Last year, the parliament in Greenland, Inatsisartut, repealed the ban on uranium mining by a single-vote majority. To the incumbent government, mining, and particularly uranium mining, has become synonymous with quick economic independence from Denmark. This in spite of the fact that many scientific studies have disproved that uranium mining or even the entire minerals sector can support Greenland’s economy in itself.
All in all, the government does not seem to let reality interfere much with its policies. The latest in a series of controversial political decisions waits just around the corner, when Inatsisartut begins its autumn session at the end of September. Here amendments to the Mineral Resources Act will be introduced that not only lower environmental standards for uranium mining, but for all mineral extraction. The amendments aim at abolishing the right of public access to documents that constitute the basis for decisions on issuance of mining permits, before they are given, and repeal of access to justice. If they are adopted, the three pillars which according to the Aarhus Convention are essential in good environmental governance – timely access for the public to environmental information, meaningful participation in environmental matters and access to administrative or judicial review proceedings – no longer exist in Greenland.
Although it is possible to question the sense of limiting the public’s insight into the basis of decision for the authorities’ regulation of the often very large and resourceful mining companies, there is no doubt that the Greenlandic government is authorised to do so. Since 2009 it has had full jurisdiction over the oil and minerals sector.
What is difficult to understand, however, is why the Danish government does not stay neutral in this matter: Through its institutions it has promoted stripping people in Greenland of their democratic rights and tried to delude them into believing that the large scale mining projects – especially the Kuannersuit/Kvanefjeld project – which the government in Greenland hopes to initiate in the near future, have no negative environmental impacts.
To observers of the Greenlandic government’s mining policy it comes as no surprise that the tabling of the amendments coincides with two other controversial events: a lecture tour by geologists from GEUS, the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, and DCE, the Danish Centre for Environment and Energy at Aarhus University, in five cities in southern Greenland to inform the public of the uranium and REEs mining project at Kuannersuit. And an expert workshop held in Nuuk to lay down the groundwork for future legislation on extraction, production and exportation of uranium in Greenland organised by DIIS, the Danish Institute for International Studies. GEUS, DCE and DIIS are all research institutions funded by the Danish government.
The geologists’ view of uranium mining is well known and although none of them have had any practical experience in this field, the information material produced by GEUS systematically plays down or ignores the environmental impacts of uranium mining. Furthermore, much of the lecture tour was dedicated to a rebuttal of the findings of an independent Dutch expert report on the environmental impacts of the Kuannersuit project, which was commissioned by NOAH Friends of the Earth Denmark and three other green NGOs.
The expert workshop in Nuuk was closed to the public and the identity of the participants of the week-long event kept a secret. However, it emerged that representatives of the owner of the Kuannersuit mining project, the Australia-based Greenland Minerals and Energy, GME, attended. By any standard, it is unheard of that a mining company actively participates in secret preparations for legislative proceedings with such far-reaching consequences as the uranium legislation in Greenland.
Because the Danish Public Information Act does not apply in Greenland, members of NOAH’s uranium group sought access to the participants list at DIIS in Denmark. According to the list, the more than thirty attendants included representatives of a series of Greenlandic and Danish regulatory bodies and research institutions, but no stakeholders from civil society. Considering how important the workshop was, it would have been natural to have representation from eg Transparency International Greenland, a subsidiary of the international anti-corruption organisation, Transparency International, or the Greenlandic NGO coalition that reflects a broad spectrum of Greenland’s NGO community.
Just as interesting as those who were not present, were some of those who were: prior to the DIIS workshop, GME had hired a lobbyist from another mining company, Paladin Energy, to assist GME in dealing with the authorities in Greenland on uranium related issues. He was one of two GME representatives attending the workshop.
GME’s hiring of this particular lobbyist is important, because it signifies how socially, financially and environmentally responsible the company can be expected to act in Greenland. During the many years he worked for Paladin Energy, the lobbyist played a key part in regulatory compliance and sales contract development, not least in regard to the big uranium mining project Kayelekera in Malawi. While he was there, the company got sued by six NGOs because of shortfalls in the approval of the mine’s environmental impact assessment and was linked to various corruption scandals. The case was referred to Malawi’s High Court but settled out of court. In 2011, a student leader was killed after publishing a document in which he accused Paladin of bribing Malawi’s president. His death triggered a wave of criticism from international NGOs that accused the company of neglecting international safety and environmental standards. They also described the company culture as neo-colonialist and arrogant towards those who are affected by the mining operations.
Particularly damaging is a mission statement from the UN’s Special Rapporteur, who visited Malawi in 2013 to investigate the country’s precarious food situation and specifically mentions Paladin Energy in his report. The Special Rapporteur notes that Malawi offers a great range of tax incentives to domestic and foreign companies. Mining companies are exempt from customs duty, excise duty, VAT on mining machinery, plant and equipment. They can also sign special deals on the rate of royalty owed to the government. Companies operating in some parts of the country pay no corporate tax, no withholding tax on dividends, no VAT and no duty on capital equipment, machinery and raw materials. The Special Rapporteur estimates that revenue losses from special incentives given to Paladin Energy amount to at least $205 million, and could be up to $281 million over the 13-year lifespan of the mine. This amounts to at least $15.8 million or up to $21.65 million a year.
The taxation of Paladin Energy in Malawi is relevant, because it gives a realistic indication of what GME expects to pay from its revenue from the Kuannersuit mining project. In this context, in spite of all its good intentions, the Greenlandic government’s hope for acceptance of a 37 percent corporate tax seems out of touch with reality.
The big question is, however, why government-funded Danish research institutions facilitate networking and lobbyism that undermine Greenland’s civil society? Is it possible to imagine companies such as GME and Paladin Energy being invited to Copenhagen to participate in the planning of future Danish environmental legislation? No, that is not really an option. It would raise an outcry and the Danish press be undoubtedly be concerned. So why the double standard, just because it happens in Nuuk?
