Reykjavík Grapevine - 05.12.2014, Blaðsíða 12

12
The Reykjavík Grapevine
Issue 18— 2014
Iceland | WTF?!?
The problem is simple: despite bringing
their plentiful currency, thus giving the
national economy a much-needed shot
in the arm, the sheer number of holiday-
makers necessitates improvements to
Iceland’s infrastructure. Some tourism
hot-spots need basic facilities such as
toilets, lest people start free-range poop-
ing en masse; many sites of outstanding
natural beauty are lacking signage and
pathways to prevent soil erosion from
footfall, amongst other general conserva-
tion work.
Indeed, development and mainte-
nance projects to the amount of two
billion ISK already await funding from
the State’s Tourism Development Fund,
Minister of Industry and Innovation
Ragnheiður Elín Árnadóttir told state
broadcaster RÚV in an interview last
week. Discussing her ministry’s plans to
raise the necessary funds, Ragnheiður—
who is in charge of tourism, amongst oth-
er things—revealed some initial details of
a proposal the government has already
approved and will soon be submitted to
Alþingi for a vote.
Checkpoints, fines
After lengthy consideration, Ragn-
heiður’s ministry has decided that the
mandatory purchase of a 1,500 ISK “Na-
ture Pass” for anyone who seeks to enjoy
Icelandic nature is the way forward. The
pass will reportedly allow unfettered ac-
cess to State and municipal lands for a pe-
riod of three years (at which point a re-
newal is necessary), and will be required
of both Icelandic citizens and tourists
alike. The Minister expressed her hopes
that private landowners would also par-
ticipate in the programme and cease
collecting fees on an individual basis,
however their participation will be on a
strictly voluntary basis.
When asked how the Nature Pass
law would be enforced, Ragnheiður ex-
plained that it would mostly be through
random inspection at certain check-
points. Those who fail to show a nature
pass when prompted will have to pay
fines up to 15,000 ISK.
Newspaper DV estimates that an an-
nual yield of 800,000 tourists (which
was the case in 2013) would net the State
1.2 billion ISK, which the Minister says
will go directly towards the Tourism
Development Fund.
In the interview, Ragnheiður
stressed that the nature pass’s imple-
mentation would be kept as effortless
and easy as possible, adding that plans
were afoot to employ the latest technolo-
gies to aid in the process. “For instance,
we are in discussion with the tax office
about whether we can somehow allow
Icelanders to check a box on their tax re-
turn,” she told RÚV, “thereby purchas-
ing the Nature Pass. It will all be done
through the internet, and in as simple a
manner as possible.” She also noted that
citizens’ passes would be linked to their
National Identity Numbers, so locals
will apparently not have to carry them
around wherever they go.
Whose land is it?
The Nature Pass idea has met with severe
criticism from several corners including,
perhaps surprisingly, from those operat-
ing in the tourism sector (with the Icelan-
dic Travel Industry Association voicing
severe opposition). The questions range
from the practical (such as whether a
driver pulling over in a layby should be
allowed to look at a nearby mountain) to
the philosophical (should nature really
be considered a theme park-style attrac-
tion?) to the legal (don’t the people own
the land anyway?). Conservationists,
artists, environmentally minded citizens
and public officials alike are voicing con-
cerns, begging the question of whether
the government undertook proper con-
sultation about the proposal.
“That’s a question for the minister to
answer really,” says Left-Green head, for-
mer Minister of Education and current
MP Katrín Jakobsdóttir, "but I gather
that stakeholders were assembled during
the formation of the plan. However, they
don’t seem to have had much influence,
which is why we’re seeing opposition
from the tourism sector, as well as envi-
ronmental and nature preservation or-
ganisations and outdoors associations.”
“The Icelandic Travel Industry As-
sociation have said they’d prefer a tax
on accommodation instead,” she con-
tinues, referring to the ITIA's idea of a
€1-per-night nature tax on hotel rooms.
“Honestly, it's difficult to see why the
government prefers to develop their own
special way of collecting funds for tour-
ism infrastructure, instead of raising the
accommodation tax. The idea of inspec-
tors undermines Iceland as a place where
one can connect with nature without the
intervention of other human beings.”
Disneyland?
This fundamental principle of freedom
of movement, and the
right to remain un-
disturbed in Iceland’s
countryside without
the unwelcome atten-
tion of pass inspec-
tors, lies at the heart of
much of the criticism.
Even those who sup-
port charging visitors
for infrastructure and
upkeep harbour objec-
tions to the nature pass model, such as
Guðmundur Ingi Guðbrandsson of na-
tional environmental GMO Landvernd.
“We support charging tourists a mod-
erate fee to support nature conservation
in tourist locations,” says Guðmundur.
“We do not, however, support the na-
ture pass as it has been introduced by the
minister. We believe that it violates the
ancient right of people to visit nature, and
that it could potentially damage people’s
experience of Iceland because of the
surveillance required to enforce the law.
There are much less intrusive means that
could be employed, such as an increase to
the existing accommodation tax, and via
the tax system in general.”
It’s a sentiment echoed by lauded
Icelandic author (and noted environ-
mentalist) Andri Snær Magnason. Taken
together, the three's matching opinions
suggest a common-sense consensus
about the proposal amongst people from
various parts of Icelandic culture.
“While I think it's a good idea to fi-
nance the protection of Icelandic nature,”
says Andri, “it could be done in a number
of other ways. There is something funda-
mentally wrong and Orwellian in the con-
cept of the nature pass,
like admitting your total
alienation—that nature
is an amusement like
Disneyland—leading to
the claustrophobic and
horrible idea of some-
body being excluded
from nature. The idea
that this country is
not mine, but has been
turned into a commod-
ity—and how this government is at the
same time threatening so many pristine
areas with stupid development schemes.
The government is expecting to raise 10
million dollars from the pass, when they
just gave a new factory that amount in tax
relief!”
Commodification
With such passionate responses com-
ing from such a wide range of citizens,
it seems the Nature Pass proposal has
become a lightning rod issue that gets to
the heart of how Icelanders feel about the
relationships between citizens, the state,
and the land itself.
“Perhaps the most fundamental ques-
tion here is about the commodification of
natural phenomena that underlies this
proposal,” concludes Katrín. “Do we real-
ly want natural phenomena such as Gey-
sir, Gullfoss and Dettifoss to be counted
as commodities like any others? I don’t
think we do.”
At the time of writing, the ministry
had not responded to our invitation to
comment.
Words by John Rogers
Additional Reporting by Haukur S. Magnússon
Photos by Axel Sigurðarson
With the annual turnover of overseas visitors set to break
the one million mark for the first time this year, Icelandic
politicians, companies and citizens have long been consider-
ing how best to cope with growing pains connected to the
country’s tourism explosion.
You Shall
Not Pass
The controversial “Nature Pass”
threatens to become a reality
“The idea of inspec-
tors undermines Ice-
land as a place where
one can connect with
nature without the
intervention of other
human beings.”
REPORT