See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334418499

Greenland's policy making and the risk of overtourism.

Chapter · January 2019 DOI: 10.1079/9781786399823.0209

CITATIONS READS 2 1,228

1 author:

Dimitri Ioannides Mid University

72 PUBLICATIONS 1,805 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Resilience in Sweden: Governance, Social Networks, and Learning View project

Tourism and the Sharing Economy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dimitri Ioannides on 09 February 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Over-tourism at the World’s Edge: Ill-advised, Growth-oriented Policymaking as an Obstacle to Sustainability

Dimitri Ioannides, PhD Department of Tourism Studies & Geography/ETOUR Mid-Sweden University [email protected]

Setting the scene

On a gloriously sunny, yet very chilly, Sunday afternoon in September 2017, I found myself in , ’s coastal community famed for its majestic ice fjord and multitude of floating icebergs that dot its coastline. Like a handful of other visitors to the town that day, I opted to take a 2 hour-long guided boat cruise to inspect the icebergs more closely. The boat’s captain and his assistant were Greenlandic while the tour guide was a young Danish woman, a student from the University of working for one of the largest Greenlandic tour companies. In addition to me and a colleague of mine, the other tour participants reflected a mix of nationalities including Danes and Americans. Once we were well into our tour, a young woman caught my eye as she looked especially uncomfortable, no doubt because of the bitterly cold wind. I followed her into the boat’s small galley where one could warm up through steaming mugs of coffee or tea and asked her where she was from. She replied that she was from Hong Kong and was visiting Greenland for a couple of days as part of a greater trip that included short stops in Sweden, and also . Asked why she had picked a destination as remote as Greenland, she answered emphatically “it’s on my bucket list”!

The young woman’s answer that she was engaged in so-called “bucket-list tourism” in what is an extremely remote polar community highlights that, increasingly, more and more places throughout the planet are emerging as destinations for an ever-growing number of international visitors. These are individuals with access to discretionary funds, enabling them to undertake trips to off-beat destinations, preferably ones, which their friends on social media have not yet visited. They are “adventurer wannabees”, driven by an endless thirst to add to their list of visited spaces and, of course, the more “exotic” a place sounds and appears in their photographs, the more bragging rights they hope to accumulate. To be sure, no one can describe Greenland as a mass tourist destination, at least for now or in the foreseeable future. It not a place one would associate with over-tourism. After all, Greenland is vast. It is the world’s largest non-continental island, covering almost 2.2 million sq. km. and yet has a population of only 58.000 most of whom live in coastal settlements on the southwest. The capital is the largest settlement with a population of approximately 18.000 (CIA World Factbook, 2018). In reality, vast expanses of the island are entirely inaccessible, especially since much of the interior is covered by an ice-sheet that in parts reaches up to 3 km in thickness (Kaae, 2006). To make matters worse, international accessibility to Greenland is limited and expensive while,

1 if one is fortunate to get to the island, it is practically impossible to travel from one destination to another by land due to the lack of an internal road network. Weather permitting, flights or boat travel are the only way to go from one place to another. Why, then choose Greenland as a case study in an edited collection concerning over- tourism? With fewer than 100.000 visitors in 2017 one could easily argue that Greenland remains one of the least visited destinations in the western world and hardly runs the danger of being overrun by tourists anytime soon. The supply of tourism accommodations in the capital Nuuk and the most popular traveler destination, Ilulissat, is severely limited and, as such, extremely overpriced. Nevertheless, events on neighboring Iceland, where uncontrolled growth has led to its transformation into a mass tourism destination over a period of less than a decade, point towards important questions as to the development path that Greenland appears to have chosen for the future of its own tourism industry (Ren & Chimirri, 2018) In this paper, I explore recent steps that Greenland has taken to develop its tourism industry as part of a nation-building exercise following its proclamation of self-rule in 2009. My main premise is that the measures adopted to promote tourism on the island are ill- conceived and potentially could lead to major over-crowding problems, at least in certain key destinations. I caution that if Greenland embarks on a tourism development trajectory that regards Iceland as its role model, serious negative repercussions are likely to arise, especially if an integrative planning approach to the sector’s development and management is not adopted. The rest of the chapter unfolds as follows. First, I offer insights regarding polar tourism’s growth in recent decades and the fundamental causes behind this. Subsequently, I examine the current state of tourism development in Greenland and critically explore the actions that have been implemented to develop the sector over the next few years. By drawing on a handful of interviews conducted with key stakeholders, I caution that not all is well in the manner in which tourism is evolving. I end with a discussion as to what the future may hold in a country that seeks to assert its identity in an era of uncertainty.

The Dynamics of Polar Tourism Development Tourism in the world’s extreme latitudes (both the Arctic and the Antarctic regions) is a recent phenomenon. Certainly, coastal Northern Norway, with its significant clusters of population above the Arctic Circle in communities like Narvik and Alta has long attracted considerable numbers of visitors on their quest to reach the North Cape or the Lofoten islands, see the northern lights, or participate on dog-sled safaris. By contrast, the extreme isolation of most polar areas, many of which are uninhabited or extremely sparsely populated, the lack of suitable

2 tourism infrastructure, not to mention poor and extremely expensive air and sea connections, have meant places like Svalbard, ’s extreme north, or Tierra del Fuego have remained out of reach to the masses. Nevertheless, over the last three decades the numbers of visits to parts of both polar regions have expanded considerably (Stewart, Draper & Johnston, 2005; Amelung & Lamers, 2007; Lamers, 2009; Lemelin et al. 2012; Stewart, Ligget & Dawson, 2017). The characteristics of these polar regions include the following: extreme isolation, spectacular scenery, unique wildlife habitats and harsh weather for large parts of the year. Such features create scenarios that cater to the yearning for exciting adventures in hard-to-reach areas where only daring explorers once ventured. In other words, places like these become increasingly attractive to those modern-day travelers who seek out-of-the norm destinations beyond the predictable mass tourism bubbles of lower latitudes. According to Stewart et al. (2017) the seeds of polar tourism were laid already in the 1960s. In the southern hemisphere they coincided with the advent of what Lamers (2009) defines as commercial “expedition cruising” (p. 13), namely moderate-sized scientific vessels coming to Antarctica offering visitors educational experiences about the earth’s fragility. Since then, tourism in the region has also grown significantly. Already, by 2007, approximately 45.000 passengers participated on Antarctic-related trips, the vast majority to the Antarctica peninsula. Much of this tourism continues to depend of expedition ships of small to medium size, which offer educational programs. The passengers of these vessels are able to make landings on rubber dinghies. Meanwhile, there has been a tendency to see an increasing number of large cruise liners in the region even though their passengers are not permitted to make landings. Overflight tourism (especially from New Zealand) also take place, despite criticism about the carbon footprint of aircraft (Lamers, 2009) During roughly the same period, Arctic tourism has emerged largely because of communities’ efforts to use the sector as a means toward economic diversification (see also Johnston, 2011). Here, just as in and around Antarctica tourism, the growth in polar tourism only began in earnest in the 1990s. Already, more than a decade ago, Svalbard’s popularity as a tourist destination had begun to grow despite the island’s extreme isolation. Discussing how the capital, Longyearbyen, had transformed from a company mining town into a tourism community in just a few years Viken (2006, p. 133) described how “it now carries the visible trappings of the industry. There are souvenir shops and cafés selling flags and banners, advertising billboards, hotels and restaurants and tourists strolling the streets. Remnants from the mining period in town are today declared as heritage.”

3 In Iceland’s case, the transformation has been particularly dramatic. In just a few years this country has gone from attracting a small number of visitors to emerge into a mass tourism destination with almost 2 million arrivals in 2016 (Icelandic Tourist Board, 2017). The growth during the period 2010-2016 averaged an astounding 24.4% per year. Several reasons account for this increase. Jóhannesson, Huijbens & Sharpley (2010) explain Icelandair’s role in the country’s changing fortunes as a tourist destination. The airline has built an impressive hub and spoke system connecting various cities in North America via Reykjavik to many European destinations. Since the carrier’s passengers are permitted to and, indeed, encouraged to break their trips in Reykjavik for no additional airfare this entices many of them to stay over for varying lengths of time and visit the various attractions. The credit crunch that crippled the Icelandic economy a decade ago was also a major factor that led to tourism’s entrenchment as a major tool towards economic diversification (Jóhannesson et al., 2010; Jóhannesson, 2016). Today, large cruise ships travel around Greenland or along the Northwest Passage, thousands of visitors come to see the ice fjords of Ilulissat in Greenland or to witness polar bears in Churchill, Canada (Pashkevich, Dawson & Stewart, 2015). Eijgelaar, Thaper & Peeters (2010) argue that cruise ships are major players in enhancing the accessibility of polar regions. About a decade ago, these vessels were already transporting above 1.2 million visitors to Arctic and Antarctic regions and there are signs that the upward trend shows no signs of abatement. No doubt, climate change and the associated unprecedented summer melting of sea ice has played a major role in encouraging even more cruise companies to seek out new destinations, especially in the Arctic. For example, from its humble beginnings as a postal shipping line that long served several coastal Norwegian communities from Bergen to Kirkenes in the far north, Hurtigruten now operates a comprehensive menu of cruises – depending on season – both in the Arctic and the Antarctic region (Hurtigruten Homepage, 2018). Beyond shifting government policies and the growing activity of cruise companies as major forces driving polar tourism’s growth, several observers have emphasized the importance of “last chance” tourism as a major demand determinant (Eijgelaar et al., 2010; Lamelin et al., 2010). Many people nowadays feel that a trip to see polar bears in Northern Canada, icebergs in Greenland, or penguin colonies in Antarctica offers them the last realistic opportunity to view these phenomena or species in their natural setting before they disappear for good. Recognizing this growing interest, several tour operators and Destination Management Organizations (DMOs) have seized the opportunity to offer packages to these “last chance” destinations, which incidentally do not only include polar destinations but also numerous places throughout the world where animals are threatened with extinction (e.g., gorillas in Rwanda).

4

Greenland as a Tourist Destination Nunaat’s (“Land of Greenlanders” or “Land of the People”) (Kaae, 2006) ties with stretch over almost three centuries (Shackel, 2011). The territory was a Danish colony until the early 1950s when it emerged as an official part of the (Göcke, 2009). Eventually, the Danish Parliament granted the Greenlanders Home Rule status in 1978, which essentially meant that despite remaining an official part of Denmark and depending heavily on Danish public subsidies, Greenland had latitude to administer most of its domestic matters. This provision allowed Greenland to unilaterally exit the European Community in the 1980s, even though Denmark itself maintained its membership. By the 2000s, growing frustration among the majority of Greenlanders – particularly the indigenous population - that the Home Rule arrangement did not go far enough in terms of obtaining a greater degree of autonomy led to a referendum. Roughly 75% of locals voted for Self-Rule, optimistically viewing this as a major step toward eventual full independence (Nuttall, 2008). Effectively, this has enabled Greenland to assume full responsibility for almost all domestic concerns excepting “matters concerning the Constitution, the Supreme Court, foreign affairs, defence and security policy, nationality and exchange rate and monetary policy” (Göcke, 2009: 111). The agreement signifies that eventually Greenland’s heavy reliance on external funds from Denmark will have to be reduced and eventually eliminated. This, in turn, means that the country must place greater emphasis on economic diversification away from its dependence on its fishing sector. The main avenues towards achieving this greater degree of economic autonomy is via exploitation of its diverse mining resources but also through tourism (Ren & Chimiri, 2018). As a tourist destination, Greenland is a late-comer (Kaae, 2002; 2006). It is not an easy place to access since there is currently only one major passenger airport that can handle large jets, namely in , a tiny settlement located around an hour away by propeller aircraft from both Nuuk and Ilulissat. Despite Greenland’s location closer to North America than Europe, there are no direct scheduled flights from the US and Canada. Effectively, the only way to fly there is either directly from Copenhagen or, more recently, through direct connections with Reykjavik. Further, because of the limited capacity of passenger air service plus minimal accommodation facilities in the main destinations, Greenland is extremely expensive and thus not affordable to the mass market. Once on Greenland, matters are complicated further since effectively one can only travel from one community to another either via air or, depending on the season, sea. Overland connections (e.g., roads) are non-existent

5 between communities. This effectively signifies that each destination in Greenland functions like an island with limited links to its hinterland. Prior to the 1990s barely a handful of international tourists ever came to Greenland and those who did were mostly Danes and Greenlanders visiting friends and relatives. The very first organized tours began in 1959 following the inaugural flight from Copenhagen whereas beginning in the 1960s it became possible to take one-day flights from neighboring Iceland (Kaae, 2002). While only around 500 visitors came to Greenland in 1960 by 1992 the number had increased modestly to 3.500 arrivals (Kaae, 2006). Fundamentally, until the 1990s, tourism did not feature in any way as a major development consideration for Greenland given the country’s traditional heavy dependence on fisheries, which still remains its principal economic sector. The shift in outlook towards tourism occurred in the early 1990s, coinciding with a decline in the commercial fishing industries due to dwindling supplies of certain species. At that time, Greenland’s Home Rule government began seeing tourism as a tool for economic diversification. This led to an increase in arrivals from approximately 4.000 visitors in 1993 to 34.000 in 2001 (Kaae, 2006). Since then, the number of tourists on Greenland has more than doubled. The latest statistics (Visit Greenland, 2018) indicate that in 2017 the approximate total number of overseas visitors - defined both as ones who are land-based and those participating on cruises - reached 84.299, representing a 10% growth over the previous year. Importantly, since 2006 the estimated tourism earnings have increased by 5% annually. In 2017, a DMO-administered survey indicated that the vast number of Greenland-based operators witnessed a good year, with almost 50% reporting either a medium or vast increase in their earnings (Visit Greenland, 2018). Not surprisingly, given Greenland’s close ties to Denmark and because of the direct flights to and from Copenhagen, the majority of visitors continue to be Danish. Other international markets, which admittedly remain small for now, include , the US and Great Britain. For the first time, since 2015, markets such as Hong Kong, Malaysia, South Korea and Australia have also begun emerging (Visit Greenland, 2016). As expected, given the extreme variations in climatic conditions, the tourist season is short and concentrated in the period July and August with a shoulder period in June and September. The most popular destinations in terms of overnight stays are ones located in the Northern as well as the Arctic Circle regions. Ilulissat is an especially attractive destination, because its famed ice fjord is a UNESCO World Heritage site. By 2016, during the summer months, Ilulissat had already almost reached its tourism capacity, based on its limited supply of accommodation (Visit

6 Greenland, 2017). Meanwhile, East Greenland is the least visited destination due to its extremely sparse population and its lack of any substantial settlements (Kaae, 2006). In terms of cruises, Visit Greenland (2017, 2018) estimates that between 2008 and 2016 the number of passengers has been between a low of 20.000 in 2014 and a high of 30.000 in 2010. Similarly, the overall number of cruises has fluctuated over the years. Whereas some ships pull into only one or two ports during their tour, others visit several locations. Nevertheless, the trend appears to be for ships to increase the number of ports visited per year. The most popular type of cruise is on smaller ships of capacity up to 250 passengers, which can be described as expedition vessels. The number of these cruises has been between a low of 29 in 2011 and a high of 69 in 2016 and all indications are that this will rise in the future. The number of large ships (over 1200 passengers) coming to Greenland has remained steady at approximately 6 per year, though it is anticipated that there will be further growth after the government chose in 2015 to significantly reduce the tax for port calls (Visit Greenland, 2016). Almost all cruise passengers to Greenland disembark at least once during a multi-stop visit with the ones participating on expedition cruises most likely to get off and interact with locals. Again, Northern Greenland and the Arctic Circle region are the most visited destinations. Significantly, Ilulissat saw a total of 8.250 visitors disembark in 2015 out of a total of 22.390 cruise passengers who arrived in Greenland that year (Visit Greenland, 2016)

The Policy Context Driving Greenland’s Tourism Growth To best conceive why and how Greenland’s tourism has been developing and, in order to anticipate the trajectory this sector has embraced, it is imperative to examine the policy context driving this growth. I have already mentioned that since the 1990s Greenland has regarded strengthening its tourism and mining sectors as important forces towards achieving economic diversification, enabling the country to escape its traditional heavy reliance on fishing (New European Community, N.D.; Nuttall, 2008a; Ren & Chimiri, 2018). This step reflects the modernization-led economic dogma of the 1950s and 60s that drove the economic policy- making of numerous emerging post-colonial states throughout the world, especially ones, which were highly dependent on extractive industries (Britton, 1982; Ioannides, 1994; Jóhannesson et al. 2010). Following its declaration of Self-Rule in 2009, Greenland sought to enhance both its mining sector and its tourism potential even further. This attitude is partly driven by the underlying thinking that, possibly, climate change in the Greenlandic context could open up new opportunities for this territory (Mitchell, 2008). Nuttall (2008b) indicates that, on the one

7 hand, the thinning of the ice on coastal waters during winter months means that the indigenous can no longer safely continue their traditional hunting and fishing practices along the coast. On the other hand, he argues that “Greenlanders are being encouraged to think positively about the opportunities that climate change is bringing” (Nuttall, 2008b, p. 47). According to him, this has fueled most policymakers’ belief that they should encourage international tourists to come and see this magical frozen land before the ice melts while mining can, in their eyes, eventually benefit because it becomes easier to drill as the icecap continues to melt. Two documents currently steer Greenland’s tourism development effort. The official governmental tourism policy for the years 2016-2020 published by the Ministry of Industry, Labour, Trade and Energy (Government of Greenland, 2016) emphasizes the need to invest heavily in infrastructure in order to support the tourism sector. The government policy stresses the importance of extending the runways at several existing airports, including Nuuk and Ilulissat given that these airports currently can currently only accommodate small-sized turbo- prop aircraft and helicopters. This is clearly regarded as a severe handicap limiting tourism’s take-off in these destinations. The hope is that an extended runway will allow modern passenger jets to directly fly from various hubs in Europe and, perhaps North America, bringing with them far more tourists than now. Additionally, the policy calls for reduced taxes and fees imposed on arriving cruise ships and airliners while stressing the need to create local tourism development plans and provide tourism accommodation as well as visitor centers in several communities. It also underlines the opportunity to capitalize on Iceland’s phenomenal growth in visitor arrivals by seeking ways to encourage operators there to offer add-on trips to Greenlandic destinations. The potential of capitalizing on the situation in Iceland is also something that Visit Greenland in its own “National Tourism Strategy 2016-19” (2016) sees as an important step to attract more visitors on side-visits. Further, the DMO aims to increase arrivals by 5% per annum while enhancing international marketing efforts that will set Greenland up as a quality destination for adventure as well as cruise visitors. Finally, Visit Greenland has invested heavily on a B2B (business to business) platform concentrating on adventure tourism through which international operators can collaborate with local players. Clearly, both these documents display a growth-driven agenda. Especially the government’s policy pays minimal attention to discussions regarding tourism’s significance for Greenland’s overall sustainability and, importantly, what this means for the local population. In the next section, I argue how both the government policy and the DMO’s strategy are laying the seeds for an error-strewn pathway that could negatively affect certain key communities on

8 the island by transforming them into mass-oriented destinations. This assessment is based on my own observations, lessons learned over more than 25 years from numerous destinations worldwide, but also a series of stakeholder interviews conducted during two visits to Greenland, in May 2016 and September 2017, respectively. In all, other than the representatives at the Ministry of Industry, Labour, Trade and Energy and Visit Greenland, I interviewed 11 stakeholders (including two I contacted via SKYPE in October and November 2017 respectively). The list of interviewees appears in Table 1. Moreover, during my second visit, I conducted an informal focus group meeting concerning the status of Greenlandic tourism today with group of participants at the University of Greenland in Nuuk (Table 2).

Table 1:

List of Interviews

Informants Community Date of Interview Official from Ministry of Industry, Labor, Trade & Industry Nuuk 19-5-2016 Official from Visit Greenland Nuuk 20-5-2016 Official at Municipality Nuuk 21-5-2016 Official at UNESCO World Heritage site Ilulissat 25-9-2017 College Instructor 20-11-2017 (via SKYPE) Tourism entrepreneur 1 Nuuk 19-5-2016 Tourism entrepreneur 2 Nuuk 19-5-2016 Tourism entrepreneur 3 Nuuk 20-5-2016 Tourism entrepreneur 4 Nuuk 21-9-2017 Tourism entrepreneur 5 Uummannaq 20-9-2017 Tourism entrepreneur 6 Ilulissat 25-9-2017 Tourism entrepreneur 7 Kangerlussuaq 25-10-2017 (via SKYPE)

Table 2:

Focus Group Participants – University of Greenland

2 faculty members (social sciences) 3 students (one works for a tour operator in Nuuk) 1 psychologist 2 employees of a commercial shipping company (one was a retired pilot for Greenland Air) 1 employee for a major Greenlandic travel agency

Is Greenland Flirting with Mass Tourism? An important outcome of these interviews is that contrary to the assertions of the representative of the Ministry of Industry, Labour, Trade and Industry that all stakeholders had ample responsibility to review and comment on Greenland’s tourism policy, the general feeling remains that this document was imposed in a top-down fashion with little to no consideration as to the opinions of various industry players and communities at large. A Nuuk-based operator

9 was outraged that “we are not part of making the government strategy. And this is why we are no completely aligned.” The Visit Greenland official echoed this feeling, arguing that “they [the government] pretty much created this strategy, and then gave it a hearing . . . We could give an internal review of the strategy, which we did. I don’t think it made a lot of difference.” Several entrepreneurs shared the opinion that the policymakers’ primary focus on Nuuk and Ilulissat as the two main destinations is narrow and limits the potential of other destinations. One interviewee was dismayed that rather than promote the world’s oldest fjord system, which is right on Nuuk’s doorstep, the authorities emphasize “Colorful Nuuk” as a major destination since “. . . it is the only place you have a capital so that’s the uniqueness of the area! And, I completely disagree. Nuuk is a boring open prison. There is not much to do here. There is nothing here that will attract people . . . You’ve been [here] two hours and you’ve seen everything.” Similarly, a focus group participant vehemently argued that both the government policy and the DMO strategy explicit aim to further promote Nuuk (as the capital) and Ilulissat (as a World Heritage Site) is misplaced. He was seriously concerned that the government policy’s emphasis is overwhelmingly on infrastructure expansion without a concerted evaluation as to what this means in terms of impacts on existing resources. Several interviewees criticized efforts to increase arrivals in these destinations given that these do not take into account the restricted availability of tourist accommodation facilities and ancillary services (e.g., restaurants, cultural attractions, shops). A boat tour operator indicated that the goal of increasing the number of cruise arrivals in Nuuk, where the already-busy harbor doubles up as a commercial port and a facility for the Danish navy, is irrational. He pointed out that since no immediate plans exist to expand and upgrade the harbor this poses a problem for tour boat operators like him. “We do a lot of tourism trips in the summer and we don’t have any facilities. We get our customers onboard in an industrial harbor. It’s filthy, dirty, forklifts running around everywhere.” The representative of the Ilulissat UNESCO World Heritage raised an interesting point, arguing that tourism in that town will continue to grow despite there being very limited space for the community to expand. He explained that this is because to the southeast lies the UNESCO world heritage site border and, of course, the sea is on the west side. “Towards the east we have our water supply, water which has to be two kilometers from the town border. So, we cannot expand . . . and towards the airport we have the airport itself . . .” The fact that overcrowding in Ilulissat could become a growing problem in the near future was something a couple of tour operators also emphasized. One respondent

10 acknowledged the enormous potential for Greenland’s tourism development in the future though he fears too much growth threatens the country’s image. This person argued that: . . . I know that in Ilulissat already now in the summer when there are lots of people and a couple of cruise ships in town . . . it’s a little bit too much for the locals. They get a little bit [sighs]. . . Especially around the kindergartens, people want to take photos of the children all the time. It’s disturbing when it’s every day the whole summer . . . if you see a pair of tourists every day, that’s fine. But, if they are here all the time in dozens . . . Talking about the runway extension at Ilulissat airport, another interviewee warned that growth could become problematic in the near future as this could lead to the arrival of direct high- capacity flights (e.g., with low cost carriers like WOW) from several hubs (most notably Reykjavik) with the strong possibility that ticket prices would fall. This respondent suggested the situation could become increasingly troublesome for a place like Ilulissat, arguing that “we have to demand that the prices are as [high] as they are now or maybe even higher . . . otherwise we will maybe start receiving people who are not environmentally aware. The tourists we receive now more or less have some background knowledge before they arrive in Greenland.” Indications, according to him, are that this may not be the case in the near future if the mass market arrives. Beyond the possibility of overcrowding occurring in certain key places, another major concern about Greenland’s tourism development trajectory is that most jobs do not cater to locals. Several interviewees raised this point, arguing that it is not uncommon, especially among larger operators, to hire students from Denmark or other European countries even if these individuals lack first-hand knowledge about the destination. Reasons cited include the fact that few Greenlanders have suitable skills in the tourism sector, while many lack sufficient language qualifications (e.g., in English) to act as guides for international visitors. Also, while there is now an official adventure guide education offered at Campus Qaqortoq in southern Greenland it is hard to find students with the necessary prerequisites to be admitted into the program. Thus, only a handful of tour guides have qualified thus far. A prevailing feeling also exists among Greenlandic employers that the locals are unreliable employees. The official at the Ilulissat World Heritage site highlighted the rumor, albeit one he disputes, that locals would much prefer to go hunting rather than work on the rare days the weather is really nice. Further, according to him, some employers even suggest that “the Greenlanders . . . they disappear on payday.” If only a few jobs are going to locals this leads to the following question. Who, precisely, does tourism benefit in Greenland other than certain larger companies, including several overseas-based operators, who control the lion’s share of the market? Even in cases where indigenous people such as the handlers of dog sleds in Ilulissat could benefit by catering to an

11 organized tour group, the wages offered to them by the operators tend to be so low that many question if it is really worth it. There are also worries about tourist income leakages since many companies, especially the major ones, offering Greenland tours are foreign. The truth is that the larger companies with access to the main visitor markets with regard to Greenland can exercise considerable bargaining power with local suppliers such as boat owners and guides, thus keeping the wages of the latter down, despite the high costs of most tourism products. All in all, the recent events that tie to Greenland’s declaration of self-rule and the associated policy framework that has emerged appear to have laid the seeds for a flawed tourism development trajectory. Tellingly, one of the focus group members insisted that the government should be bold enough to “put the breaks” on any further tourism development until the Greenlanders themselves determine what it is they actually want from the sector itself and for their future overall. Given the alarming events that have occurred in Iceland in recent years, this might not be such a bad suggestion.

Concluding Remarks Currently, Greenland is protected from over-tourism because of its low accessibility level to global markets. The present situation, however, does not mean the country should turn a blind eye to the real dangers of heavy touristic activity witnessed in many parts of the world, including neighboring Iceland. Unfortunately, the opinion of some policymakers that Greenland’s enormous land mass means that over-tourism is highly unlikely to occur any time soon is extremely naïve given that the actual inhabited tourist destinations like Ilulissat or Nuuk are relatively constrained geographic entities that already exhibit the stress of coping with many visitors during certain times of the year. In this chapter my aim has been to demonstrate that the current policy environment in Greenland adheres to a pro-growth rhetoric that is very much in tune with the country’s ambition to assert a greater degree of autonomy from Denmark. To a major extent, what is going on in Greenland reflects an uncritical embrace of modernization strategies witnessed in many parts of the world 50-60 years ago where numerous countries sought their independence from their colonial masters. In that narrative, sectors such as mining (if the country has the resources) and tourism feature as popular avenues towards economic diversification. Since Greenland has ample advantages in terms of both these sectors, there is a strong tendency to support their growth regardless of any negative repercussion these may have on local communities. Unfortunately, such a growth trajectory can be problematic as seen in many

12 destinations given that it encourages strong dependence on and vulnerability to exogenous influences (Jóhannesson, 2016) It is naïve to propose that Greenland remains a utopian landscape, lying well beyond the reach of international tourism. Neither is it my place to set normative assumptions as to what the form of tourism in this country should be in the years to come. If Greenlanders themselves wish to transform parts of their land into tourism meccas this is their choice to make. What I can offer, as someone who has seen many “worst case scenarios” interspersed occasionally with rare instances of good practice, is the friendly advice that to best cope with tourism’s negative repercussions and avoid extreme over-tourism, the best approach is for aspiring destinations to embrace an integrative planning framework (Dredge, 2017). This entails treating tourism-related activities as an integral part of a broader system. It necessitates looking at tourism’s role in contributing towards the overall sustainable development context and avoiding the trap many destination fall into when talking about “sustainable tourism.” The hope is that in the years to come the form of tourism that Greenland adopts is one that best serves the needs of its own population while protecting its precious resources in an age of uncertainty for this emerging nation.

References

Amelung, B. & Lamers, M. (2007). The environmental impacts of tourism in Antarctica. A global perspective. In P. Peeters (ed.) Tourism and Climate Change Mitigation: Methods, Greenhouse Gas Reductions and Policies. Breda: Stichting NHTV.

Britton, S. (1982). “The political economy of tourism in the Third World.” Annals of Tourism Research, 9(3): 331-358.

CIA World Factbook (2018). https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ (date website accessed, 30.8.2018)

Dredge, D. (2017). “Overtourism” Old wine in new bottles? Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/overtourism-old-wine-new-bottles-dianne-dredge (date website accessed, 29.8.2018).

Eijgelaar, E., Thaper, C. & Peeters, P. (2010). “Antarctic cruise tourism: the paradoxes of ambassadorship, ‘last chance tourism’ and greenhouse emissions.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(3): 337-354.

Göcke, K. (2009). “The 2008 referendum on Greenland’s autonomy and what it means for Greenland’s future.” Retrieved from http://www.zaoerv.de/69_2009/69_2009_1_a_103_122.pdf (date website accessed, 29.8.2018)

13 Government of Greenland (2016). Turismeudvikling in Grønland: Hvad skal del til? https://naalakkersuisut.gl//~/media/Nanoq/Files/Hearings/2015/Turismestrategi/Documents/ Turismestrategi%202016-2020%20FINAL%20DK.pdf (date website accessed 30.8.2018)

Hurtigruten Homepage (2018). https://www.hurtigrutenresan.se/destinationer/norge/den- klassiska-rundresan-bergen-kirkenes-bergen/?open=true (Date website accessed, 30.8.2018)

Icelandic Tourist Board (2017). in Figures. Reykjavik: Icelandic Tourist Board.

Ioannides, D. (1994). The State, Transnational, and the Dynamics of Tourism Evolution in Small Island Nations. PhD Dissertation. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.

Jóhannesson G. T. (2016). A Fish Called Tourism: Emergent Realities of Tourism Policy in Iceland. In van der Duim, R T, Ren, C & Jóhannesson, G T (eds.) Tourism Encounters and Controversies: Ontological Politics of Tourism Development, pp.181-200, Farnham, UK: Ashgate.

Jóhannesson G. T., Huijbens, E. & Sharpley, R. (2010). “Icelandic tourism: Past directions – Future challenges.” Tourism Geographies, 12(2): 278-301

Johnston, M.E. (2011). “Arctic tourism introduction.” In P.T Maher, E.J. Stewart & M. Lück (eds.) Polar Tourism: Human, Environmental and Governance Dimensions, pp. 17- 32. New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation.

Kaae, B.C. (2006). Greenland/Kalaallit Nunaat. In G. Baldacchino (ed.) Extreme Tourism: Lessons from the World’s Cold Water Islands, pp. 101-112. Oxford: Elsevier.

Kaae, B.C. (2002). “Nature and tourism in Greenland.” In A.E. Watson, L. Alessa & J. Sproull (eds) Wilderness in the Circumpolar North: Searching for Compatability in Ecological, Traditional, and Ecotourism Values. Anchorage, AK. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-26: 43-53.

Lamers, M. (2009). The Future of Tourism in Antarctica: Challenges for Sustainability. PhD thesis, University of Maastricht.

Lemelin, R.H., Johnston, M.E., Dawson, J., Stewart, E.S. & Mattina, C. (2012). “From hunting and fishing to cultural tourism and ecotourism: examining the transitioning tourism industry in Nunavik.” The Polar Journal, 2(1): 39-60.

Lemelin, H. Dawson, J., Stewart, E.J., Maher, P. & Lueck, M. (2010). “Last-chance tourism: The boom, doom, and gloom of visiting vanishing destinations.” Current Issues in Tourism, 13:5: 477-493.

Mitchell, J. (2008). “Can climate change be good for Greenland: An Arctic Island’s response to new development opportunities.” Sustainable Development Law & Policy, 8(3): 23-24.

14 New European Community (N.D.). “Greenland’s becoming a hot opportunity.” https://neweuropeaneconomy.com/greenlands-becoming-a-hot-opportunity-2/ (Date website accessed 24.08.18).

Nuttall, M. (2008b). “Climate change and the warming politics of autonomy in Greenland.” Indigenous Affairs 1-2/08: 45-51.

Nuttall, M. (2008a). “Self-Rule in Greenland: Towards the world’s first independent Inuit state?” Indigenous Affairs 3-4/08: 65-70.

Pashkevich, A., Dawson, J. & Stewart, E.J. (2015). “Governance of expedition cruise ship tourism in the Arctic: A comparison of the Canadian and Russian Arctic.” Tourism in Marine Environments, 10(3-4): 225-240

Ren, C. & Chimirri, D. (2018). “Arctic tourism – More than an industry?” Business and Economics, Denmark and Greenland. Retrieved from https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/arctic- tourism-industry/ (Date website accessed 29.8.2018)

Shackel, P.A. (2011). “A snapshot of tourism in Greenland.” International Journal of Heritage Studies, 17(1): 81-88.

Stewart, E.J., Draper, D. & Johnston, M.E. (2005). “A review of tourism research in the polar regions.” Arctic, 58(4): 383-394

Stewart, E.J., Ligget, D. & Dawson, J. (2017). “The evolution of polar tourism scholarship: research themes, networks and agendas.” Polar Geography, DOI:10.1080/1088937X.2016.1274789

Viken, A. (2006). Svalbard, Norway. In G. Baldacchino (ed.) Extreme Tourism: Lessons from the World’s Cold Water Islands, pp. 130-142. Oxford: Elsevier.

Visit Greenland (2016). National Tourism Strategy 2016-2019. Nuuk: Visit Greenland.

Visit Greenland (2017). Tourism Statistics Report 2016. Nuuk: Visit Greenland.

Visit Greenland (2018). Tourism Statistics Report 2017. Nuuk: Visit Greenland.

15

View publication stats