this the future for fisheries?

This is a section taken from the Scottish parliament debate on no take zones – the effect is clearly massive.

Similar results have come from all over the world – consider something so utterly simple –

you completely ban fishing of all kinds in areas attractive to marine organisms – as a result production in those areas boom – the effects spread outwards and other areas nearby also begin to blossom.  Result everyone pleased.

However the key is NO FISHING – if you begin to analyse that it comes down to money – you have a big boat, you have a lot of bills.  If you cant pay them you loose your boat – however the activities of the boat have a serious effect on marine environments so naturally harvesting becomes more difficult eventually leading to a desert which benefits no one.   And all to pay the bills.

Consider a large trawler which does not put down its nets unless the catch has a value of more than £20,000 – that is not in any way or sense anything other than environmental vandalism, however the number of boats in this class is massive.

This is a snip from the full Scottish parliament report initially posted on facebook by https://www.facebook.com/ourseasscotland

 

 

No-take Zones

  • The Deputy Presiding Officer (Christine Grahame):

    The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S5M-22945, in the name of Kenneth Gibson, on establishing new no-take zones. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

    Motion moved,

    That the Parliament congratulates everyone involved on the success of the Lamlash Bay No Take Zone (NTZ); notes that a NTZ is an area of sea and seabed from which no fish or shellfish can be taken, including from the shore area; commends what it considers the excellent work carried out by the Community of Arran Seabed Trust to protect and restore the marine environment and ultimately sustain the livelihood of those dependent on fishing and tourism; recognises the positive impact of NTZs on seabed biodiversity and the size, fertility and abundance of commercial species in adjacent areas due to overspill from healthy NTZs; acknowledges what it sees as the success of NTZs internationally, such as in New Zealand, the Isle of Man’s Ramsey Bay and the Green Zones of the Great Barrier Reef; acknowledges what it considers the importance of creating and maintaining a sustainable approach to fishing, and notes the calls on the Scottish Government to consider the establishment of new NTZs in other marine areas at risk of human overexploitation.

  • Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (SNP):

    I thank Scottish National Party, Labour, Green and Independent colleagues for supporting my motion to enable tonight’s debate to take place; colleagues who have stayed to listen to the debate after many delays this afternoon; and Howard Wood and Jenny Stark from the Community of Arran Seabed Trust—COAST—for their excellent briefing.

    On 3 December, the Scottish Government announced the designation of 12 new special protection areas and four marine protected areas in our seas. The fact that 37 per cent of Scottish seas will now be covered by the Scottish MPA network was welcomed by environmentalists. NatureScot said that the announcement marked “significant progress” towards Scotland’s marine conservation ambitions and is a positive step towards a “nature-rich future”.

    Why is that important? An estimated 3.2 billion people rely on fish for almost a fifth of their protein intake, and yet, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, 90 per cent of fish stocks worldwide are either fully fished or overfished at biologically unsustainable levels. Chronic overfishing has seen a depletion in biodiversity, which in turn has led to conditions in which commercially viable fishing cannot thrive.

    The Firth of Clyde provides a prime example of a place where fishing was central to the economy for centuries. Before the industrial revolution, the firth enjoyed an abundance of species: huge herring shoals attracted cod, turbot, monkfish and sharks to the area. Fishing boomed and technological advances meant that, by the 1940s, fishermen were catching more than 40,000 tons of herring annually.

    Practices became more intensive and more destructive, relying increasingly on trawling to remain commercially viable. By the early 2000s, the Firth of Clyde was on the verge of becoming a “marine desert” and the entire ecosystem was in jeopardy, with nephrops now the main fishery. That decimation of the Clyde’s biodiversity, a tragedy in itself, was also devastating to Scottish fishing. Jobs were lost, boats were decommissioned and the industry is now a shadow of its former self.

    MPAs are hugely important. Unfortunately, they can vary wildly in effectiveness and, alone, they will not restore and sustain marine biodiversity. The use of high-intensity fishing vessels, capable of catching hundreds of tonnes of fish a day, is not forbidden by MPAs. Although there must of course be a place for sustainable pelagic fishing, we must combat biodiversity loss.

    A no-take zone is an area of sea and seabed from which no fish or shellfish can be taken, including from the shore area. The Lamlash Bay no-take zone was the first community-led marine reserve of its kind in Scotland when it was established in 2008. At a modest 2.67km2, it was the result of 13 years of campaigning by COAST, which I enthusiastically supported; it was also supported by Richard Lochhead, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment at the time, who delivered it.

    Lamlash Bay was, and is, an excellent location for a no-take zone, being home to one of the largest maerl beds in Scotland. Maerl is an ideal habitat for small species, which can easily find food and hide from larger predators. However, Lamlash Bay is by no means unique in its ability to benefit from a no-take zone. All around Scotland, there are marine areas abounding in natural beauty that are at severe risk of human overexploitation.

    No-take zones are by far the most effective type of MPA and they increase conservation benefits hugely. A study in biodiversity conservation at the University of Tasmania found that MPAs often fail to reach their full potential due to factors such as illegal harvesting; regulations that also allow detrimental legal fishing; and the migration of sea creatures outside boundaries because of inadequate reserve size.

    MPAs are most effective when they are well enforced, upwards of 100km2 , and isolated by deep water or sand, and when they are well established, which can take years. For an MPA to be successful, a vital feature is that it either is a substantial no-take zone or contains such zones, where flora and fauna cannot be removed. Internationally, no-take zones are increasing in number, aiding both marine biodiversity and resilience to climate change.

    Australia’s green zones previously made up just 5 per cent of the great barrier reef MPA, but now cover more than a third of it. Green zones have improved biodiversity and are home to a huge variety of organisms, including many rare, vulnerable and endangered species. Since the 1980s, coral trout biomass has more than doubled and the trout are larger and more abundant than those in general-use blue zones.

    Evidence following tropical cyclone Hamish, which hit the reef in 2009, suggests that large, reproductively mature coral trout in green zones are also more resilient to the effects of natural disasters. Recreational activities such as boating, snorkelling and diving are allowed, but fishing and coral collecting are entirely prohibited.

    Other international examples show the potential of no-take zones to restore ecosystems to a more complex and resilient state. The Palau islands’ national marine sanctuary, which covers 80 per cent of Palau’s national waters, was described at this year’s UN ocean conference as

    “one of the world’s most ambitious ocean conservation initiatives”.

    At 475,077km2, the fully protected area is six times Scotland’s entire land mass and nearly 178,000 times larger than Lamlash Bay’s no-take zone.

    Palau’s waters host more than 1,300 species of fish and more than 400 species of hard coral. Since the sanctuary was established in 2015, regulations have been phased in to combat illegal fishing. The impact of the no-take zone was evident as early as 2017. Protected waters had twice the number of fish and five times as many predatory fish as those that were not protected. As a key food source for other predators, a healthy fish population is an excellent indication of a thriving ecosystem. The sanctuary came fully into effect on 1 January 2020. Palau is a nation of only 18,000 people, but it has big ambitions.

    The Isle of Man’s Ramsey Bay was designated the island’s first marine nature reserve in October 2011, and there are now 10 designated marine reserves around the island, accounting for 10.8 per cent of Manx waters. Ramsey Bay reserve covers around 95km2, divided into zones. About half of it is highly protected, with no commercial fishing permitted. The zones are coupled with a fisheries management zone that is co-managed by the Manx Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture and the Manx Fish Producers Organisation. That innovative approach means that sustainable fishing can continue around no-take zones and the commercial benefits can be enjoyed responsibly.

    On Arran, I have seen at first hand the work done by COAST to combat biodiversity loss. Since the Lamlash Bay no-take zone was designated, monitoring scientists have recorded double the number of living organisms on the seabed in comparison with adjacent fished areas. Of particular success has been the recovery of commercial species such as scallops and lobsters, populations of which have increased significantly in size and abundance in the no-take zone.

    A study in February found that there are nearly four times as many king scallops as there were in 2010, and the size and number of both adults and juveniles has grown. The scallops also have significantly increased fertility compared with those from outside the no-take zone and produce as many young scallops as fishing grounds that are more than 20 times larger.

    Further, the population of European lobsters is quadruple the 2010 population, and the lobsters are much larger and more fertile, with the potential to produce up to 100 times more eggs than before the no-take zone was established. Those benefits are felt not only in Lamlash Bay; studies show that there is evidence of lobster spillover into surrounding areas. Just last week, almost 2 miles outside the zone, a local creel fisherman legally landed a lobster that had been tagged in the no-take zone in 2018.

    Research demonstrates that COAST’s conservation efforts have been successful from a social, as well as an ecological, standpoint. A poll of more than 300 residents of and visitors to Arran showed awareness at 95.2 per cent, which is an increase of 23.5 per cent on 2011, and support was very high at 97 per cent.

    Arran residents and businesses consider research undertaken in Lamlash Bay to be “very important” economically, which is unsurprising given that marine reserves enhance local fisheries and create jobs and new incomes through eco-tourism. Arran residents were also more optimistic about the health of their local seas compared with the Scottish average in a recent national poll carried out by Marine Scotland.

    New MPAs are very welcome, and they are important in combating biodiversity loss. However, they do not negate the necessity of further measures.

    Lamlash Bay and the international examples that I have given show the hugely positive impact that no-take zones can have on the surrounding environment, as well as on the potential for sustainable commercial fishing. I therefore urge the Government to look closely at what the Lamlash Bay no-take zone has achieved and at the excellent work done by COAST to see how that success can be replicated, with community support and engagement, in many other locations in Scotland’s waters.

    19:10

  • Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab):

    My thanks go to Kenneth Gibson for lodging the motion for debate. With or without Government acknowledgement, we are in the midst of a climate and nature emergency, and it has been my constant concern that the marine environment is neglected in the conversation.

    The international examples that Kenneth Gibson highlighted are valuable. Lamlash Bay is, indeed, a shining example of community empowerment and environmentalism. Howard Wood and COAST have my utmost respect.

    I found it inspirational to visit the bay with Howard several years ago. The visit was a wake-up call for me. Seeing COAST’s video of sea bed regeneration honed my commitment to the work for a sustainable future for our coastal communities, based on the need to protect and enhance our inshore marine environment.

    As we will no doubt hear later in the debate, the results of the highest level of marine protection show a dramatic return of nature when exploitative and extractive activities are removed. Precious and iconic Scottish species such as pretty pink maerl beds are able to thrive. As we heard from Kenneth Gibson, juvenile fish such as cod and whiting and other small species are given protection by the lush sea bed.

    It is the very withdrawal of our impact that leads to increased biodiversity and abundance, and the development of a healthier sea bed. Those benefit the fishing communities working legally around the no-take zone, as the abundance spills over and stocks are at more sustainable levels. Marine wildlife rebounds and the ocean is allowed the space and time to recharge that it is denied by commercial fishing levels in some areas.

    It is senseless not to apply those lessons to the broader spatial management of our seas if we want a thriving and sustainable fishing sector. The Government is under a legal duty to properly implement MPAs and their management measures, and to apply the national marine plan duties to improve fisheries decision making.

    The Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee’s report on regional marine plans will be out soon. I am sure that the minister will take careful note of that report and of how vital it is that everyone—all the sectors and the communities that are involved—works together as we shape our future—[Inaudible.].

    As Open Seas pointed out in its briefing, the Government is failing to meet its duties, as proven by the leaked NatureScot report that shows losses in vital marine habitat.

    In our seas, economic recovery and environmental recovery must go hand in hand. Coastal communities are on the front line when it comes to Brexit and the implications of Covid-19. Tackling those issues and the climate and nature emergencies demands a blue recovery. That is a key part of delivering a just transition for all. I stress that there must be consultation, as highlighted in some of the briefings that were sent to us before the debate.

    An interconnected issue is the role of marine environments in climate mitigation. No-take zones can better protect key blue carbon habitats that sequester carbon emissions and help us meet impending and crucial emissions reductions targets.

    I am pleased to support Kenneth Gibson’s motion and add Scottish Labour’s voice to the calls for more no-take zones in Scottish waters. It is time that we give those marine areas back their self-will.

    19:14

  • Joan McAlpine (South Scotland) (SNP):

    I congratulate Kenneth Gibson on securing the debate today.

    I was keen to speak in the debate because of my personal connection to Lamlash and the wider Firth of Clyde. As a Gourock girl, I grew up sailing on and fishing in the Clyde. For our family, Arran, and especially Lamlash, where the no-take zone is, is a place of special memories. In the 1960s, we decamped to a but and ben there every July, at the time of the Greenock fair. One of my early memories of Lamlash pier is of seeing rows of urchins, still with their spines on, which divers had caught. They would be scraped and buffed up to sell to tourists—I recall a couple of nice lavender examples on my auntie’s dressing table.

    At that time, we had no appreciation of the harm that such activities caused to biodiversity. The creatures inside the sea urchin shells were scooped out and discarded. They were not considered to be good for anything, not even as bait to be used to catch haddock and whiting in nearby Brodick Bay—a summer pastime in those days, which soon disappeared with the fish.

    As wasteful as diving for sea urchins might have been back in 1966, it was not nearly as destructive as what came next. In preparation for today’s debate, I learned that the Government allowed trawlers to come closer to Scottish shores in 1984. That explained a lot, because dredging is so destructive and indiscriminate in its assault of the sea bed, bashing sea urchins, tearing the limbs of starfish and leaving an underwater wasteland.

    I recall far greater biodiversity in the Clyde in the 1960s and 1970s and as recently as the early 1980s, when we fished in and around Inverkip, where my father kept his boat. We went out every summer and caught predominantly cod, as well as haddock—if we were lucky—flounder and even the occasional skate. There were also sea trout near Inverkip, and until the 1980s my father caught grey mullet. Then, all the fish seemed to disappear. It did not make a lot of sense to me then, because the Clyde was getting cleaner. I know now that the only explanation is the overfishing and uncontrolled trawling that was allowed after 1984.

    With the success of the no-take zone in south Arran, we see a way ahead that can perhaps take us back to the times that I remember, when the Clyde was more fertile, and the times before that when, as Kenneth Gibson said, the Clyde was abundant. I come from Gourock, which began as a herring port, but the town has not seen a herring for many a lang year.

    The no-take zone was established in response to a campaign by the Community of Arran Seabed Trust and was designated in 2008 by the then Scottish National Party environment minister, Richard Lochhead. I was impressed to read that scientists who have been monitoring the area have recorded a doubling of living organisms on the seabed, compared with adjacent fished areas. The no-take zone has become a fish nursery for many important species, including cod. A report in Frontiers in Marine Science notes a remarkable turnaround in a few short years, with the number of scallops increasing between twofold and fivefold and, as Kenneth Gibson said, lobsters not only increasing in number but growing much larger.

    In a short time, a small no-take zone in south Arran has improved the position for species not just in that small zone but in adjacent areas—because, obviously, fish and crustaceans do not respect boundaries. Therefore, I was surprised to hear that It is the only no-take zone in Scotland. I ask members to imagine the effects if we had many more no-take zones around our coasts. No-take zones around not the whole coast but a substantial part of it would make a huge difference.

    The benefits for tourism are apparent, as anyone who has tried to book accommodation in Lamlash less than a year in advance can testify. Many more no-take zones around Scotland would benefit not just tourism but sustainable fishing, as species would be able to spawn and grow in peace. The approach is not anti-fishing; it is about establishing a sustainable fishing industry, which would be beneficial to our coastal communities.

    The Government is to be congratulated on setting up the no-take zone in Arran in 2008. Let us build on that success by creating many more no-take zones and tackling the nature emergency that we face alongside the climate emergency.

    19:19

  • Peter Chapman (North East Scotland) (Con):

    I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of my Scottish Conservative colleagues in this important debate, which I thank Kenneth Gibson for securing. As we have heard, a no-take zone is defined as an area of sea and sea bed from which no fish or shellfish can be taken—that applies to the shore area, too. The United Kingdom has four such zones, all of which have proved successful. I will talk more about our Scottish no-take zone, but the others in the UK are in the Medway estuary, at Flamborough Head in North Yorkshire and at Lundy island off Devon.

    Our Scottish no-take zone in Lamlash Bay, which was established in 2008, has gone from strength to strength, as we have heard. Researchers have found that, in the past 10 years, the size, fertility and abundance of commercial species such as lobsters and scallops have significantly increased in the zone’s boundaries. I am pleased to note that lobsters are now more than four times more abundant in the no-take zone than in adjacent areas. Sea-bed biodiversity has increased by 50 per cent, and observations from divers, fishermen and anglers indicate that the sea bed and the fish are recovering.

    Howard Wood, who is the co-founder of the Community of Arran Seabed Trust, said:

    “Without destructive forms of fishing, this amazing, complex seabed allows more species to inhabit, hide and feed. You can see what happens when nature is allowed to thrive.”

    To his references to inhabiting, hiding and feeding I add the ability to breed. Unlike us humans, as fish grow older, they become more fertile. As they grow older and larger, many species spend more of their energy on producing eggs. That is why no-take zones can be vital to helping species to repopulate the surrounding area.

    Conservationists argue that up to a quarter of all UK waters should or could be no-fish zones. There is no doubt that that would allow stocks of fish such as North Sea cod to replenish, but I doubt that such coverage would go down well with our fishermen. They always argue that, no matter how many crabs, lobster or fish are in the sea, if coastal communities cannot make a living from them, that cannot be a way forward.

    As with most arguments, this is all about having a sensible balance. There is no doubt that no-take zones would be beneficial in the long run. We do not often have a win-win situation, but I genuinely think that having more no-take zones would be good not only for the environment but for our fishermen.

    On balance, I definitely support having more no-take zones and I encourage the Scottish Government to begin the work to allow us to progress the principle of that. It is essential for that work to include consultation of our fishermen. We must get their buy-in for the proposals and take them with us, rather than telling them from on high what has been decided. Only by getting their support for no-take zones will we make the zones a success. That is the way forward. By taking our fishermen with us, we can have a win-win for all who are concerned.

    19:24

  • John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green):

    I, too, congratulate Kenneth Gibson on securing this important debate. I congratulate everyone who is involved in the success of the Lamlash Bay no-take zone, which the motion refers to. The Community of Arran Seabed Trust—commonly known as COAST—does excellent work to protect and restore the marine environment, which ultimately sustains the livelihoods of those who depend on fishing and tourism.

    We often hear the phrase “a sea of opportunity”. I agree that a sea of opportunity awaits if we follow the no-take zones approach, but not if we allow the grab-everything approach of the reckless elements of our fishing sector. It is important that we recognise that, to have a sustainable industry, we must have a sustainable environment for that industry to work in. The evidence on the doubling of species numbers confirms that the approach that we are taking is right.

    The Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation has said that years of overfishing and poor management mean that future generations will inherit an asset

    “that is a shadow of its former self”,

    so we must all redouble our efforts to ensure that that does not happen. I wish the SCFF every success in making its case for a judicial review of the Scottish Government’s decision that affects competing interests in the Inner Sound of Skye. I agree that it is often perceived that there are competing interests, but if we all have the common interest of ensuring a vibrant marine environment, as others have said, we can make progress.

    Alistair Sinclair, from the SCFF, has said:

    “Creelers and trawlers are left to sort it out among themselves.”

    Part of that is about gear conflict. It is not an equality of arms. As he said,

    “It is inconceivable that … Scotland’s marine environment would improve if trawling expanded at the expense of creeling.”

    As others have said, dredgers are destructive beyond measure. There have been investigations into six incidents of suspected illegal scallop dredging since March 2020, so the fact that we do not have an inshore fisheries bill is disappointing. However, I understand that there is common purpose among the parties in many respects.

    We need to take some of the machoism out of discussions about the fishing industry. Commercial fishing is not about winning things; it is about international co-operation and the precautionary principle. Fish do not recognise international boundaries any more than they recognise the boundaries of no-take zones, but they recognise that the environment in such zones is better for them to flourish in. We have heard some of the important statistics in that regard. It is most important that we take evidence-based decisions that are supported by robust impact assessments. There must be an end to overfishing and discards.

    The creation of more no-take zones would bring a lot of benefits. We have heard the argument for more marine protected areas. We need more monitoring and more robust policing, but we also need to understand the limitations of legislation and the evidential thresholds that have to be overcome. That will affect the number of successful prosecutions.

    The change to the 3-mile limit in 1984 has been mentioned. The issue is about spatial management, co-operation, things being community led and the benefits for the environment and eco-tourism. No-take zones are a way of ensuring that aspects of climate breakdown are addressed positively.

    I think that ours seas will flourish if we have more no-take zones. I congratulate the community at Lamlash on all its work in that regard.

    19:28

  • The Minister for Energy, Connectivity and the Islands (Paul Wheelhouse):

    I thank Kenny Gibson for lodging his motion on what is clearly an important issue to the Government, many members and their communities, such as the community on Arran. I thank all colleagues for their contributions. I particularly thank Mr Gibson, who set out the importance of fish and seafood as a source of nutrition, and some of the key findings from the monitoring of the no-take zone at Lamlash Bay. Other members shared a range of views that highlight the importance of the marine environment to our wellbeing.

    Members will, of course, be aware that no-take zones are not in my portfolio. I should explain that I am covering at short notice for my colleague the Minister for Rural Affairs and the Natural Environment, who is on compassionate leave. Although I have very fond memories of my time as the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, I do not have the depth of current knowledge of the issues that were raised in the debate, so I apologise in advance if I am not able to respond to all of them. Where necessary, I will ensure that issues are followed up afterwards.

    Through our future fisheries management strategy, we want to ensure that we fish at sustainable levels and that the right protections are in place for our marine environment, underpinned by a robust scientific evidence base and, importantly, an enforcement regime, both of which John Finnie mentioned.

    We have already confirmed that, where necessary and appropriate, additional measures will be introduced, such as for the protection of vulnerable spawning and juvenile fish areas, and remote electronic monitoring for the pelagic and scallop fleets, and for other sectors of the fleet as required.

    The deployment programme has fitted remote electronic monitoring, including cameras, to 30 per cent of Scottish scallop dredge vessels, which it is hoped will help with the issues that Joan McAlpine raised in relation to Inverkip. As part of our wider modernisation programme, 40 creel vessels in the Outer Hebrides inshore fisheries pilot have also been equipped with low-cost vessel tracking systems.

    For the rest of my speech, I will outline some of the marine conservation successes of the past 10 years, highlight current work and take a brief look into the future.

    The establishment of the Lamlash Bay no-take zone in 2008 was a ground-breaking decision by Richard Lochhead, following a long and persistent campaign by the Community of Arran Seabed Trust, known as COAST. It was a bold and laudable move that Richard Lochhead made when he was Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment. I recognise COAST’s continued efforts to work with academic partners, most notably the University of York, to monitor and assess changes that have occurred over the past 12 years. That work has not only produced a substantial evidence base, but has given a lot of students a great opportunity for field work during their studies.

    Kenneth Gibson described evidence that there was marine desert in the Firth of Clyde area. I understand that Marine Scotland undertook a review of the Clyde in 2012, which concluded that it was not a marine desert, but recognised that there was a need for some improvements. The situation was perhaps not as bleak as has been suggested, but there was certainly room for improvement.

    As Peter Chapman mentioned, we should not forget the fishing industry, which is the often-forgotten component of the success of Lamlash Bay. I understand that there has been a high level of compliance over the past 12 years, which has helped to create the conditions that are now being reported on. That serves as a strong reminder of the need to have those who will be directly affected by management measures fully involved and engaged in decision-making processes. In that respect, I agree with what Peter Chapman said.

    Before the Covid-19 pandemic took hold, 2020 was being termed as a superyear for biodiversity, with important negotiations for a new global biodiversity framework due to take place, and the United Nations climate change conference of the parties to be held in Glasgow. As members are aware, those events have been rolled forward into 2021. Joan McAlpine was absolutely right to say that there is a strong link between the nature emergency and the climate emergency; therefore, those talks in 2021 will be particularly important.

    The year 2010 was also a superyear for biodiversity, in which there were three significant milestones: the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 received royal assent, creating new domestic powers and duties for marine planning, licensing and conservation; the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic—the OSPAR convention—adopted the north-east Atlantic environment strategy; and the Convention on Biological Diversity adopted a global framework for biodiversity, known as the Aichi targets.

    Those three things have been significant drivers of our work in the past 10 years to improve the marine environment. We now have a national marine plan, which guides sustainable development, and we have established three marine planning partnerships. We have a marine licensing system, which is designed to keep activities within environmental limits, and we have expanded the MPA network from less than 10 per cent to 37 per cent, as Kenneth Gibson noted. This year alone, we have nearly doubled the size of the network, including designating Europe’s largest marine protected area. Those measures represent a huge leap forward in a decade, of which we should all be proud.

    We appreciate that we have not fully addressed and achieved all the targets from 2010. Yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform published a statement of intent on biodiversity. The statement made it clear that current projects to improve the status of biodiversity will continue and be enhanced, where possible, until a new Scottish biodiversity strategy is agreed. That is relevant to the marine environment, in which we are working to deliver fisheries management measures for the MPA network and ensuring that the most vulnerable habitats are adequately protected outside the MPA network. Progress on that has been slower than originally planned this year, due to the response to Covid-19 and the impact of European Union exit preparations; however, that important work will continue over the next few years and build on the significant stakeholder engagement that has taken place over the past decade.

    The statement of intent also commits to delivering a new Scottish biodiversity strategy within 12 months of the new global framework being agreed by the Convention on Biological Diversity in 2021. Members will wish to note that a new OSPAR north-east Atlantic environment strategy is also expected in 2021. That means that a new course will need to be set for 2030, so that we can meet the new international targets that are expected to be agreed next year. In setting that new course, consideration can be given to the need for tools such as no-take zones, which members from across the chamber have called for, and other forms of strict protection, to achieve the outcomes that we desire.

    Once again, I thank Kenneth Gibson for bringing the debate to the chamber. There have been great contributions from colleagues. Claudia Beamish mentioned maerl beds, and I know from my previous role just how important they are. She rightly identified that they are beautiful, but they also contribute to the sequestration of carbon dioxide and are therefore important in our attempts to control damaging climate change.

    I thank Howard Wood and the team at COAST for their long-standing efforts to promote conservation of the marine environment. I met Howard Wood at a global climate action summit in San Francisco, and it was great to see him influence a debate at international level by taking the example of what we can achieve in Scotland, in communities such as Arran, to a global audience.

    We have come a long way since 2008, and we should celebrate the progress that we have made with conservation of the marine environment. I acknowledge the importance of today’s debate. The journey is not yet complete, and we recognise that there is much still to do. Many of our successes have been down to significant amounts of stakeholder engagement and ensuring that the wide range of views and perspectives are taken into account. Although that takes time, it results in better outcomes. I hope that stakeholders will continue to engage with marine conservation issues as they have done over the past decade, so that the next decade is just as successful as the last.

    Meeting closed at 19:36.

21. December, 2020 bertram 0

Taretråling Møte Trondheim 2013

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 organisations – 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.

However the national television was there – NRK  – they got the video so it is entirely possible that it will get a far more important 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 a strong 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 by individuals from those organizations (we also have a counter on our old site   http://stopptt.no/ it currently reads 38,000) – what we did not get was any indication from the marine biologists present that they knew anything at all about us, or our site, or the information we had – in fact throughout the meeting the most important questions we asked received no answers and it was clear that they did not know, further they wanted me and those present to clearly understand that they

DID NOT WANT TO KNOW!!

On the surface this has a number of results but one clear one is that this is possibly why we should be extremely worried about our oceans and the state of them – many scientists are more concerned about status than fact.

We managed to film most of the meeting – and a lot of information was forthcoming – perhaps the most important 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/

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 so soon.  There are reports which state that there is often a population explosion shortly after taretråling.

From a private discussion with a representative of the miljødirektoratet http://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 and  their contents in fact they were surprised, very.   What impact it would have had on their decision though is something else.   They took with them a large amount of the printed documents I had with me.

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 of some 30,000 square kilometres 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

I would like to point out that the distribution of documents at the meeting was not really important – because we supply quite a number of organizations that have important roles to play, both in the private and public sector.

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

Day one of the meeting was mainly about fish populations being affected by taretråling – apparently very little.

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

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

  • i was unable to ask him about this at the conference but in the end it did not really matter – later in the meeting it became apparent why!
  • Reading this should set off alarm bells – it certainly did with me.
  • I have contacted many organizations such as the uk RSPB the Norwegian ornitologisk institut and marine protection groups concerning this – a great deafening silence is the result but i know the documents are being read.

My colleague Johan had several pertinent questions and points to make – one in particular about the law being changed on the proximity of taretråwlers to long term and well known lobster and crabbing areas – the old law states that no trawling is allowed within 1 nautical mile of any well known areas – that has been changed so now they can trawl for seaweed where they like.  In fact one of the fishermen present said he had seen taretrawlers take up lobster and crab pots, put them on deck and replace them after they had finished.  This is information which is kept well away from public scrutiny.

Another item was on the Tracking of taretrawlers with ais and other systems. Many Environmental organizations tell us they have spent a lot of time gathering information on the activities of the trawlers saying they have eyewitness accounts of them trawling out of the areas they are officially allowed to use, including wildlife reservations – so far stopptt  is the only organization that has produced a prosecution as Johan was very careful to point out. He also pointed out that the system is a shambles and open for abuse.

Mr O.D. Kvilhaug from FMC biopolymers was able to say that next year all the boats will be fitted with trackers.  This is excellent news – it means that they are sensitive to public opinion and that pressure has worked.

 

21. November, 2020 bertram 0

Brev om Taretråling

I dag snakket jeg med en Ari, et Rådgiver med dere om taretråling.
Jeg og noen andre har følgt med industrien og båten over noen år.
Vi har jobbet med fiskeriedirektoratet og andre orginisasjoner.
Til fiskeridirektoratet har vi levert mange papir om tarehøsting og medfølgende.

Papierene fra Havsforskningsinstitut og niva forteller de samme historien – de tar 6 til 9 år fer de fleste dyrene kommer tilbake etter hosting – og tareskogen er restorert til va den var fer. Papirene viser frem at I noen område er så mye som 92% fjernet – hosting forgår vert fjerde år.

Dette er et godt papier til å lese –https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257939276_Okologiske_effekter_av_taretraling_Analyser_basert_pa_GIS-modellering_og_empiriske_data

Kjysten er delt opp it feldt, vert felt er høstet til ett år – dette betyr at sjø botn er skrapet over og over igjen I ett år I de samme område.

Dette fra Niva papiret
De er viktig for industrien til å ha minst mulig dyr festnet til stilpen og blader for dette kan ødlegge blanding av alginat – noe som er ikke snakket om men dette kan bli let finnet ut fra paier om Alginat.

Høsting metode er ganske dårlig – 5 ganger mer er ødlagt en er tatt opp.
Høsting figurer fra 2015 er 170,000 tonn, de meste fra r.o.k vestlandet og 30,000 tonn fra vigra og område der. Dette kommer opp til 1 million tonn very år – ikke den 170,000 som er deklert.

Igjen fra Niva 2006

De har blitt høsting langs hele kjysten vor stor tare vokser – vi har blitt forttalt av fiskeriedirektoratet at de er ikke son, men vi kan få bilder av taretråler aktiv I lofoten.

Taretråling er forbudt I UK – Jeg har snakket med hun som skrivet papirene on høsting I northern ireland – kansje hennes papier er vorfor. Den sier helt klart at mekanisk høsting er ikke bærekraftig.

Et lange papier fra The Crown Services – er et prøv og få høsting igang I skotland med taretrålerene – den snakker om vor mye nitrogen er tatt opp fra stortare – 480 tonn vert 20 qvadrat kilometer (fra norske forskerer Henning steen)– nitrogen er jødsel – slam – de fleste kommer fra opdrets.

Vi har store problemer her I norge fra dette – vi trenger stortare til å rense sjøen.

Er de ikke son at industrien vil ha 5 doblet produksjon I de neste 10 år?

Taren øgså tar opp tong metaler – qviksølv – de er et gammelt u båt som er fult lastet med dette.

Tare når den er høstet er besatt av bakterier – disse setter ut et gas som heter hydrogen sulphide – dette er ganske gjiftig – til å redusere Formalin må brukkes.

De er forbudt å brukke formalin til mat produksjon I eu – du får kreft fra den.
FMC har hadt mange problemer med dette fer særlig I amerika.

Her får di låv til å slippe ut 100 tonn vert år I sjøen – men fra va jeg vet de er ingen som følger med – mulig at de er ganske mer.

Taren demper bølger – de er et papier som viser frem at de er rok 89% demping over 250 meter – de er ganske mye – de er snakk om forsikrings selskaper som vill ikke gi forsikring visst taretråler operere I område.

Men va er viktig om dette er at den tar ut strøm fra sjøen – dette betyr at detrious som fløter I sjøen er tatt op og senker ned til bunnen. Dette sedimenter inholder pcb, dioxin og mye verre. Når planterer er fjernet er sedimentene I vann igjen og er tatt op av alt slags sjødyr – dette er spisst av fisk som vi spiser – mat tilsynet og andre orginisajjoner har forbudt om å fiske I mange område på kjysten – de er nå meldt at ingen skal spise fiske lever – men de fortsatt gjør de her.

Vi har mange sempler av torsk lever – grønn, svart, grå. Mat tilsynet var ikke intresert I dette – havsforskningsinstitut sa at de var helt normalt?

Vår sjøfugler forsvinner – et papier fra Sven Haakon Lauritzen viser frem at Skarv kan ikke overleve visst de er mye høsting – ingen reserch har blitt gjort på andre fugl – Ornitologer sier at dette er tilkoblet til stor invandring av Mackrell – men kansje dette fishk er her på grunn av tareskogen ødlegelse.

Mange av papirene vi leser viser at hosting kan foregå I mange år, da forsvinner plantene – de har hendt I Brazil og mange andre land – fra va jeg forestå de også henner på kjysten vår.

Tidligste papier vi har er fra 1840 talet fra japan om tareforsvinning etter for mye høsting.

Nå høster di opp ved vigra – der har de blitt ganske stor kråkeboller beiting I de siste 40 år – papirene viser frem at dette kan sje når en område er åpnet.
De har blitt kalkulert at dette område vil ha bunnet 150,000 tonn av co2 visst den var uforstyrret.

Dette kommer fra her
http://www.imr.no/filarkiv/2014/11/hi-rapp_7-2014_komif_til_web.pdf/nb-no

Figurer viser frem at tarestilpene og blader inholler rok 25% alginat.
Fra 200,000 tonn blir det 30% tørr vekt, de er 60,000 tonn involving 10 countries, of which 4 were Asian countries (6) …

FMC health and nutrition sier at di produsere 5000 tonn av alginat vert år – men dette er ikke 25% av 60,000 tonn, vi renger at de skulle bli mer slik 15000 tonn.

Di får opp til 60,000nkr vert tonn – visst figurene er riktig da er de ganske mye som forsvinner vert år.

FMC health and nutrition er et av 9 selskaper I fmc corporation – FMC selskaper har blitt tatt for svindel – miljø skade I stor grad – et selskap forgiftet missippi elv noen år siden – et annen giftet luftet over Indian land – andre har blitt tatt for pris fixing cartel og for verdens største bot.

Vi har anmeldt taretrålene for å fiske ulåvelig – saken var helt klart – men det kommet ikke I retten. I to år hadde vi besøk av mange politimen som spurte de samme spørsmål ver gang – til slutt ringte vi et lensman på Aukra og optok samtale – de levert vi til fiskeriedriektoratet og et dømming kom frem I 2 uker.

Nå har vi filmet taretrålene så lastet at di nesten synker – vi anmeldt di til sjøfartsdirektoratet – fra va vi forestå et sak var sett I gang og di fikk bot – men etter et stund så vi at trålene var likke så lastet – vi leverte mer film og bilder med plass og tid – Sjøfarts fortalte oss at di hadde et møte med fmc – di også fortalte oss at bildene var ikke klart nokk – mangler tid og plass –
Par uker siden filmet vi et taretråler I natt – som fisket ulåvelig – fiskeridirektoratet sa at di kunne ikke gjør noe – at alle båter var in I havnen – dette kunne di se fra sporing.

Vi fant et artikkel om sporing – de er ingen problem til å jukse med det – de er også ingen problem med å ta apparat ut av båten.

http://www.portvision.com/news—events/press-releases—news/bid/343898/AIS-Hacking-Buzz-Hype-and-Facts
Så den store spørsmal er – er de et sak her?
Sjøen vil bli ødlegt om et stund I alfall – de vi vet – nesten alle land som har tilgang til de I eu høster tare – dette er ganske mye.

Jeg tror at praksis må bli overhalt – vi må ha foreståelse om va går på, de er ikke nokk at noen fra havsforskningsinstitut sier de er ok – de må bli kunnskap I alle sektorer. – vi kan ikke stole på et selskap som har så mye historie I bakgrunnen.
Fra et bbc artikkel

De er ike kjent nokk om så mye høsting som foregår nå vil de bli forsent nar vi finner ut?

Visst dette skaper stor problemer for oss alle va slags hjelp eller kompensasjon får vi fra FMC?

Dette er va fmc sier om taretråling
http://www.stortare.no/?service=tarehosting-en-baerekraftig-naering

I de siste få år har vi fått mange venner opp og ned kjysten, fra lofoten til Oslo, men særlig I Høsting omrade – alle er rasende sint. Helt utrolig at dette kan foregår I norge som gier penger til å redde regn skoget men kan ikke redde vår egen.

Bertram Sømme
95093533

21. November, 2020 bertram 0

Distressing

Us Norwegians, we love our nature.

Because most of us have grown up with Fjords the sea, mountains and wildlife it is very much part of us So imagine how it feels to see the “invisible” countryside being torn up and destroyed.  Invisible because it is under the sea, maybe we cant see it but we can see and feel the effects.

1 days load

The island of Vedvik has a visit from the trawlers every 4 to 5 years – there has been considerable damage to the infrastructure from wave action this year – the komune decided that as the visit of the trawlers coincided with this it was fair to assume that the two were linked and so initiated an action against the seaweed trawling company.

In conversation with several lawyers in the district they tell me of cases going back over 40 years where structural damage has been ascribed to the removal of wave damping seaweed but not one has succeeded.

This is a letter from the man responsible for the trawlers in Norway concerning this action by the council.

1342197_1_A-FMC-til-kommuna

In the letter Ole Damm Kvilhaug mentions the importance of seaweed as a nursery and living place for wildlife, that it is a very important part of our ecology and environment.

21. November, 2020 bertram 0

The Role of the EU in Commercial Seaweed Harvesting

Over the years Stopptt has accumulated numerous reports on the matter of seaweed harvesting, information on the companies conducting commercial harvesting and related matters.

From this overview it is clear that the industry has powerful connections/support, political and industrial – it is also easy to feel that the excessive drive in the press about the benefits of the usage of seaweeds in diet and medicine is linked to the industry’s powerful PR machine. Again linked to grants to research projects and grants to universities.

With this in mind it has been fascinating to follow the activities of an organization called NETALGAE – this organization has been mentioned in previous articles.

Current front page

It is difficult to be exactly sure what this organizations connection is to the eu – at the bottom of the page “problematic” it says “European regional development fund – for lack of any other direction this organization is directly funded by  and is part of the EU.

its job seems to be furthering the seaweed harvesting industry be it mechanical or manual – by connecting access to funds and information – some of the reports it has produced are excellent however it is clear it feels that  local governmental restrictions such as environmental protection and planning laws need to be overcome – this is from a report called Problematic.

They are careful over the use of language – preferring to approach the subject obliquely however the meaning is clear.

The alginate industry has a massive problem in balancing or hiding the effects of its dredging operations, if the destruction became too evident its operations could be in jeopardy – so in Norway they have through political connections access to nearly the entire coat where the seaweed they require grows – this means the effects are so widespread it is difficult for anyone to point a finger at the industry and say there is the cause. However there is slowly an awareness arising which the industry cannot ignore  (for instance the dumping at sea of large amounts of formalin used to prevent the raw material from rotting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apyBGTAuGgg)

The fact that the raw material often has to travel several thousand kilometers past where there were formerly large seaweed beds – and more.

The net algae website has disappeared before – the last time it was replaced by a blog on APPLE products in German – surely not hacked – it is easy to believe that someone was asking difficult questions and thus the plug was pulled.

The apple blog on the netalgae website

We believe that it is of vital importance for us all that honesty and integrity is the mainstay of all businesses – that severe penalties should exist for the destruction of our environment and changing our ecology, especially the marine.

It is very distressing to feel that the EU is encouraging such activities.

21. November, 2020 bertram 0