As salmon farmers in Norway and around the world are deeply embroiled in the coronavirus crisis, Scottish Salmon Watch is asking the Scottish Government if imports of salmon eggs (ova) from Norway have now resumed again after the export ban last year due to the deadly Infectious Salmon Anaemia.
How many millions of 'disease-free' salmon eggs from #Norway are now slipping back into #Scotland following last year's export ban due to Infectious Salmon Anaemia? @FergusEwingMSP @EFTAsecretariat @InfoMattilsynet @GreenerScotland @marinescotland #ScottishScamon #ISA #disease pic.twitter.com/UYvMYkZ8ZB
— Don Staniford (@TheGAAIA) June 18, 2020
Coronavirus restrictions have seriously impacted 'Scottish' salmon farmers with exports falling by a third but it seems that imports of salmon eggs from Norway – where Infectious Salmon Anaemia led to a ban on ova exports in May 2019 – may have started slipping back into Scotland from late April following a lifting of ISA restrictions by the Norwegian Food Safety Authority.
Following a critical inspection by @EFTAsecretariat in May 2019 imports of Norwegian eggs were banned from Scotland due to the perceived risk of spreading Infectious Salmon Anemia @undercur https://t.co/r371khiJlW @InfoMattilsynet @WeAreBenchmark @fiskeridir @NFdep @SSPOsays
— Don Staniford (@TheGAAIA) February 25, 2020
However, the European Free Trade Association – which banned exports of Norwegian salmon eggs in May 2019 following a damning disease inspection – have refused to disclose documents to Scottish Salmon Watch requested under Freedom of Information. EFTA "began a consultation with the Norwegian Ministries as regards the documents" explained EFTA in an email to Scottish Salmon Watch on 5 June 2020 (enclosed in full below along with other emails). "In accordance with Article 7(4) RAD, the time-limit for delivery of the College Decision is to be suspended for the documents concerned, for as long as the consultation is pending," continued EFTA. "The team will request Norway to complete its assessment within a reasonable time (while allowing for the fact that we have asked them to assess a large number of documents)."
Meanwhile, ISA continues to ravage salmon farms in Norway.
Last year Scottish Salmon Watch revealed that 99% of 'Scottish' salmon farming production was controlled/owned by foreign companies – ca. 65% of which was Norwegian controlled/owned – and that 90% of the ova used to on-grow 'Scottish' salmon was imported (predominantly from Norway and Iceland).
Record numbers of foreign salmon eggs are being imported by Scottish fish farms – @TheGAAIA in today’s Scottish Mail on Sunday: pic.twitter.com/wdACZSgpgh
— Georgia Edkins (@Georgia_Edkins) July 7, 2019
Intrafish reported in late March 2020 that Scotland's largest salmon farmer Mowi (formerly called Marine Harvest – they changed their name in 2019 due to negative consumer perception) was suspected of ISA in Norway:
The Global Aquaculture Advocate reported (1 June 2020):
Read article in full online here
The Norwegian Food Safety Authority reported (23 April 2020):
Earlier in April 2020, the Scottish Government admitted to Scottish Salmon Watch via Freedom of Information that: "No testing of salmon eggs, imported into Scotland, has been undertaken by Marine Scotland Science in relation to the pathogens and diseases you specify" and "No screening of ova for PRV has been undertaken by Marine Scotland Science".
The Annex disclosed by the Scottish Government in April 2020 included:
Read more via FOI Reveals Virus-Laden Salmon Slip Net & Into Scottish Waters
Isn't it ironic…don't you think. A little too ironic…and, yeah, I really do think…It's like salmon farmers exploiting the Coronavirus crisis when over 50% of farmed salmon tested positive for a virus https://t.co/8Z8lYMIv2p @marinescotland @SSPOsays #alanismorissette pic.twitter.com/eQDxDZYezs
— Don Staniford (@TheGAAIA) March 13, 2020
In February 2020, Scottish Salmon Watch wrote to the Norwegian Food Safety Authority (Mattilsynet) requesting further information on the ova ban and also wrote to Scottish Ministers.
What bio-security protocols & safety precautions are Scottish Ministers taking re. imports of ova for use on 'Scottish' salmon farms? https://t.co/uUvCg7mKfq @FergusEwingMSP @strathearnrose @KateForbesMSP @MairiGougeon @GreenerScotland @marinescotland @WeAreBenchmark @HGSalmonUK pic.twitter.com/YFjGUiaNlt
— Don Staniford (@TheGAAIA) February 26, 2020
The Scottish Government replied on 25 March 2020:
Scottish Salmon Watch reported on 24 February 2020:
Read more via:
- FOI letter to Norwegian Food Safety Authority re. Infectious Salmon Anaemia
- Undercurrent News: "Iceland replaces Norway as main source of Scottish salmon eggs following import ban"
- Letter to Scottish Ministers: "Bio-security Protocols & Safety Precautions re. Ova Imports"
- The Ferret: "Imports of Norwegian salmon eggs banned over deadly virus"
- Norwegian Salmon Egg Exports Banned Due to Disease Risks
Norwegian Salmon Egg Exports Banned Due to Disease Risks https://t.co/rEeHFKqewt @EFTAsecretariat @InfoMattilsynet @marinescotland @fiskeridir @NFdep @WeAreBenchmark @scotseafarms @MowiScotlandLtd @HGSalmonUK @FergusEwingMSP @DefraGovUK @SSPOsays #ISA #Norway #ScottishScamon pic.twitter.com/XmW4SaPYG2
— Don Staniford (@TheGAAIA) February 24, 2020
In April 2020, EFTA refused to disclose documents claiming that making the information public would "cause harm":
From: Howdle, Catherine <Catherine.Howdle@eftasurv.int>
Date: Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 1:04 PM
Subject: Decision on your access to documents request: Case 83033
To: Don Staniford <salmonfarmingkills@gmail.com>
Dear Mr Staniford,
My colleague in the ESA Public Access to Documents team, Jonas Nielsen, forwarded me your email requesting all documents in Case 83033, which I understand concerns a food safety mission to Norway.
As head of the Public Access team, I would like to explain a little further as to why you received a preliminary list – and why that list looked like it did.
Please bear with me, as I’m afraid this is going to be a rather long email! But I’d like to take the time to explain things properly. If anything is not clear, please do just drop me a line – my details are in the signature at the bottom and I’d be more than happy to discuss this with you.
Normally when we receive an access request, the requester is looking for a specific document or type of document. When a request comes in asking for all documents in the case, we make the preliminary list in order to help the requester understand what types of documents we have in the file (eg information from states, internal memos, reports). Usually (but of course not always) a requester follows up with more questions which help us to identify specific documents they would like to see.
We also have to balance up the needs of the public (as disclosure is intended to give transparency) with being able to do our job properly (as disclosure could mean that a state or the Commission then refuses to share documents with us as we are not protecting it as they would). This is why we have the exemptions in our Rules on Public Access to Documents (“the RAD”), and why we apply a balancing test which starts with identifying whether disclosure could cause a particular harm (such as undermining the protection of the purpose of inspections).
Unfortunately, where making the document public could cause harm, it often follows that telling a requester exactly what is in the document could also cause harm – and so this is also prohibited by the exempting provision. Hence we have redacted the titles in many instances – although we have tried to keep enough information in the document for you to know what type of document it is, who ESA got it from or sent it to, and in what context, and when it was sent, received or created. I do understand that this must be rather annoying, but we have really tried to put in as much information as the rules allow, to better help you with your request.
Three of the documents from Case 83033 (Docs No 1085525, 1085800 and 1085801) have been published. However, the rest of the documents in the file are covered by one or more exemptions.
I’ll try to further explain the reasons behind the refusals for the following documents.
Last month (5 May 2020), Scottish Salmon Watch asked EFTA to review their FOI refusal:
Date: Tue, May 5, 2020 at 9:12 AM
Subject: Review re. Case 83033 – Ban on Norwegian salmon egg exports due to disease risks
To: Registry User <registry@eftasurv.int>
Cc: Howdle, Catherine <Catherine.Howdle@eftasurv.int>, <Carsten.Zatschler@eftasurv.int>, Nielsen, Jonas <Jonas.Nielsen@eftasurv.int>
Could you please indicate to which, if any, of the documents listed you would specifically like to make a request of access?
"Please note that for those documents originating from any third parties, such as the Norwegian government, we will have to consult with the third party on whether or not public access can be granted."
"My colleagues in the food safety unit have indicated that it is now possible to export consignments of ova/eggs from three certified areas in Norway for trade to other EEA states that are certified as ISA free (including Scotland). This information is in the public domain already: please see here for full details of the areas."
From: Howdle, Catherine <Catherine.Howdle@eftasurv.int>
Date: Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 1:57 PM
Subject: RE: Review re. Case 83033 – Ban on Norwegian salmon egg exports due to disease risks
To: Don Staniford <salmonfarmingkills@gmail.com>, Registry <Registry.User@eftasurv.int>
Cc: Zatschler, Carsten <Carsten.Zatschler@eftasurv.int>, Nielsen, Jonas <Jonas.Nielsen@eftasurv.int>
Dear Mr Staniford
I am writing to let you know that as part of the ongoing work on the College Decision concerning your public access request, the Access to Documents team today began a consultation with the Norwegian Ministries as regards the documents which the latter submitted to ESA in the course of the inspection in Case 83033.
In accordance with Article 7(4) RAD, the time-limit for delivery of the College Decision is to be suspended for the documents concerned, for as long as the consultation is pending. The team will request Norway to complete its assessment within a reasonable time (while allowing for the fact that we have asked them to assess a large number of documents).
I will be in touch again once the team has had an answer from the Norwegian Ministries, to inform you of any changes in the timelines for the College Decision.
All best,
Cath Howdle
Catherine Howdle
Deputy Director, Legal and Executive Affairs
