Coming from a family of marine biologists and resistance fighters I have long been deeply concerned about the status of the sea I see nearly every day as I live on the coast at Hustad – part of Hustadvika kommune.

There is something seriously wrong

I am often out fishing when the seaweed trawlers come back from scraping the nearby coast.

seaweed trawler opeating at Askevågen feb 10 2025

double click on image to enlarge

As part of a team one of our early successes was obtaining a prosecution against the trawlers for crossing the boundaries of the lanes so carefully marked out by the fiskeriedirectoratet on their home page.

Recently I was even more concerned to see the trawlers at askevågen and vikan crossing the boundaries – then at Male – I contacted the fislkeriedirektoratet and was astonished to be told that the trawlers were not in fact fishing – they were waiting for a cargo boat to fetch their catch – how did they know that?

They could see it on their private ais tracking system I was told.

– fascinating as I could quite clearly see the trawlers were busy harvesting and the cargo boat was there with hatches open waiting for cargo – it is not an excessively large boat taking about 2,000 tons on each 700 km trip to Haugesund.

cargo ship waiting at askevågen Feb10 2025

 

Yes thats right Haugesund not far from Oslo – thats a very long way to come for seaweed when it grows all the way along the coast – or does it.  (700 km each way)

The information that the fdr had was clearly incorrect as my films showed so I wonder where their information came from, perhaps from somebody nearby?

No matter the fdr agreed on my gps positioning.

Mentioning that the three positions were in lanes alongside one another(that would be illegal) I was told to look at the map on the fiskeridir home page – and there it was – the lanes had recently been changed from approximately north to south to east and west – so they crossed over the old lanes allowing them to trawl in areas formerly closed due to the so called strict 4 or 5 year rotational harvesting.

As I had taken a jpeg of the fdrs page I could see that my picture dated from 2019 – that is only one harvesting cycle

old harvesting zones north – south 18/3/2019

New harvesting zones 24/3/25

(was it remotely possible that the harvesting zones had been changed because of my activities?)

During my research I checked to see if any mention of illegal trawling had come to light as surely the fdrs ais positioning was more accurate than ours – nope, couldn’t find any – it was as if the trawlers had voluntarily put onboard ais tracking devices(confirmed) and made them private so they could be protected from someone like us?  (or maybe they were keeping to the boundaries)

Ole Damm Kvilhaug at the 2013 conference in Trondheim announcing voluntary ais tracking of seaweed trawlers.

 

With all this in mind I was listening to nrk radio 2 when K. M. Norderhaug did a little radio chat on the state of seaweed on Norways coast – it is disappearing he said – it is in extreme danger from global warming – and I thought that the waters around the uk were warmer than here and indeed portugal where laminaria also grows and is harvested.–

The last time I checked with uk hand harvesters there the seaweed beds were as they always were – but then there is no seaweed trawling in the british isles maybe due to the massive protest that arose after the state tried to introduce seaweed trawling in Scotland – even David Attenborough was moved to do his statutory article in the telegraph about this issue.

It is interesting to note that most seaweeds are subject to considerable variation in temperatures as at low tides they are often exposed to the sun.

To add to that a paper produced by the northern Ireland heritage services on seaweed harvesting in 2007  came out very strongly against mechanical seaweed harvesting – I spoke to the author who told me she had no interest in the environmental issues other than that presented by her job and her findings were in the paper plus all the proofs you would ever need. Environmentaly sustainable seaweed harvesting in Northern Ireland march 2007. For and by the environment and heritage service.

I then wrote to the program which featured K. M. Norderhaug lecture on NRK (norwegian state broadcasting) but received no reply.

Then a request for stories of interest to nrk appeared – I wrote about taretråling and suggested a story – the journalist appeared very interested and asked for more details – so I sent them – they included a film we had made for a lecture in Molde in 2018– with Harald Bredahl from fmcdupont.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29yYN4Cggr8&t=261s

She wrote back requesting more details which were duly sent but the reply sounded a little panniky – unfortunately we cannot use this material.

Then this article appeared Omfattende tang- og taredød koster Norge 7 milliarder i året – Sørlandet

In it K. M. Norderhaug says that the seaweed beds are in dire jeopardy some 5,000 sq km are gone – again no mention of seaweed trawling so I checked my files and there it was – a paper on seaweed trawling K. M. Norderhaug had co written ecosystem-level effects of large scale disturbances in Kelp forests (2020)—- in fact many others on the same theme.

The very name –“ large scale disturbances in kelp forests” indicates that K. M. Norderhaug is well aware of this – so why no mention? Especially as 5,000 sqkm are gone – that would be the equivalent of a line 1 km wide stretching along nearly all of the entire coast of Norway.

It was a little strange as the idea given for the paper was a study to see if there was any major change after seaweed trawling in the populations of marine creatures, in all 3000 tons was collected by two trawlers for this paper.

Strange because they chose vikna as the study area and clearly said “we chose these two areas – one as a control and one to be trawled as they both had not been trawled for at least 4 years”(section 2.1) From that one can infer several things – not least that both areas had been trawled before so what could that tell us about the effects on animals in the trawled areas. Certainly not a clean measure of the effects – perhaps because they were known? Or worse still finding an area on the Norwegian coast that has not been trawled is difficult or impossible (that is unthinkable). Another thing it tells us is that seaweed trawling is widespread

All the papers we have had access to say the same things – it takes between 6 to 9 years before the forests return to their former biodiversity.

To do this scientifically you need one area that has never been trawled and one area perhaps that has but even that would not give a clear reading – so what is the purpose of this paper?

In page 2 introduction of K. M. Norderhaug paper it clearly says that papers of this kind of research are rare and very few exist – that is most interesting because a paper produced by moi steen and bodvin in 2013 in pretty much the same area produced the same results.

(Are we seeing repetitive fatigue setting into the research industry?)

Effects of kelp harvesting on fish and crabs, Nord-Trøndelag 2012 (fisken og havet 4-2013 Havsforskningsinstituttet)

Both papers were produced with the help of the seaweed trawling firms – Bodvin moi paper stated on the front page that fmc had paid half the costs K. M. Norderhaug that dupont had been very helpful with the loan of trawlers and other equipment – in fact the earliest research paper mentioning the effects of clearing an area of seaweed in the middle of a seaweed forest we can find is from 1924 nearly a hundred years ago – it says that if you do that seaurchins move in and take over – that is exactly it seems what is happening on the coast of Norway.

In fact further to that here is a map of harvesting zones from the fiskeriediredirektoratet.

double click on image to enlarge

15/1/2018

It is ridiculous for one of Norways foremost researchers not to mention seaweedtrawling as a factor in the disappearance of the Norwegian seaweed forests when their activity is clearly outlined by this map produced by the very body responsible for regulating the industry.

It is interesting to note that above this area there is also seaweed trawling but also work at collecting another species by another company – between them they seem to pretty much cover the entire coast.

Bodvin asking about the studies concerning

harvesting with scoubido by Algea in the north of Norway

at the 2013 seaweed trawling conference Trondheim.

Very concerned about the ecological effects.

But interestingly no interest in the effects of seaweedtrawling.

To be blunt these studies were conducted by expert marine biologists who clearly know their stuff – to produce such work there would have to be some extenuating circumstances – perhaps this little snip from a paper produced by the Irish state could give some indication of why.-

page 86 of role of kelp in the marine environment – irish wildlife manuals no 17. environment,heritage and local government.

Double click on image to read

it seems to indicate that most Norwegian research papers on seaweed trawling are produced for the results rather than to find out the truth.

The irish paper goes on to say that the conventional seaweed trawl leaves 2 plants damaged for every one harvested

Double click on image to read

further

This reinforced by the following paper

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320710002363

cormorants – and fish such as gaddids – (cod family) dissapear by up to 92% for up to a year after harvesting.

Svein – Håkon lorentsen one of the authors says that after seaweed tråwling there is not enough food for seabirds.

Double click on image to read

Back to the Irish paper

According to another paper produced by the Norwegian state it says that in Sogn of fjordane,Hordalald and Rogaland counties——– the trawlers have access to 97 bird reserves – 32 all year round.

Double click on image to read

Our colleague Oddmar Remøy with his court win against FMC for trawling illegally in a bird reserve where there were already marked out Trawling zones.

Double click on image to read

This is of course before fmc introduced ais tracking in all of their boats – no prosecutions since apparently. So the trawlers are either keeping to their boundaries or there is no one monitoring their positions. (or worse still, monitoring but ignoring breaches)

Reading the various papers and with personal knowledge it is clear that the seaweed forests are carefully balanced entities acting as the lungs and liver of the sea – to do this it requires cleaners and gardeners for stability.

It is interesting to note that the fishery for leppefisk from the salmon farming industry removed vast numbers of the very fish that ate sea urchins from the open sea to eat salmon louse in the salmon farm pens and die.

That industry is no longer active at hustadvika but the seaweed trawlers are.

We rely on highly educated marine biologists to regulate the industry.

They are mostly loyal Norwegian subjects – why are none speaking out?

One of the reports was co written by Torjan Bodvin.

Sadly he is no longer with us having succumbed from liver cancer apparently linked to hepatitis.

Here is an article from NRK concerning his winning a prize for promoting the eating of seashore food – this included the pacific oyster – which can contain herpes virus.

Double click on image to read

More research shows that the industry uses vast amounts of Formalin – which after use is dumped at sea – here is an article produced by nrk 2 and video by stopptt independantly of nrk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apyBGTAuGgg&t=26s

It needs to use this because injured seaweed – such as that pulled up by the roots produce hydrogen sulphide very quickly and this is poisonous to most animals especially fish. Also to the trawlermen and shippers who are exposed to formaldehide gas daily – is formalin classed as a 1b2 cancer risk ( a little more dangerous than smoking)– we have never observed any employees with protective gear in many hours of filming the depot at Smørholm.

seaweed deppo at Smørholm Hustadvika with the formalin tank on the right and the iff logo on the left  photo taken 7/8/23

Double click on image to read

It seems that h2s is also produced under the sea by the damaged plants left behind by the trawlers – our irish paper says 2 for every one taken up

– as the harvest approaches 180,000 tons that is a huge amount left producing hydrogen sulphide and other defence chemicals – the caretakers of our seaweed forests eat such animals as seaurchins – one can only presume seaurchins move in and multiply once the fish (caretakers)are gone.

This may explain why the trawlers need pretty much the entire coast to operate  – the damage needs to be spread out. A paper by Nina mentions this with “why do they need the entire coast when their own figures say they only need 85 kdv km to produce the harvest.?” paper details.

Niva rapport lnr 5150-2006 okologiske effekter av taretråling

Double click on image to read

In effect it says that for the amount the industry says it harvests per year and if the figures they give are correct then the industry needs only 85 km2 of the seaweed forests to complete this figure – it goes further to say that it would be common sense to concentrate seaweed trawling to a few areas then pretty much the entire coast as is today.

Perhaps this article goes some way to explain why.

At the Molde lecture we mentioned defence chemicals – Harald Bredahl (rastoff chef for fmc/dupont or whatever they are currently called)said that he and “Henning Steen had never heard of them in laminaria and Steen should know – he is one of the leaders in seaweed research in Norway. Strange that you should know something we don’t!”

Harald Bredahl at the Molde lectures 2018 making this statement.

This is what a AI said about this – “The statement from Industry representatives that they have never heard of defence chemicals in Laminaria Hyperborea is scientifically false and professionaly negligent.

The chemical defense systems in this species is not a matter of debate but of established scientific fact, documented in High impact peer reviewed journals for decades.

The mechanical trauma of trawling would inevitably activate these defense pathways, releasing a cocktail of halogenated compounds, polyphenols and toxic gasses into the ecosystem.

This provides a mechanistic, chemical explanation for the 92% disappearance of gadids and other fauna documented in other reports following trawling – they are either directly poisoned or driven away by the toxic chemical environment created by the wounded kelp forest.”

Summary.

It is clear from multiple sources that the biggest danger to the seaweed forests on the Norwegian coast is from seaweed trawling – the information concerning seaweed trawling is well hidden from the press preferring to believe the official “we take so little and there is so much” from the seaweed trawling company’s.

The second biggest danger is from the organizations supposedly overseeing this perilous industry

The 2 main company’s involved – fmc and dupont are both responsible for some of the worst pollution this planet has seen This corporate involvement warrants serious scrutiny. DuPont is a company with a global legacy of severe chemical pollution, most notably its role in the widespread contamination of water supplies with highly toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which it knowingly concealed for decades. This established pattern of prioritizing industrial output over environmental and human health raises profound questions about the influence and motives behind their support for fisheries research in Norway.

FMC is notable for world record fines for polluting the air and water – notably the Mississippi river – it also produces the worlds most dangerous insecticide (Carbofuran or Furadan)– still even after the us banned it.

The vast majority of the public have never heard of seaweed trawling – if they were ever informed of the full facts the consequences for both state and the havsforskningsintitut would be long reaching indeed for the entire industry.

Consider if the industry, the regulators and the research industry in Norway are involved with this cover up what other industries and regulators are working together for industry – not the people of Norway

Therefore we call upon the state to cease this massive destruction of the seaweed beds off the coast of Norway forthwith and to institute research into how this could happen and for so long, and to call those responsible to book.

In conjunction with the research for this article we came across a company called NET ALGAE – apparently they have long ceased operations – their focus was the implementatio of seaweed harvesting in any form – to enable this they produced many reports – some of which were excellent but also this — PROBLEMATIC.

Essentially this report said that local governments don’t know enough about seaweed harvesting and the local laws do not take this into account. Should any company wish to start commercial harvesting we have a team that can easily by pass any local legislation or by laws.

We contacted the eu about this and recieved a lukewarm response – further attempts produced silence.

This from Nrk the norwegian broadcasting service – the fikeriedirektoratet is not doing its job.

Double click to read

And finally – From Fiskeriebladet – it quotes Harald Bredahl as saying that the entire coast should be open to seaweed trawling.  They want it all and it belongs to the Norwegian people.

Double click to read

Written and produced for Stopptt.com.

phone 95093533 – email bsoemm@online.no

Bertram Sømme 29/9/25 Hustad Norway.