By
·
3 minute read
Ask any farm manager what the most stressful part of the year is, and it's likely you'll hear about audits - especially those from Mattilsynet. Despite thorough preparations, maybe some sleepless nights, and countless meetings, there's always a little lingering worry: "What did we miss?".
Many farm operators and fish health managers we've talked to expressed stress over facing the same regulatory hurdles. And while it's tempting to solely blame complex requirements, recent audit findings reveal another truth: many Norwegian salmon farms are missing crucial opportunities to address compliance risks before they become violations.
Why Norwegian Farms Keep Facing Similar Audit Issues
After analyzing the completed audits of farms (currently totaling 9 audits) from the published Mattilsynet audit results throughout 2024–2025, patterns emerged across multiple farms. It wasn’t merely isolated cases or minor oversights, these were systemic gaps that farms often underestimate. Key among them are deficiencies in risk management practices, biosecurity measures, and internal control routines.
| Audit Category | Total Deviations | Total Improvement Points |
| Risk Management Deficiencies | 7 | 2 |
| Lack of Internal Controls | 5 | 3 |
| Deficient Deviation Handling | 6 | 0 |
| Systematic Management & Improvement Work | 1 | 0 |
For example, farms frequently overlook comprehensive risk mapping. Many operate with risk assessments at a site-specific level but fail to integrate these into a cohesive, company-wide overview. This fragmented approach prevents management from identifying overarching risks that could impact multiple facilities, leading to recurring compliance gaps.
Mattilsynet's audits repeatedly flag this issue, with one audit stating:
"It is not clear how collected data forms the basis for an aggregated risk picture, or how risks are systematically escalated upwards in the decision-making system."
This means farms might be conducting risk assessments, but they lack a structured way to escalate findings into a decision-making framework. Without this, risks remain siloed rather than proactively managed at the corporate level.
Hidden in Plain Sight: The Biosecurity Paradox
Biosecurity, crucial to protecting fish health and ensuring industry sustainability, was another recurring weak spot highlighted by Mattilsynet. Auditors repeatedly flagged insufficient adaptation of biosecurity plans to individual farm conditions. Generic templates might check boxes but don't address localized threats effectively. For instance, shared infrastructure or proximity to processing facilities were often overlooked, leaving farms vulnerable.
An audit report put it bluntly:
"The biosecurity plans appear almost identical across locations, and it is not clear which site-specific risks have been considered or mitigated."
What’s more, audits revealed many farms struggle with employee engagement on biosecurity matters. Workers were sometimes unclear about essential measures and their role in maintaining barriers against disease, a troubling gap when considering biosecurity’s frontline nature.
Where Internal Controls Fall Short
Another major theme from the Mattilsynet audits is insufficient internal control processes. Farms typically have formal systems in place, but auditors found these systems often weren't reviewed systematically to ensure effectiveness. At many farms, internal audits focused on basic compliance checks without evaluating whether the management systems truly worked to prevent risks.
The result? Management teams repeatedly encounter "surprise" issues during external audits, even though internal systems were supposedly in place to catch these risks early.
Adjustments Can Drive Significant Improvement Opportunities
Fortunately, addressing these issues doesn't require reinventing your entire approach. The solutions Mattilsynet’s findings point to are practical and achievable. While resolving compliance challenges is rarely straightforward, the findings from Mattilsynet provide useful insights into where farms might start to address these systemic gaps. The examples below illustrate potential opportunities for enhancing farm operations, though their successful implementation will vary depending on individual circumstances:
-
Unified Risk Assessments: Moving towards integrating site-specific risk assessments into a unified framework can help management better recognize and address cross-site challenges, allowing farms to manage risks more proactively.
-
Localized Biosecurity Plans: Customizing biosecurity plans to specific site conditions, rather than relying on generic templates, can improve protection against disease threats. Encouraging active employee participation in the planning process can also strengthen awareness and adherence to key measures.
-
Strategic Internal Reviews: Refining internal audits to not only confirm compliance but also evaluate the real-world effectiveness of management systems can help identify vulnerabilities earlier - though it requires dedicated resources and a shift in audit approach.
Preparing for Your Next Audit - and Beyond
Understanding these trends from Mattilsynet’s latest audits presents an opportunity, not only to improve compliance but to build stronger, more resilient farm operations overall. By proactively refining risk management, biosecurity practices, and internal controls, farms can transform audits from dreaded events into routine confirmations of a well-managed business.
As aquaculture evolves, regulatory scrutiny will only intensify. Farms that embrace the lessons from these audits won't just pass inspections - they'll position themselves ahead of the curve, ready to tackle future challenges with confidence.
Interested in learning how Manolin can help your farm navigate compliance more effectively?
Contact our team to discuss how we are helping our customers be pepared.