January 20 to 22 - 2013

Arctic Frontiers, Tromsø – January 20 to 22 - 2013

Ms Sara Olsvig MP, Danish Parliament, Greenland Keynote speech, Marine Production in a Changing Arctic

Geopolitics and the Changing Arctic as Homeland

Ministers, Members of Parliaments, President of the Saami Parliament, Speaker of the GreenlandParliament, Excellences, dear everyone

I am very honored to give you this presentation today, and I would like to thank Arctic Frontiers so much for the invitation to speak at this major event.

I am sure that the subject of today’s deliberations, Marine Production in a Changing Arctic, is of great interest for everyone here in this room. It certainly is for me, as a Greenlandic politician. As a coastal nation, our main resources come from the marine environment.

In this presentation I will give you an overlook of the challenges we face in Greenland in regards to the use of our living resources from the sea, and also in regards to our efforts to build a more diversified economy in a country, which by its size and demography is posed with great challenges.

I will also talk about some of the common challenge peoples living in the Arctic face, including the challenge of balancing the power structures as the Arctic increasingly, again, becomes an international mattergeopolitically. The main point being that the peoples of the Arctic must be the power holders, also in a Worldof geopolitics and resource development.

As we time after time see in the Arctic, the exploitation of our living and non-living resources is closely linked to the geopolitics of our region. And as an extremely diverse region with many different peoples and cultures, one of our challenges is to make sure, that legislation and common standards is flexible enough to embrace all challenges amongst us.

The island of Greenland Greenland is an island. I guess many of you already know that – it’s an island of approximately 2 million square kilometers. We have had a clear definition of our geographical boundaries already since 1933, when the aftermath of the Norwegian attempt to obtain sovereignty over North-East Greenland culminated by the International Court in Hague ruling, that Greenland is defined by its natural coastal borders, and thus could not be divided across the ice cape or land.

The situation is an example of how Greenland has been a geopolitical subject from very early on. As indigenous to our land, we therefore for a very long time, have been aware of our rights and strengths as a people residing on an island.

The relation to Denmark has never really been static. There’s about 4000 kilometers between Nuuk and Copenhagen, and over time, Greenland has gone from being a colony, to (legally speaking) an integrated part of Denmark. In 1979 we attained home rule, and in 2009 we inaugurated our

present political position with Self-Government. Still being part of the Realm of Denmark, we continue to develop our relationship with the Danes.

Currently, some of the areas we have yet to sort out geopolitically with other states include the island of Tartupaluk, or in another language “Hans Island”, and the area north of Greenland, which is part of the continental shelf project.

Luckily, as it was stated several times yesterday, the Arctic has a long tradition of dealing with these kinds of issues in a diplomatic and respectful matter. This approach was one of the things agreed upon at the Arctic Five meeting in Ilulissat, Greenland, in 2008, when the Ilulissat Declaration was signed.

Looking back at the history of Greenland, and our relationship with Denmark, the movement has been to draw power to the north, to Greenland, gaining more and more self-determination. In these days, we are actually seeing a very interesting debate playing out in Denmark about possible Danish investments in Greenland’s industrial sector. The interesting thing about this debate is, in my opinion,that it shows a hint of insecurity in Denmark in regards to what Denmark’s role in Greenland’s resource development should be.

Nevertheless, Denmark and Greenland is developing a stronger and more structured and equal partnership in these years. An equal partnership that is essential to the development of Greenland’s economy and resources.

The Act on Self-Government The core elements of the current self-government agreement between Greenland and Denmark include the arrangement in regards to our sub-surface resources, our minerals, oil and gas. With the Act on Greenland’s Self-government, we have taken over the responsibility of this policy area, as well as the right to develop these resources, and of course the responsibilities that come with that right.

The responsibilities attained in the Act also include a new arrangement in regards to the annual block grant Greenland receives from Denmark. The grant has now been frozen on 2009 level, and cannot, as before, be re-negotiated every third year. Moreover, we have committed ourselves to fund legislative areas that we in the time to come will take over from Denmark. The Act has one appendix, which lists the remaining 32 legislative areas that we can take over from Denmark. The sub-surface resources and the offshore working environment were the first two new policy areas we took over with self-government. Hence, the responsibility for – and the legislative power related to these policy areas, now lies with the Greenlandic Parliament.

In the context of this conference, the list of legislative areas that we cannot take over from Denmark is of high relevance. This list includes areas that are definitive of nation statehood, such as Foreign Affairs,Defense, Security and Citizenship. This does not mean that we from Greenland do not conduct foreign policy or engage ourselves in defense and security issues. We do that increasingly. We just don’t have the sovereignty on those areas. Thus, any activity on these matters is conducted in close collaboration with Denmark, and as the Act on Greenland Self-government states, Greenland and Denmark must seek to work as equal partners in all matters.

The relationship between Greenland and Denmark is thus a good example of how the power structure is developing along side with the increased attention to the Arctic. A key element in this development is the attention to the human dimension of development in the Arctic - a human dimension that is also about self-determination and the rights of a people to develop a sound economy.

Fish and shrimp This is the framework we operate within – now, I will elaborate on the realities of Greenland – and the pressure, externally and internally, on our living and non-living resource development sectors.

As a culture and a nation, we have always been dependent on the marine living resources. Today, fish and shrimps make up 90% of our export. Only about 4% of our export was in 2011 from mineral resources. Thus, we are highly dependent on our marine environment and living resources. Fish and shrimp is what we can sell to the World market and we work very hard to ensure, that our fisheries are sustainable in all ways. We therefore also regulate our fish and shrimp quota in accordance with scientific recommendations and with respect for international agreements. But fish and shrimp are not the only resources we as a culture are dependent on.

Whales and seals The seal and the whale have throughout our culture’s history been essential to survival. Today we still eat seal and whale meat, and we produce beautiful seal furs for export. Unfortunately we have seen a steep decline in the export of sealskin products. Not because they are threatened species or because we use hunting methods that are un-acceptable to the World society. The only reason that seems to be there is thatthese are species that do not fit into the mainstream World’s view of nature and living resources.

This discourse has resulted in a completely irrational ban on seal products from the European Union, and most recently we have also seen a meltdown in the negotiations within the International Whaling Commission on Greenland’s quotas for the hunt of large whales. A situation which is just as irrational as the EU seal ban, as the quota applied for from Greenland are in accordance with the International WhalingCommission’s own Scientific Committee’s recommendations.

The EU agreed on an Inuit Exemption in regards to our seal skin export, and we have struggled to re-build a market for our fur in Europe, but this has yet to succeed. Thus, we are searching for new markets, with more success in Asia, for example.

As for our large whales, we by January first this year, had to, according to our own legislation, set our own quota, so that our whale hunters can continue their livelihood this year as well.

These issues are paradoxical – and in my opinion they are expressions of cultural imperialism and notanimal welfare.

I am afraid that the situation we are in in Greenland is not unique. We see Indigenous Peoples all over the World, also other Indigenous Peoples in the Arctic, struggling to have their livelihoods accepted by the surrounding societies. It’s a situation that needs to be addressed.

Realities of Greenland’s economy With a country by the size of 2 million square kilometers, and a population of only about 57,000 inhabitants, Greenland is an extremely expensive country to run. Those of you who have been to Greenland will knowthat more or less all transport in between towns and settlements is by boat, plane or helicopter. You can imagine the costs. Furthermore, our society is built on the same basic values as other Nordic countries. We have a large public sector, and relatively high levels of welfare and living conditions.

The reality is thus, that if we do not find new means of income to our country, we will see an increasing gap between our expenditures and our income, and the Financial Council of Greenland estimates that we will lack 1 billion DKK every year by 2040, if we don’t succeed in finding new incomes. We are also faced with the same issues as many other Nordic cuntries; we have more and more elders in our society, and we have seen an increasing un-employment rate, although the latest numbers indicate a small decline.

These realities forge action. And we as politicians of Greenland are very aware of the responsibilities that lie on our shoulders.

New industries ahead After the inauguration of Self-government, Greenland has re-enforced the search for new industrial development. Search for oil and gas offshore has also been conducted over a number of years, and in 2010 and 2011 we licensed exploratory drillings off the coast of West Greenland. But in 2012 there were noexploratory drillings, and although seismic and other forms of research are conducted both West and East of Greenland we can see, that investors in our possible new industries are not queuing up, as often portrayed in the media. Investing in Greenland, just like in many other areas of the Arctic, is extremely expensive. Presently, only one small mine, the gold mine, is running.

Much energy is thus spent on preparing legislation and frameworks for future large scale projects on shore. The Greenland Parliament, Inatsisartut, at its fall session passed two very important bills – the new legislation on large scale projects and the review of the already existing Mineral Resources Act.

With this legislation, and with the Self-Government Act, the path has been laid for the development of new industries in Greenland. The decisions are still to be taken on which project to realize and how.

Oil, gas, minerals and fish As you can probably imagine the debates in Greenland are lively and serious. From our point of view, this is about whether to construct a large scale iron mine in a reindeer hunting area, where 105 kilometers of new road and pipeline, a small city for the workers, an airport and all the other things needed to run a mine in inland Greenland where there’s no other inhabitants and no existing infrastructure, will inevitably affect the ecosystem, flora and fauna.

The debates are about whether it is a good idea or not to establish a huge aluminum smelter run by hydro power, for which we will have to flood an area with some of our most valuable cultural heritage, stemming from our ancestors that drew our history in the cultural landscape.

It’s about whether to mine rare earth elements with the known environmental hazards this poses. And it is about whether we shall continue our offshore oil drilling explorations knowing that the noise from the operations affect whales in a distance up to 38 kilometers from the drilling rig. Not to speak of the seismic activities, which affects on our fish stocks we do not fully know yet.

All of these possible activities will inevitably result in increased shipping and with that, the risks of oils spills from the ships.

No matter if we consider these possibilities as choices between bad or worse, or good or best, the choices are to be made by us, the people of Greenland. And these choices must be made with responsibility, not just for the current generation, but for many generations to come.

Yesterday, at the short panel session in the morning, I was asked what my hopes and visions for my grandchildren are. The general aspiration of Greenland is to become economically independent of the block grant from Denmark, but more importantly it is also about our grandchildren and the generations after them having the right to decide for themselves how to develop the Greenland they will inherit from us. We had a choice in 2008 when we by referendum voted for the self- government act. They must also have a choice when their time comes to be the decision-makers on the development of our homeland.

I sometimes find myself thinking; “Why did the generation before us never talk about other things than oil, gas, minerals and fish?” Where are the alternatives and when do we start talking about the cultural and social challenges, also at these kinds of conferences? I am very happy to hear, that the next years' subject will include health issues, which is one the issues of great challenge Arctic societies.

Well, the generations before us did talk about other things; the tourism industry, for example, and the need for us to educate ourselves. So many of us did educate ourselves, and now all we talk about oil, gas, minerals and fish. All thewhile the tourists just want to see pristine nature, wildlife and small settlements where they can meet a seal and whale hunter, and maybe taste the exotic and forbidden foods.

So, the challenges in the changing Arctic are not few. In fact, they are everywhere we look, and geopolitics and marine production also impact our cultural and social integrity.

The geopolitical point of view These were some points of views from someone who sees the Arctic as homeland. Now let’s look at how the points of views have played out 4000 kilometers south-east of Greenland – in Denmark.

As the international attention to Greenland’s mineral and industrial potentials increase, so does the focus on the geopolitical implications. Hereby the political construction of Greenland being part of the Danish Realm, but having self-determination on substantial policy areas, is challenged.

In May last year I hosted a conference in the Danish Parliament where we dealt with the issues of resource development, and foreign policy and security. The main conclusion of this conference was that these issues are interlinked, but also that there is a need for a more clear definition of the practical challenges is regards to dealing with resource development and geopolitics, when it comes to self-governing countries in a region where the eight nation states are the ones that hold sovereignty on the political level. An interestingintersection of how power relations are defined by resources and territorial challenges.

In the picture that much of the Danish press has portrayed, oil, gas, rare earth minerals and large scale industrial development will result in an uncontrollable development, where the World power structure shifts, pivots or leaps towards the East, leaving Europe behind.

Well, maybe that’s the direction in which we are moving. My question is just – what’s the news? Isn’t that what is happening all over the World already? And can we prevent the same from happening in the Arctic. As we have seen, the Arctic is dependent on the world economy, and the development in the Arctic is deeply affected by the global financial crisis.

I agree with the speakers yesterday saying, that military conflict in the Arctic is very unlikely. This is also the conclusion of a report from the Center for Military studies in Denmark. But in the report, the authors describe three unlikely sceneries of conflicts, the most likely of the unlikely sceneries not being caused by tension between the Arctic states, but by tension elsewhere in the World. And tension in the World is very often caused by disputes over resources.

Therefore, each Arctic nation and state is also deeply dependent on strong alliances with our neighbors, but most of all, dependent on the peoples living in the Arctic making the right decisions in developing and engaging in resource development industries.

In the geopolitical race and in the picture portrayed by the press, the point of departure is clearly not the Arctic itself, or the peoples living there – the point of departure is several thousands of kilometers to the south of our homeland. And the focus is not the actual social, cultural and economic challenges in the development of our homelands, but on the World power structures.

My appeal here today is thus, that we must not forget to bring the debate down to the ground, where the tangible challenges of living in the Arctic are the determining factors. We must not forget the human rights; the rights of the peoples living in the Arctic; the right to self-determination, the right do pursue our own social, cultural and economic development, the right to be the decision-makers, also when there are implications relating to geopolitical issues.

Let’s develop the Arctic with a human rights approach and let’s not forget the human dimension. Let’s make sure, that the power structures do not once again leap away from the Arctic.

Qujanaq