The Norwegian Environment Protection Association has reported Fosen Vind for tampering with evidence and theft of a protected bird of prey

Update: Follow-up information to the report was sent to the police yesterday. The text in the case has been updated.

On 18/1-2021, the Norwegian Environmental Protection Association filed a police report against Fosen Vind DA for tampering with evidence and theft of a protected bird of prey.

The background was a newspaper notice in Adresseavisen the same day, where it emerged that Fosen Vind DA has delivered turbine-killed birds to a waste collection point. In addition to the fact that this is a direct violation of the law, this has several unfortunate aspects. Not least, this tells quite a lot about Fosen Vind's lack of respect for business morals and ethics, and for respect for the environmental consequences of its own plant.

1. White-tailed eagles are protected game and the property of the state at the Wildlife Fund. “You can either keep the carcass yourself, in which case an application must be made, or you can deliver it to institutions that have the right to receive such birds. There are museums or NINA.” This has not been done or followed by Fosen Vind DA. Thus, this is simple theft of state property.
2. By avoiding protected game that is killed as a direct consequence of one's own activities (wind power), one avoids important information and figures from the authorities. This is clear embezzlement of evidence/tampering with evidence where the motive can apparently look like a deliberate act with the intention of hiding the environmental impacts of one's own business.

Fosen Vind DA (Shared Responsibility) is owned by three companies, two of which have public ownership, Statkraft and Trønderenergi. This makes the violations of the law, the lack of business ethics, ethics and environmental responsibility in relation to the operation of the wind power plant, and the handling and embezzlement of state property extra serious.

In the notification, NMF requests that Fosen vind DA be punished according to one or more of the following provisions:

• Game Regulations § 8-3
• Section 56 of the Game Act
• § 75 of the Natural Diversity Act
• Criminal Code §§ 27, 160, 240, 321, 322, 324 or 325

Comparable case from 2010

Here is another case from 2010 which shows that at this time private individuals should receive a minimum of NOK 17,000 in fines for embezzlement and theft of wild game/from the Game Fund.

"The golden eagle was full of hail when it was found in the Lørenskog man's freezer. He himself claims that he found it on the ground. For not reporting, he was fined NOK 17,000."

https://www.rb.no/lokale-nyheter/fikk-17-000-kroner-i-ornebot/s/1-95-4830421

Since 2010, there has been a lot of inflation, which means that the fine for private individuals today, in 2021, should at least be twice as high. It will appear very strange if private individuals are fined for this type of crime, and not professional businesses.

For Fosen wind DA, which must be considered a professional operator, one must expect a greater degree of professionalism than what can be expected from a private person.

In order to ensure that in the future the wind power industry does not embezzle birds such as eagles, ruffed grouse and the endemic Norwegian species ruffed grouse from the Viltfondet, it may be appropriate that Fosen wind DA receive a minimum fine of NOK 100,000 per dead bird that is not delivered to the correct recipient. The fine per dead bird should not under any circumstances be lower than what a private person would have been fined for a similar offence.

Alternatively, the Game Regulations § 8-3, the Game Act § 56, the Natural Diversity Act § 75 and the Criminal Code §§ 27, 160, 240, 321, 322, 324 or 325 also open up other appropriate sanctions for those who own and operate Fosen wind DA.

That society provides a punitive response to this relationship is very important, not least as a general preventive measure. The Attorney General points this out in particular in his latest priority letter for 2020, that serious environmental crime should be prioritized. Furthermore, he states in the prioritization letter that:

"Although the priorities here relate to serious environmental crime, the Attorney General would like to emphasize that cases which in themselves do not appear to be serious on their own may have to be prioritized because the consequences are great in a national perspective."

The Attorney General - Prioritization circular for 2020

Here, it is very important that this case is given priority as, in the absence of a criminal reaction, a precedent can easily be set that in the future it is "free to proceed" to use the state's property. It will also be very unfortunate if society punishes and fines private individuals while large and resourceful companies are automatically exempted from liability under the same laws. It must also be pointed out that several vulnerable and protected species fetch high prices on the illegal market, and a lack of criminal reaction in this case could also act as a legitimization of this type of crime.

Read NMF's police report of Fosen Vind DA here (PDF)