Read Björk's letter to Iceland's minister of industries 99

Musician Björk has written an open letter to Ragnheiður Elín Árnadóttir, Iceland's minister of industries, regarding nature preservation in the central highlands. Björk's letter is a response to the minister's words that it would have been smarter if Björk had encouraged co-operation instead of launching a global campaign to pressure Icelandic authorities to stop the construction of hydroelectric dams in the central highlands. The government has supported some of these plans. 

Read more: Video: Björk calls for global action to defend Iceland's highlands

Björk's message is clear. Further construction must be stopped. Here is her letter:

Dear Ragnheiður

We appreciate that you noticed us.

Advocates of heavy industry here haven’t done much listening to the majority of the nation. You have mostly gone full steam ahead without asking anybody. Communication and transparency has not exactly been your forte when it comes to your plans, which are carried out in great secrecy. You act as if what you do to the country is irrelevant to icelanders, as if you know better.

Just under two thirds of the nation support creating a national park in the highlands. Only 12% are against it. This means that the heavy industry agenda is backed by a small minority. I applaud that the government is finally completing a framework for nature protection and energy utilization and have great respect for all of the experts who sit on committees, some of the most knowledgeable people in the country …. but it’s been set up in such an unjust way. Now we evaluate 25 sites – whether or not to industrialize 25 selected sites. It would be just and rational if there were also 25 enquiries in the system about preserving those same areas.

It's sort of a case of “innocent until proven otherwise” versus “guilty until proven otherwise”. The highlands are guilty until proven otherwise. The highlands are an opportunity for industrialization and money-making until proven otherwise.

And how do you prove that? I attended a meeting in which the scientists working on the government’s conservation framework introduced their work, they only get a few months to invent a complicated system to evaluate fragile areas and under this pressure they came up with some sort of multiple choice test in which these 25 areas are tested with ca 100 questions, questions like: are there salmon roe there or not, are there geese or not, how much do tourists like the area: they don’t, a little bit, sort of, a lot or loads. Our wilderness is in some kind of digital pop idol contest to find the area that can be best harnessed. Kinda farcical because if for example they decide to allow half of the areas to be harnessed you might as well industrialize it all, it’s ruined. The sacredness would be broken.

If we succeed in fulfilling the nation’s desire to make a national park in the highlands we will have to define the different areas. National parks can be quite diverse and there's room for jeep enthusiasts, hikers, tourists, farmers and then areas that might have to stay totally sacred. We already have models of this working, like in Þingvellir [National Park] and the Vatnajökull Glacier National Park.

I’m going to try to speak money lingo too: the language that heavy industry advocates seem to understand so well: next year we will see more money from tourists than heavy industry and fishing. Untouched nature is a treasure.

The international Paris climate summit is in 2 weeks. To enter the 21st century, Icelanders need to decrease emissions by 40 percent .
in the last ninety years we’ve built on 68% of Iceland’s wilderness!

This has happened faster than we think Ragnheiður, I’m not against green power plants, but isn’t this just enough now?
Let’s give the nation what it wants.

warmth

björk

Musician Björk has written an open letter to Ragnheiður Elín Árnadóttir, Iceland's minister of industries, regarding nature preservation in the central highlands. Björk's letter is a response to the minister's words that it would have been smarter if Björk had encouraged co-operation instead of launching a global campaign to pressure Icelandic authorities to stop the construction of hydroelectric dams in the central highlands. The government has supported some of these plans. 

Read more: Video: Björk calls for global action to defend Iceland's highlands

Björk's message is clear. Further construction must be stopped. Here is her letter:

Dear Ragnheiður

We appreciate that you noticed us.

Advocates of heavy industry here haven’t done much listening to the majority of the nation. You have mostly gone full steam ahead without asking anybody. Communication and transparency has not exactly been your forte when it comes to your plans, which are carried out in great secrecy. You act as if what you do to the country is irrelevant to icelanders, as if you know better.

Just under two thirds of the nation support creating a national park in the highlands. Only 12% are against it. This means that the heavy industry agenda is backed by a small minority. I applaud that the government is finally completing a framework for nature protection and energy utilization and have great respect for all of the experts who sit on committees, some of the most knowledgeable people in the country …. but it’s been set up in such an unjust way. Now we evaluate 25 sites – whether or not to industrialize 25 selected sites. It would be just and rational if there were also 25 enquiries in the system about preserving those same areas.

It's sort of a case of “innocent until proven otherwise” versus “guilty until proven otherwise”. The highlands are guilty until proven otherwise. The highlands are an opportunity for industrialization and money-making until proven otherwise.

And how do you prove that? I attended a meeting in which the scientists working on the government’s conservation framework introduced their work, they only get a few months to invent a complicated system to evaluate fragile areas and under this pressure they came up with some sort of multiple choice test in which these 25 areas are tested with ca 100 questions, questions like: are there salmon roe there or not, are there geese or not, how much do tourists like the area: they don’t, a little bit, sort of, a lot or loads. Our wilderness is in some kind of digital pop idol contest to find the area that can be best harnessed. Kinda farcical because if for example they decide to allow half of the areas to be harnessed you might as well industrialize it all, it’s ruined. The sacredness would be broken.

If we succeed in fulfilling the nation’s desire to make a national park in the highlands we will have to define the different areas. National parks can be quite diverse and there's room for jeep enthusiasts, hikers, tourists, farmers and then areas that might have to stay totally sacred. We already have models of this working, like in Þingvellir [National Park] and the Vatnajökull Glacier National Park.

I’m going to try to speak money lingo too: the language that heavy industry advocates seem to understand so well: next year we will see more money from tourists than heavy industry and fishing. Untouched nature is a treasure.

The international Paris climate summit is in 2 weeks. To enter the 21st century, Icelanders need to decrease emissions by 40 percent .
in the last ninety years we’ve built on 68% of Iceland’s wilderness!

This has happened faster than we think Ragnheiður, I’m not against green power plants, but isn’t this just enough now?
Let’s give the nation what it wants.

warmth

björk