Sustainable Arctic Mining? A Comparative Analysis of Greenland and Nunavut Mining Discourses
Camp Citronen, close to a proposed zinc mine in Citronen Fiord, Greenland. Photo: Ironbark Zinc
This is a condensed version of the article ‘Digging sustainability: scaling and sectoring of sovereignty in Greenland and Nunavut mining discourses’, recently published in the anthology The Politics of Sustainability in the Arctic: Reconfiguring Identity, Time and Space.
The book sets out a theoretical framework for understanding and analysing sustainability as a political concept, and provides a comprehensive empirical investigation of Arctic sustainability discourses. Presenting a range of case studies from a number of Arctic countries including Greenland, Norway and Canada, the essays in this volume analyse the concept of sustainability and how actors are employing and contesting this concept in specific regions within the Arctic. In doing so, the book demonstrates how sustainability is being given new meanings in the postcolonial Arctic and what the political implications are for postcoloniality, nature, and development more broadly. Beyond those interested in the Arctic, this book will also be of great value to students and scholars of sustainability, sustainable development, identity and environmental politics.
The Arctic Institute Sustainability in the Arctic Series 2018
- Sustainability as a Political Concept in the Arctic (Part I)
- Sustainability as a Political Concept in the Arctic (Part II)
- Sustainability Understandings of Arctic Shipping
- Breaking Free: Alaska’s Path Forward for Renewable Arctic Energy
- Sustainable Arctic Mining? A Comparative Analysis of Greenland and Nunavut Mining Discourses
Sustainable Arctic Mining? A Comparative Analysis of Greenland and Nunavut Mining Discourses
The question of whether or not to mine is often placed center-stage in discussions about rights and resources in the Arctic. Some primarily perceive mining as the key to a better economy, while others put greater emphasis on the possible threat to nature. Both sides do, however, insist that the concept of sustainability is inevitable to their argument which, on the one hand, unites the conflicting parts, while on the other hand drains the concept of meaning.
In contrast with harvesting, hunting, fishing, and the exploitation of other renewable resources, minerals are non-renewable and, thus, not possible to sustain if simultaneously being extracted. Hence, ‘sustainable mining’ may be perceived as an oxymoron used by those in favor to co-opt and neutralize critique from environmentalists.1) Through other lenses, it may instead be a sign of environmental, economic, and social responsibility in a capitalist world where development is imperative. The three responsibilities are, however, seldom weighed equally and it is in these nuances that the political becomes observable.
In Greenland and Nunavut, opportunities and possible threats related to mining often give rise to public attention and debate about what the perfect future should look like. Some highlight the importance of preservation (sustaining), while others emphasise the possibilities that change (development) may bring. This activates different and occasionally conflicting perceptions of what the collective identity entails, how mining may affect local standards of living, and, sometimes, how it relates to regional and global concerns and movements.
By comparing the Greenland and the Nunavut mining discourses – as articulated in the official strategies and in relation to the projects in Citronen Fiord and Mary River – this article investigates what kind of meaning is ascribed to the concept of sustainability, how priorities are made, and how responsibility is distributed. This is particularly interesting within the Arctic context, where sustainable development has become an omnipresent buzzword2) – particularly prominent in Arctic mining debates3) – and where Nunavut and Greenland as partners in tradition and in transition4) continue to alter the political landscape by gaining more independent voices.
Greenland: mining for a new nation, stretching ‘the local’
In Greenland’s Oil and Mineral Strategy 2014–2018, ‘sustainable development’ abounds: Across 102 pages, the sustainability concept is mentioned 37 times, and two chapters (2.5 and 7) are dedicated to explaining how the broad sense of ‘sustainable development’ – as defined by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) in 1987 – is the guiding principle for developing the vast mineral resources with careful environmental, economic, and social considerations.
Much importance is attached to the imagined future mineral exploitation, which is not merely framed as a single significant business opportunity, but as a general development of the whole country that will “involve an adjustment of our entire way of organizing society”.5) The Government of Greenland “believes that it is important that all of us contribute to a sustainable development of the area of mineral resources activities”,6) and in its aim to actively involve the broader public, a popularized version of the strategy has subsequently been distributed.7)
The responsibility for making this development sustainable is, thus, not limited to the politicians, the mining companies, or the individual citizens, but instead everyone is expected to partake as stakeholders in this national endeavor. As such, the strategy discursively places all potential mining projects in Greenland on the national scale, while making a diffuse and encompassing ‘all of us’ responsible for fulfilling its unredeemed potential. While this is the case in the national strategy – which per definition is, exactly, national in its scope – it is necessary to dig deeper into the consultation processes of individual projects to get a more nuanced understanding of who is made responsible for what, and on which scale.
The case of Citronen Fiord and the ‘flexibility’ towards independence
One of the strategy’s six prioritized projects is the proposed zinc and lead mine in Citronen Fiord, which the Australian company Ironbark has the license to exploit. The project is located in the national park, where no one but a couple of handfuls of Danish servicemen and a few polar scientists live. Hence, there is no obvious local place to conduct public hearings, which is why Ironbark, the relevant ministers, and civil servants visited seven towns in Greenland’s four municipalities to engage in a dialogue with the public. The selected towns were (attendees/population): Nuuk (30/17,600), Kangerlussuaq (8/500), Ilulissat (8/4,555), Sisimiut (30/5,414), Qaqortoq (?/3,084), Tasiilaq (100/2,010), and Qaanaaq (200/623) of which the latter two were given special attention because they are nearest Citronen Fiord.
Though their ‘proximity’ is limited to approximately 2,000km to the south and 1,000km to the west, respectively, the two towns were discursively constructed as the local scale, even if the immediate economic impact will be abroad in Longyearbyen, Svalbard, from where most air transportation for the proposed mine will arrive, and Akureyri, Iceland, which is expected to be the port of departure for most shipping.8) If environmental concerns had been the decisive optic for determining the local scale, Svalbard could also have been a relevant place to conduct public hearings, as it is located less than 1,000km east of Citronen Fiord.
During the hearings, environmental concerns were almost entirely articulated in relation to the local and national scales, where the possible risk to marine mammals and fishes constituted the greatest worry primarily because they are the main ingredients in traditional Greenlandic food, at the core of Greenlandic culture.9) This reflects the idea, promoted by the then coalition government, that “[t]he sustainability principle is a Greenlandic invention where the first provisions on sustainable exploitation of animals were formulated in the Thule Laws, and these principles must be upheld and honored”.10)
While the sustainability concept articulated in the Thule Laws points to the importance of environmental and social preservation, the communication regarding Citronen Fiord generally puts greater emphasis on development and economic gain, echoing the decision not to sign the Paris Agreement,11) as the Citronen Fiord mine alone is expected to cause a 20 per cent increase in Greenland’s current total CO2 emissions (cf. Qujaukitsoq at public hearing in Sisimiut). Via the Environmental Impact Assessment – made in the process prior to the IBA – the mining company and respective authorities scrutinise how to mitigate the potential environmental impacts, but the responsibility for ultimately doing so is placed on the shoulders of the mining companies – a decision characterised as ‘pioneering’ in the strategy.12)
The prioritization is clear: mining must be realized in order to sustain the national economy even though it may have some negative environmental impacts. As put by then Minister for Finance, Energy, and Foreign Affairs, Vittus Qujaukitsoq from the social democratic party Siumut, when interviewed about why mining is now allowed in Citronen Fiord despite the past ban on any economic activities in the area: “The national park is the most pristine part of our country, and it is important for all animal and plant life. But we have to be flexible if new business opportunities arise”.13) Such flexibility is legitimized by the overall goal of future independence, which is dependent on new significant sources of income. This was repeatedly emphasized by Qujaukitsoq, who stated at the public hearing in Ilulissat: “We will never be independent if we leave our resources untouched”, and by then Minister for Business, Labour, and Trade, Randi Vestergaard Evaldsen from the social liberal party Demokraatit, who argued at the public hearing in Qaqortoq that “by giving companies the opportunity to establish mining projects we are paving the way towards independence”.
One displeased citizen protested that “I feel Greenland is just being sold”,(cf. public hearing in Tasiilaq) and another asked, “Could we postpone such projects until Greenland has been declared independent? We hear about many projects which are never being realized” (cf. public hearing in Iulissat). However, the dominant storyline throughout the hearings was that the Citronen Fiord mine and other similar proposed projects must be established for the benefit of fulfilling the Greenlandic ambition of independence.
Nunavut: social license to drill towards devolution
In Nunavut’s mining strategy, Parnautit: A Foundation for the Future, the sustainability concept is mentioned 20 times across 64 pages, often in central parts of the strategy. The first page states that the strategy serves as: “the plan of the Government of Nunavut to create opportunities for the future self-reliance of Nunavut and Nunavummiut through the sustainable development of our mineral resources. It is intended to guide that development in the period leading up to the devolution of management responsibilities for lands and resources from the federal government”.14)
As in Greenland, mining is ascribed much importance as a key element to increased self-determination, but while the words used in the neighboring mining discourse when describing Greenland’s present and future status are ‘country’ and ‘independence’, the terminology used in Nunavut is instead ‘territory’ and ‘devolution’. This reflects the different directions of their respective postcolonial developments, while simultaneously indicating that both governments perceive mining as the most likely economic contributor to increased autonomy.
Sustaining the territorial economy is at the core of Nunavut’s official mining discourse, but unlike the ‘flexibility’ that Minister Qujaukitsoq pleaded for when explaining the necessity of allowing mining in Greenland’s national park, environmental concerns are more explicitly addressed in Nunavut. After stating that “Nunavut’s future economic viability, and the improvement of the quality of life of Nunavummiut, will depend on the development of these known and yet to be discovered resources”,15) the strategy emphasises that “Nunavut’s arctic environment is fragile, however, and Nunavummiut will not tolerate development that has unacceptable environmental impacts”.16)
The line between acceptable and unacceptable is not further explained, but mining companies are advised to pay special attention to public opinion, as the social license is inevitable for a successful operation. The social license is obtained through involving the local community by, for example, hiring local workers which can benefit social sustainability, and through minimising the environmental impact by “treating their project as a ‘temporary use of the land’, and fully rehabilitating the site for other uses after mining or exploration is complete”.17) Thus, the environmental and social sectors are also given high priority in the assessment of how a potential mine may contribute to the development of all of Nunavut and the individual local communities.
The case of Mary River and the use of IQ
It may be a delicate balancing act to sustain both the environment, the economy, and the social sector when mining. This is acknowledged by the Government of Nunavut, which clearly expresses that “[i]nevitably, the push towards development of mineral resources and the need for environmental protection will create conflicts”.18) In this light, a Planning Commission is currently working on a comprehensive Land Use Plan in order to “proactively resolve potential conflicts between mineral exploration parties requiring access to land, and wildlife and community uses”.19) While this initiative presents a broader scope, including sectors other than mining, the individual projects aim at proactively settling disagreements via public hearings in the areas deemed most affected by the proposed mining activity.
In the case of the Mary River iron mine, the five communities of Igloolik (155km to the mine), Pond Inlet (160km), Hall Beach (192km), Arctic Bay (280km), and Clyde River (415km) were pointed out as the places in the ‘immediate vicinity’ with ‘long term social, economic and environmental ties to the proposed ERP [Early Revenue Phase] area’.20) When a place is labelled as being in the ‘immediate vicinity’, it also means that its citizens have better chances of being employed in or in relation to the mine. This was often highlighted by the local representatives as the main reason why they are ultimately in favour of the project despite accompanying potential risks – such as negative environmental impacts especially connected to shipping of the iron, abusive use of alcohol and drugs,21) and other related consequences known from similar fly-in fly-out camp environments.22)
In the North Baffin region where Mary River is located, 94 per cent of the population are Inuit, and Inuktitut is the prevalent language with some monolingual speakers, ranging from 6 per cent in Hall Beach to 24 per cent in Igloolik.23) The ethnic majority and respect for Inuit traditions are central in the Nunavut mining discourse, mirrored in the name of the IBA, which has an extra I indicating that it is, indeed, an Inuit Impact Benefit Agreement (IIBA).
In Nunavut’s official mining strategy and in the Land Use Plan, the dominating WCED understanding of sustainable development is particularly visible, but when Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit – meaning ‘Inuit knowledge’ and often abbreviated ‘IQ’ – is included, the hegemonic perception is contested: “[s]ustainable development is not a fixed understanding. As communities change, their relationship with the land and with each other will continue to develop and evolve”.24)
Despite this contestation, the Inuktitut translation of ‘sustainable’ is quite clear. Ikupik, as it is called, means “to conserve and not take all at once; what is brought in from a hunt. Everyone takes a piece for their family, ensuring there is enough to go around”.25) As in the Thule Laws, the sustainability principle is closely linked to food security and social sustainability through covering the basic needs of the local community. This definition makes sense for hunting and harvesting of renewable resources, but in the case of non-renewable minerals this traditional understanding is open to interpretation – and even more so when adding the perception that the concept is in flux.
During the hearings, neither the traditional Inuit definition nor the contestation of the hegemonic WCED understanding were articulated. Instead, utterances about sustainability usually referred to one particular sector, where local representatives emphasise the importance of sustaining the local communities, and the official authorities put more weight on the sector closest to their respective area of responsibility. In this way, the executive director of the Nunavut Planning Commission, Sharon Ehaloak, encouraged economic sustainable development,26) and the environmental specialist of Parks Canada, Allison Stoddart, only talked about environmental sustainability,27) while Karen Costello – the resource director of the Nunavut Office of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development – said that her mandate is to “improve social and economic well-being and develop healthier, more sustainable communities”.28)
While they all agree that if the mine should be established it needs to be in a sustainable manner, the nuances of the different prioritized sectors demonstrate how they may represent different political agendas. Consequently, a compromise needs to be found to balance these different considerations in the development of Nunavut – a development which is predominantly human-centered, as all parts in favor of the mine agree that economic gain should benefit some size of a social entity; the individual, the community, the company, the territory, and the nation.
Conclusion
Nunavut’s and Greenland’s postcolonial developments have been closely related to the acquisition of the right to exploit their own mineral resources. In Greenland, this parallel process seems to continue, while mining in Nunavut is subject to undisguised conflicts between primarily economic and environmental priorities, proactively addressed by the authorities in their aim to direct the territory towards a future where all Nunavummiut feel at home.
In both cases, the social sustainability is given high priority. While hunting traditions are emphasized as central to each respective collective identity – which in Nunavut’s case unquestionably equals an Inuit identity – the striving for independence is the overarching goal legitimizing mining in Greenland’s national park, despite a past ban on any economic activities in the area. In Nunavut, more attention is ascribed to the local community that shall benefit economically and socially, while ‘the national’ is a label exclusively reserved for the Canadian Federation. Instead, Nunavut is described as a territory that loyally respects Canada’s sovereignty, even though decisions such as the 2016 moratorium on hydrocarbon exploitation in the North American Arctic waters was signed without prior consultation with the territorial governments.
The analyses show how sovereignty is closely connected to the question of who gets to decide what to sustain, which is particularly visible in the cases of Nunavut and Greenland, where exploitation of their natural resources is perceived as a potential core contributor to a more viable economy and increased self-determination. The concept of sustainability is, to some degree, contested by Indigenous definitions, but in both discourses the WCED’s 1987 description of sustainable development is generally the main point of reference, hence reproducing the hegemonic perception. The defining nuances rendering visible how priorities are made, responsibilities are distributed, and what consequences these decisions may have in the future are, however, found in the weighing of different scales and sectors, as one often takes precedence over the others. In Greenland, this weight is primarily put on the national economy, while the Nunavut mining discourse gives more precedence to local social sustainability. These prioritizations do, however, sometimes overlap, causing the spillover of impacts and benefits across sectors and scales.
References