Self inflicted damage by Landsvirkjun
Hvammsvirkjun power plant has long been controversial, not least because it is to be located where Iceland’s largest salmon stock resides, as well as Viðey near the Þjórsá river, which is a protected island.
What is most remarkable about this matter is Landsvirkjun’s victim-playing. Landsvirkjun is an energy company owned by the Icelandic nation, as they themselves like to emphasize, at least for now.
There are many viable locations for hydro power plants in Iceland, and there is nothing wrong with utilizing resources if it is done responsibly and in appropriate locations. Most people agree that increased revenue for the state is a good thing.
However, it is surprising that Landsvirkjun has chosen a location where the largest salmon stock in the country resides. This species was added to the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Red List for endangered species. Landsvirkjun has been aware of this issue with the Hvammsvirkjun site from the start.
Responsibility for choosing this sensitive site
It is the responsibility of Landsvirkjun to decide on such a vulnerable location for a power plant. They could have easily pursued other options or explored additional projects rather than relying on a single project and reacting dramatically when things don’t go as planned for perfectly valid reasons.
The CEO is responsible for financial losses from their decisions
It is also the CEO’s responsibility to bear the consequences of decisions that result in financial losses for the company because those decisions were not in accordance with the law. When the Hvammsvirkjun permit was recently revoked by the District Court, Landsvirkjun reacted with dramatic outcry, almost like a “stuck pig,” demanding that the government intervene to grant Hvammsvirkjun an exemption from current laws.
What is the purpose of having laws in this country if companies like Landsvirkjun can have emergency laws passed to suit their convenience? A company owned by the nation, as they themselves describe it, should instead respect the legal framework. What is the point of legal disputes if emergency laws are simply enacted to “fix” poorly planned projects? Such actions only serve to undermine the rule of law, governance, and the judicial system.
The extinction of the Þjórsá salmon population
Landsvirkjun’s reaction reflects short-term thinking and a lack of careful consideration. The country’s households are not suffering from an energy shortage due to compliance with the law. Increased energy production and revenue are great, but it must be done with the long term in mind.
The CEO of Landsvirkjun has not spoken of harnessing famous Gullfoss waterfall for energy, as no one would consider such an idea anymore, even though it was once discussed. The same reasoning applies to Þjórsá because of the wild Icelandic salmon population, which is at risk of extinction. The CEO seems to have failed to grasp this concept despite numerous legal proceedings.
It is a cheap and shortsighted solution to expect emergency laws to be enacted for situations that could have been foreseen. Landsvirkjun should have diversified its efforts rather than putting all its eggs in one basket. Landsvirkjun’s management can only blame themselves for the current situation. If there are financial losses, they bear the responsibility—not the Icelandic nation, farmers, or landowners who are defending their rights under the law.
If the nation has become as indifferent to our natural resources and wildlife as Landsvirkjun appears to be, then we are in serious trouble. We are not at a dead end if we develop resources elsewhere, and there is no need to pretend otherwise. This is not the end of the world for us. However, Hvammsvirkjun would be the end of the line for the wild salmon population in Þjórsá. The habitat of wild salmon would be devastated, with predictable consequences, as has been seen in numerous other cases where wildlife habitats are developed for energy projects.
A civilized society doesn’t create emergency laws to override courts
Is it the mark of a civilized society to enact emergency laws after a court has invalidated a permit, simply because Landsvirkjun put all its eggs in one basket? Is this the path we want to take, where enough whining leads to retroactive fixes through emergency laws? Or would it be better to pause and consider that when things are so fundamentally misaligned, we might simply be barking up the wrong tree and that some plans are just not meant to happen?
We are an incredible nation, with many talented and capable individuals, and we have pristine and beautiful nature. We have everything needed to be a global leader of resource utilization that works in harmony with nature rather than at its expense. Shouldn’t the nation have the right to demand that Landsvirkjun utilize resources without causing unnecessary harm to nature?
This is a translated article sent in and first published here in Icelandic Visir newspaper.