335
Arctic Yearbook 2013
Cronberg
spring, Greenland‘s former Prime Minister reiterated that he was tired of waiting, saying that he has
come back empty handed from all too many trips to Brussels. In light of the new circumstances, it is
significant that the new Prime Minister of Greenland and her party have been involved in an internal
debate in Denmark on the definition of ―strategic raw materials‖ and about who should define what
the term means.
From an EU point of view, the memorandum has been seen as a way to ensure that Greenland will
not commit itself to mining contracts with, for example, solely China. The European Union is, in
plain language, paying Greenland off in order to secure a non-monopoly in a bid to guarantee that
other countries, among them hopefully also European players, also have a say. China is strongly
interested in mining investments in the Arctic in order to obtain valuable minerals, including iron,
zinc and rare earth minerals crucial for high-technology production. To the dismay of European
politicians, Greenland has been leaning towards Asia in its efforts to secure rapid investment deals.
Moreover, the European Union has no significant role to play in the Arctic Council, the body that
has become the de facto institutional battleground for Arctic players and competitors. What used to
be mainly a research body has rapidly become an important gateway to the Arctic. The EU
application for observer status was deferred last spring, whereas India, South Korea and Singapore
were taken on board. The formal reason stated for the rejection was that the EU Commission, as a
supranational organisation, does not meet the criteria for membership in the Arctic Council and is
considered to erode the importance of state sovereignty in the Arctic.
One of the unofficial obstacles to observer status is the EU‘s ban on seal fur import, a ban that has
been challenged especially by Canada based on the claim that the rights of the indigenous people in
the Arctic must be preserved. In this regard, it is a shame that co-operation in the Arctic area is
complicated as a result of the EU‘s animal protection policy. The issue will not be easy to settle as
the ban is part of EU legislation. However, EU legislation and policy have growing relevance not
only for the EU member states but also for third countries.
It is also worth considering that the EU provides a significant amount of funding to initiatives
supporting indigenous groups and local populations. As stated in the EU Arctic Strategy, funding
programmes during the last seven co-financing years have amounted to 1.14 billion euros (1.98
billion euros, if we include member state co-financing).
An overall solution to these dilemmas could be a moratorium, an agreement to stop using the Arctic
resources until we can find sustainable ways of utilization. Environmental groups and the European
Parliament have supported this policy, but the official EU stance has been to find a balance between
economy, environment and a potential moratorium.
A situation must be avoided where disputes in fact accelerate the use of Arctic resources. The
European Union has built its Arctic policy around three main objectives: protecting and preserving
the Arctic in unison with its population, promoting the sustainable use of resources and
international cooperation. It is essential that environmental and social sustainability are prioritized in
the EU‘s Arctic policy and that, for instance, mining projects are carried out in a responsible
manner.