Is the Ministry of Iceland Being Misled Again?
The Hidden Risks Behind Another "Small" Research Project
Is the Ministry of Iceland once again being misled by professional-sounding rhetoric regarding another so-called "innocent" research project intended to "save the world"?
We must recognize that the same individuals behind this initiative are well-versed in navigating government systems and know precisely how to advance their agendas. Now, they return with seemingly clean hands, presenting grand claims about the necessity of their project and its supposed minimal impact on the ecosystem of Hvalfjörður.
What Does the Application Say?
The application from Röst Marine Research Center states:
"Röst Marine Research Center is hereby applying for a research permit for a small preliminary study on increased basic activity in the sea in Hvalfjörður in May and July 2025. The research permit is being sought from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in accordance with Article 9 of Act No. 41/1979 on territorial waters, economic zones, and the continental shelf."
The application requests permission to introduce (dissolved in water) 12 tons of caustic soda (NaOH), calculated as solid caustic soda. However, Hrönn Egilsdóttir, a marine ecologist at the Marine Research Institute, has stated that the actual figure is 30 tons. When Röst presented the project to Kjósarhreppur residents, they cited 20 tons. So, what is the real number?
Could this discrepancy indicate that the amount of NaOH used depends on the size of the experimental area, effectively giving them a blank check to expand this experiment beyond its stated scope? Could they, in reality, end up using 100 tons of undiluted caustic soda, dispersing it into the fjord over 48-96 hours in a single location to achieve their desired results?
Where are the guarantees that such escalation will not occur?
Can the Marine Research Institute Be Trusted?
How can residents of Hvalfjörður trust the Marine Research Institute when even they seem uncertain about the exact quantity of caustic soda required? Have they adequately assessed the potential effects of ocean stratification at the experimental site and how it may influence the distribution and impact of this chemical?
Who Is Overseeing This Experiment?
The Marine Research Institute has received over 100 million ISK from wealthy donors for this "non-profit" pollution experiment, yet they are expected to supervise themselves before and after the research! The same institution that oversaw the disastrous Running Tide project is now set to oversee itself once more. This presents a clear conflict of interest.
Why Use Caustic Soda?
Why was NaOH specifically chosen instead of safer alternatives such as magnesium hydroxide or limestone (CaCO3)? The justification remains unclear, as does the absence of an impact assessment on local species, including fish, birds, and small marine organisms. Could the choice simply be a matter of cost-cutting?
Can Röst Be Held Accountable?
Röst, the company applying for this permit, reportedly has only 500,000 ISK in equity. What assurances exist that they can cover damages if this experiment goes wrong and causes long-term harm to the ecosystem and livelihoods of locals?
Why Not Conduct This Experiment in Open Waters?
Given the fragile nature of Hvalfjörður's ecosystem, it would be far more prudent to conduct such an experiment in the open ocean, where the impact on biodiversity would be less concentrated. However, Röst appears to be prioritizing cost savings by conducting the experiment near the capital rather than in open sea areas.
The Running Tide Debacle
Lest we forget, the individuals behind this experiment are the same ones responsible for Running Tide, a project that promised to "save the world" by dumping toxic-treated tree trunks into Faxaflói Bay under the supervision of the Marine Research Institute. That initiative ended in one of Iceland’s biggest environmental scandals.
Impact on Local Communities
Hvalfjörður is home to renowned salmon fishing rivers, and local residents fear that this experiment could devastate the ecosystem and economic foundations that took years to build. The tourism industry, which relies on the region's pristine nature, could also suffer if pollution and wildlife loss tarnish the area’s reputation.
What About the King of the Sky, the Eagle?
Shockingly, there is no mention of the eagle, Iceland’s national bird, in any of the preliminary studies. This eagle has successfully nested right in the planned dilution area for years, raising numerous young eagles. If toxic materials enter its food chain, its survival is at risk.
Are authorities considering granting permission to poison the eagle, whose territory and nest lie directly in the planned dilution zone?
For years, the eagle has successfully raised many young eagles in this exact location. However, if this experiment proceeds, the eagle will likely consume poisoned food, endangering both itself and its young.
Icelandic law states that it is strictly illegal to approach an eagle’s nest within 500 meters without special permission. Furthermore, poisoned carcasses have been historically linked to eagle population declines. Where is the assessment of this impact?
According to eagle protection laws:
"It is strictly forbidden to approach eagle nests within 500 meters without special permission from the Minister for the Environment. Eagles are monitored annually, and their breeding success is tracked. It is essential to uphold protection laws and prevent illegal interference with eagle habitats. Poisoned carcasses were historically the main reason for eagle population declines, and it is recommended that poisoning on open land never be permitted for any purpose."
I sincerely hope that the Environmental Agency of Iceland and the Icelandic Institute of Natural History will take a stand against this reckless decision by the Marine Research Institute of Iceland and ensure that the king and queen of Icelandic birds receive the legal protection they deserve.
A concerned writer contacted the Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences at the University of Iceland about this issue. They are now examining the matter and have notified the Environmental Agency about the planned actions at the eagle’s territory. Authorities must provide input on this, whether they like it or not. It will be too late for them to claim ignorance once the damage is done.
The eagle is the highest-ranking bird in Iceland, and according to the law, it must not be poisoned or threatened.
What If?
"What if! It shouldn't! And it's rather unlikely!" These are the phrases that Röst’s representatives frequently use in their application. However, there is no contingency plan in place for the death or poisoning of wildlife in Hvalfjörður, including birds, seals, shellfish such as the Icelandic cyprine (Arctica islandica), which can live over 400 years, and fish that may float to the surface dead or injured.
Are we to believe that simply stopping the chemical release will be sufficient to address any unintended consequences? There is a high likelihood that contaminated dead birds, fish, crabs, or shellfish will become food for other animals. This has not been factored into the equation.
These are clear indications that the researchers care little for the ecosystem of the fjord. It is convenient for them to remain silent, especially since they are effectively investigating their own actions.
A Lack of Transparency in the Municipality Council
It is utterly unacceptable how the Hvalfjörður Municipality Council has handled this issue. Instead of prioritizing environmental protection, they have shown no initiative in questioning the experiment.
Adding to the concern, the council leader was given a seat on Röst’s board with the unanimous approval of the council members. This is a glaring conflict of interest and raises serious questions about their judgment.
Have Similar Experiments Been Rejected in Europe?
If so, on what grounds? Has the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) been consulted regarding such experiments and their potential consequences?
A brief online search reveals that European environmental organizations have strongly opposed experiments involving NaOH in marine environments due to its harmful effects on marine ecosystems. It is imperative to demand answers before any permissions are granted.
Conclusion: Nature Must Always Be Given the Benefit of the Doubt
The concerns surrounding Röst’s application extend beyond the experiment itself. They highlight a lack of transparency, accountability, and responsible governance. The protection of nature should be the guiding principle, yet it is being treated as an afterthought.
Iceland must learn from past mistakes—experiments like Running Tide left behind a trail of failure and unanswered questions. We must not allow another reckless project to gamble with our environment under the guise of "scientific progress."
The government and regulatory bodies must take immediate action to ensure this experiment is halted before irreparable damage is done.
A concerned resident of Hvalfjordur who cares deeply about their community and its future.
Add comment
Comments