It could be a blessing or a curse — or it may prove to be both.
On Oct. 24, Greenland’s parliament voted to revoke the territory’s 25-year-old ban on mining for radioactive materials such as uranium. The very slim majority – 15 votes in favor, 14 against – and the heated debate that preceded showed the extend of the controversy over the issue.
The move will not only allow the mining of uranium deposits but also of rare earth minerals used in products such as wind turbines, weapons, computers, smart phones and other high-tech equipment. This group of seventeen elements is in extraordinary demand, with China currently controlling more than 90 percent of the world supply. Until now, the amount of such substances that could be extracted in Greenland had been severely restricted due to the ban, as uranium is often mixed in with rare earths in the ground.
The vote is likely to further open up the territory to investors from Australia, China, the United Kingdom and others who are eager to tap its vast mineral resources. Greenland’s government is also keen to exploit the island’s natural wealth in order to alleviate some of the serious poverty and social problems that blight the indigenous population. Oil and gas have been the focus of exploitation so far, but Greenland sees just as much potential in a massive opening-up of mining operations.
Mining has long been all but impossible across most of the territory, which is covered in a thick sheet of ice except for a few coastal strips, but melting ice and new techniques have created new possibilities for exploiting the region’s mineral resources. With Greenland sitting on some of the world’s largest uranium reserves and the available world supply already falling short of demand, uranium could be a huge cash generator for Greenland’s struggling economy.
Security issue
Supporters of the move say it will help bring jobs and economic prosperity to this vast island, which is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Greenland was granted home rule in 1979, with the Danish government remaining in charge of foreign affairs and defense. The island joined the European Economic Community with Denmark in 1972, but left it in 1985 over the Union’s commercial fishing regulations and ban on seal skin products. It is the first and only case of a member leaving the European Union.
Currently a Danish subsidy accounts for around two-thirds of Greenland’s revenue. Since gaining the right to self-govern, politicians have looked to the island’s natural resources as a gateway to financial freedom. The more revenues from mining or oil, the more Greenland weans itself off Denmark’s annual grant, with some even seeing natural resources as a way to finance its independence from Copenhagen.
A few months ago, a report by a Danish law firm hired by Greenland’s parliament to investigate the thorny issue of competence sharing concluded that the territory had full sovereignty over commodities trading, including uranium – which is also regulated by international treaties on nuclear non-proliferation. The report had been finished for six months but the topic was so sensitive that it had been kept quiet. It was only released a few days before the vote in parliament.
This said, at the moment the uranium is exported, it could pose a security risk and would then become a matter for Copenhagen. Uranium is hard to track once on the open market and could inadvertently end up being part of a nuclear weapons program. Denmark has set up a committee to get clarification of what the foreign policy consequences of uranium exports from Greenland would mean. It is not necessarily against uranium mining as long as its export is done in a proper way and in collaboration with Copenhagen.
One of the questions is that administrators in Greenland’s capital Nuuk would have to prove that they can prevent the uranium from being used for military purposes. Some experts question Greenland’s expertise and resources for export control if it becomes one of the world’s top uranium suppliers. In any case, the lifting of the ban is only the first of several steps required before mining companies can actually begin work. Greenlanders and Danes now need to hammer out all the legal aspects; several laws would probably need to be changed first, something that could take a few more months.
The territory’s roughly 57,000 inhabitants remain deeply divided over the issue, however. Greenlanders have always been torn between the desire to gain revenue from mining and oil exploitation to fund independence from Denmark on the one hand, and a concern that a boost in economic and commercial activities may harm the environment and the traditional Inuit lifestyle on the other.
The social impact of mining could be serious. Inuit life has already changed considerably in recent decades, with modern life taking its toll: poverty, social inequality, high incidence of alcoholism, an ageing population, and waste and pollution.
An economic boom and a big inflow of foreign workers could further change life on the island. Traditional Greenlanders like fishermen and hunters feel that change has come too fast and that the local government has already gone too far in welcoming foreign companies. There is a growing nationalist backlash with a perception that Greenlanders have been sidelined.
Bringing in Chinese workers?
The Greenland government has stressed that mining projects should provide jobs for the nation’s workers. But the labor force in Greenland primarily consists of the Inuit, who are mainly hunters, fishers and educated professionals — general laborers are difficult to find. Last year, Greenland’s parliament passed a law laying the groundwork for the opening of large mines, including procedures to allow in migrant workers. The U.K.-based London Mining, a firm backed by Chinese steelmakers, is planning a $2.3 billion iron ore mine near Nuuk. There has been a lot of concern about proposals to bring about 2,300 Chinese workers to work at the mine.
Some Greenlanders believe the population is not been sufficiently involved in the debate over mining. Sara Olsvig, one of the country’s MPs, writes:
“When it comes to the zero-tolerance policy on uranium mining and the proposal of the government of Greenland to lift the ban, the democratic process is being held to an absolute minimum. The government has made no effort to include the public of Greenland in the decision-making process.”
Others consider that after Prime Minister Aleqa Hammond announced during an election cycle last March that she and her party stood for repealing the ban on uranium, voters voted accordingly; consequently, the decision on lifting the ban can be considered the result of a democratic choice.
The possibility of uranium mining has also been criticized by environmental groups, which have raised fears of serious environmental problems. Mining does not have the same risks as oil drilling but it still can be very hazardous to the Arctic region’s pristine ecological system. Concerns include polluted waste water from the mines, use of toxic chemicals in some mining processes and the dispersal of uranium dust in the environment.
Greenpeace, however, is not opposed to mining on the ice sheet per se provided it is tightly regulated and done in the right way. “Mining can be controllable, in a way that is not possible with deep sea drilling,” Greenpeace spokesman Jon Burgwald told the Guardian. “We are keeping a close eye on this, and we could oppose [developments] if we saw they were not being done right, but there is no doubt that opening up for mining in Greenland still could have a very positive impact.” Burgwald thinks Greenland’s government might need substantial help in order to set up the right standards that would avoid dangerous consequences.
In other words, exploiting Greenland’s vast mineral wealth could cause serious environmental and social problems, but it could also bring wealth on a scale unimagined by Greenlanders. It may prove a treasure-trove for the Inuit people, or a further deterioration of their traditional way of life.