CHAPTER 1 OF

"A FAREWELL TO GREENLANDS NATURE "

by Kjeld Hansen

Translation by Robin Worrall

Copenhagen 2002

See also: www.greenland-wildlife.com

PREFACE

To the bitter end

"All the Thick-billed Murres (Brünnich's Guillemot), Razorbills, Common and King Eider Ducks, and most of the Black-legged Kittiwakes were gone. Nesting cliffs where Bertelsen had recorded 500,000 murres and 100,000 kittiwakes were vacant of all bird life. The cliffs were still stained from seabird excrement, and ancient grass-covered kittiwake nests remained, but otherwise there was no sign of the thousands of birds that once flourished there."

So wrote the American biologist Kurt K. Burn­ham when describing what he had observed sailing through the Uum­man­naq area in the summer of 2000.

  Sailing by boat from Kang­er­lus­su­aq/Søn­dre Strøm­fjord to Qaa­naaq/Thu­le, Burnham and three colleagues decided to take a closer look at the immensely rich bird life, which had been meticulously recorded 100 years earlier by Al­fred Ber­tel­sen, a Danish doctor*.

  After eighteen days investigating two hundred and seven of the two hundred and ten sites identified by Bertelsen, the four Americans were shocked everything was gone! Shot to oblivion.

Unfortunately, despite the Americans disturbing revelations, the over exploitation of living resources in Greenland is old news with destruction not simply confined to the Uum­man­naq area.

  Alarm bells have rung since the early 1960s. Increasingly, though to little avail, biologists and scientists from Denmark, UK, Canada and many other countries have voiced their concerns about the over exploitation of wildlife in Greenland. Both the Danish colonial government of the day, and Greenlanders themselves have consistently and stubbornly turned a blind eye.       

  In todays modern Greenland hunting fishing and trapping is taking place in a way that is ecologically and economically unsustainable. The unchecked use of living resources is taking place as if the present generation of Greenlanders were the last inhabitants on planet earth.

  Brünnich's Guillemot, Beluga Whale, Common Eider Duck, Walrus, Harbour Seal, King Eider Duck, Artic Tern, Atlantic Halibut, Cod, Atlantic Salmon, Scallop each species is a testimony to the tragic story and the consequences of decades of blind exploitation of living resources.

And this destruction of the biodiversity in Greenland appears likely to continue to the bitter end. Fisherman and hunters deny that a problem exists, and only a handful of politicians seem to have the courage to take the necessary action.

  The alarming and most likely outcome is that present catch volumes will lead to even more drastic reductions in stocks, rendering them uneconomic in terms of their contribution to Greenland society. Some species will undoubtedly become extinct.

  Additionally, there are intangible losses: culture, identity and respect from the outside world. Generations of young Greenlanders will never be able to experience the abundantly rich wildlife that Greenland once offered. Moreover, their fathers will be remembered worldwide as men that squandered everything away. An ancient proud hunting society will be reduced to a bitter shadowland of denial and repression.

   The aim of this little book is to document the over exploitation of Greenlands unique fauna. Supported by factual evidence from Greenlands own biologists, the book illustrates the already comprehensive destruction. It demonstrates that Greenlanders are not living sustainably and, seen from a modern perspective, shows that they never have.

If one were to project this negative development a mere 10-20 years into the future then the fate of most animals targeted for hunting will be sealed. As a result, wavering decision makers need to address this issue as a matter of urgency. This book attempts to outline the options available.

  What may appear to be a regional problem is of global interest. Greenlands wildlife is part of humanitys common heritage and, increasingly, the eyes of the world will be focused on the way Greenlanders manage these living resources. If this book can make a contribution to helping the process start speeding up a little, then it will not have been written in vain.

Finally, I would like to thank the many people in Greenland, Ca­na­da, Ice­land and Den­mark who unselfishly provided information, comments and corrections. Without their encouragement and assistance none of this would have been possible.

Kjeld Hansen

Foreign fishing skippers had plenty to answer for during this 10-year bonanza. The annual collateral catch of 250,000500,000 Brünnich's Guillemot, which drowned in the drifting salmon nets in the Davis Strait, undoubtedly contributed to emptying the Brünnich's Guillemot colonies in Disko Bay and northwards.

   Today all valuable fisheries are subject to quotas, but in many cases the size of the quota leads to exploitation that negatively affects stocks. Currently, the most glaring example of this is crab fishing, where quotas are set so high that stocks are likely to be destroyed within the next 5 years.

Sustainable exploitation

Exploitation of these living resources - a telling expression used to describe animals, birds and fish in Greenland has been, and still is carried out on a scale that even threatens the biological diversity or biodiversity. It is possible to claim that this biodiversity is already sharply reduced over large areas for example in the Uum­man­naq municipality, all of Disko Bay, around Nuuk/Godthåb and in most of the Qa­qor­toq/Jul­ia­ne­håb municipality.

   The terms biological diversity or biodiversity are used to describe wildlife health: how many different species are to be found both on land and sea, whether there are sufficient animals to sustain genetically healthy stock, and the viability of different ecosystems.

   The term sustainable exploitation is used to describe how one can utilise these living resources without negatively affecting biological diversity. This entails that the exploitation of animal, bird and fish stocks, etc. is carried out in such a manner that also allows future generations to benefit from their use.

   Consequently, it is not enough that animals are protected from certain extinction. Stocks also need to be large enough to allow people to exploit them in the future both economically and for other purposes. For example cod, halibut and salmon are still to be found around the coasts of Greenland but stocks are so overfished that present-day Greenlanders derive hardly any benefit from them.

Brünnich's Guillemot Colonies in West Greenland

Today only a few small Brünnich's Guillemot colonies remain in central and south west Greenland, and many of the colonies are extinct. Source: Topografisk Atlas Grønland, Copenhagen 2000.

The few exceptions

Apart from deep-sea prawn fishing, wild Reindeer and Musk Ox hunting, where strict quotas and controls apply, there are two exceptions to the general picture of over exploitation of living resources: geese and seals (but not the Harbour Seal).

   By all accounts, the six species of geese found in Greenland are thriving. There can be several good reasons why this is the case.

   Three species occur exclusively in the North Greenland National Park, protected by the vast distances. Possibly the greatest threat to these numbers is posed by helicopters engaged in raw materials exploration.

   Two other species are found only sporadically and in limited numbers, whereas the remaining species, the Whitefronted Goose, breeds along the populated west coast. In spite of this, numbers appear not to be affected by any appreciable hunting pressure, even though a brief hunting season is still permitted in the spring. This is probably because a tradition never developed for exploitation of Whitefronted and the other species of Goose. Undoubtedly, Goose populations also benefit from vastly improved conditions in their wintering destinations in Europe and North America, where hunting bans, winter feeding and biotope protection have provided the birds with far better prospects for survival.

   As far as seal numbers are concerned, Harp Seal populations have increased significantly, despite constant growth in kills over recent years. The latest scientific estimates indicate that the number of seal pups born on the Pack Ice off the coast of Newfoundland has increased from approx 580,000 in 1990 to about 700,000 in 1994, which corresponds to a total population of nearly 5 million Greenland Seals.

   According to official statistics (Pi­ni­ar­neq 2001), Greenlands annual Harp Seal catch lies in the 56,66082,491 range. This catch level clearly plays a minor role in comparison to the Canadian quotas, which are 35 times higher. In 1996 Canadians resumed commercial hunting in earnest with a quota of 275,000 Harp Seals allocated in 1997 and 1998. According to the Canadian government this catch level is viewed as sustainable with stocks expected to stabilise at around present numbers. The future will determine whether this prediction is correct.

   Nevertheless a large question mark hangs over the Harp Seal catch. Thousands of seal carcasses are dumped in the sea every year, as no possible uses for the considerable quantity of meat have been found. In Greenland alone, this catch amounts to a total weight of more than 5,700 tons (see page 129).

   The pelts are sold but this is only possible due to artificially high prices maintained by subsidies running to millions. Nevertheless, the Greenland fur industry operates at a considerable loss, which is covered year after year by the Greenland Home Rule Government.

   Since 1980 a large-scale subsidy culture has developed around the hunting business. Hunters are guaranteed minimum prices with skins bought and stockpiled, irrespective of the number of seal pelts offered for sale. Additionally, there are numerous subsidies that include interest-free and repayment-free loans, interest subsidies and guarantees for the purchase of dinghies, outboard motors, hunting trips and equipment, and subsidised fuel benefits.

   The subsidies for purchasing seal pelts alone have increased from DKK 7.8 million in 1981 to DKK 44.4 million in 1999. For the 2001 financial year DKK 35 million has been earmarked to subsidise the purchase of seal pelts.

   In the spring of 2001 KNAPK, the organisation representing fishermen and hunters tabled their demands for guaranteed minimum prices of fish and shrimp. This development, if successfully pressed through, could quickly detonate a bomb under Greenland's whole economy.

The colonial legacy

Over exploitation of living resources in Greenland has been taking place for more than a hundred years. What present day Greenlanders and visiting tourists praise as a unique wildlife environment in a pristine arctic landscape, is today just a faint shadow of its original biological diversity.

   It is worth noting that the original driving force behind this ruthless over exploitation was the Royal Greenland Trade Department, which was started in 1774 when trade in this arctic colony was taken over by the Kingdom of Denmark. For more than 200 years KGH (as it was commonly known) supervised the commercial exploitation of these living resources. With the benefit of hindsight this was both a threat to Greenland's wildlife and to the very identity of Greenland itself.

   The fact that Greenland Home Rule Government took over responsibility from the Danish State in 1979 has made little difference. On the contrary it can almost be said that, to a considerable extent, Parliament and Government have continued to pursue the old KGH policy of maximum commercial exploitation. The over exploitation continues otherwise unabated, notwithstanding the fact that KGH has been transformed into companies such as Ro­yal Gre­en­land A/S, Gre­at Gre­en­land A/S and NuKa A/S, and that these companies are all owned by the Greenland Home Rule Government.

   For example, while the Greenland Home Rule Parliament has had responsibility for managing stocks, the Beluga Whale population has more than halved in the last 20 years. Commercial buying of up to 25,000 Brünnich's Guillemots annually is also sanctioned without much hesitation. As late as spring 2000 Parliament voted unanimously to allow commercial collection of gulls' eggs. This was voted through, despite clear warnings from amongst others the Institute of Natural Resources of Greenland (Pinn­gor­ti­ta­le­rif­fik), which was concerned about increasing pressure on already severely thinned-out bird colonies, and on species other than gulls.

   The Greenland Home Rule Government established the Institute of Natural Resources of Greenland as recently as 1995. The Institute's main role is to advise Greenland's politicians on sustainable management of the living resources. Politicians have to make the necessary decisions and they are hesitating.

In fear of hunters

Paradoxically enough, fishermen and hunters are the ones blocking the way forward to increasing sustainable living resources' management. Although animals, birds and fish are the bedrock of their existence, they obstinately reject any talk of regulating this exploitation. It seems this group is bent on sinking the boat on which they float.

   Despite repeated warnings, both from former hunters, biologists and international scientific commissions, the Greenland Home Rule Parliament is reluctant to take action because members are apprehensive as to the reaction of the 2,569 registered professional hunters and their family networks. This constitutes a powerful factor, which in the opinion of any Greenland politician has to be taken into consideration if he wishes to retain his seat in the Parliament chamber in Nuuk.

   Hunters are representative of Greenland's culture and original identity, so the population is broadly sympathetic to their cause, even though the hunting business is economically insignificant. Some would argue that this population group only enjoys an acceptable living standard by virtue of enormous subsidies, but also that they represent one of the few remaining elements of the original Greenland. If we have no hunters then we are nothing, it has been said.

   Professional hunters know better and they trust neither Greenland Home Rule biologists nor politicians.

   Leif Fontain, a fisherman and hunter from Si­si­mi­ut/Hol­steins­borg, is the chairman of KNAPK, the Organisation of Fishermen and Hunters in Greenland. In an article in the Greenland newspaper AG/Grøn­lands­pos­ten on January 9, 2001 he described hunters' attitudes to biologists and politicians. His comments appeared in a large article entitled: 'Wildlife, management, sustainability, and neo-colonialism in Greenland'. Here are some excerpts:

'() History tells us that wildlife in our country has always been sought after. In the period after Greenland became a Danish colony a warlike situation existed with the colonial powers over the question of whaling. Even the Danish kings of the time did not hesitate to threaten inhabitants with extermination if they didn't catch more seals, so that he could earn more on seal blubber. Colonial powers needed more of the oil extracted from blubber to light their countries. Additionally, prospects of mineral riches have also always interested colonial powers. 

 In these modern decades, there are modern people in a modern (neo-colonial) society such as lawyers, economists, biologists, journalists and other well-meaning folks, who oppose the hunting of wild animals principally on the grounds of cruelty to animals, animal welfare and the danger of wild animal extinction.

    By splitting the complete picture into separate components, for example the food chain in Greenland, biologists in the Institute of Natural Resources of Greenland are arguing in favour of a peripheral case, which arouses fanatical concern in today's modern world namely that unfortunate sweet animals should have the right to survive so that modern people and intelligent animals can be showcased side by side in perfect harmony.

 It is worth noting that this publicity provides an excellent illustration of the extent to which Greenland's ecosystems are determined and prioritised by needs and pressure coming from the outside world. In this debate not a single fisherman or hunter's voice has been heard. There should be no mistaking the intentions! The surrounding world and modern democracies will once more instruct us what to do. I contend that this is simply just another example of modern colonialism. To a large extent, if our rulers give in to outside pressures and introduce sanctions along top-down management lines, it would be another example of post colonialism. (...)'

Wildlife conservation is lagging behind

Regulating the pressure on hunting is one way to safeguard biological diversity; protection of animals' habitats is another. By protecting their important breeding grounds and the locations where they congregate and feed animals will be safeguarded against hunting and catching. The safeguarding of biotopes, where animals can breed in peace, also allows the possibility for hunting to continue.

 In this field Greenland's wildlife management is lagging far behind. Actually, one of the least used laws in Greenland is the 1980 Parliament Law no. 11 concerning wildlife conservation. This law has been in the process of revision for years with as yet no indication as to when the process will be completed.

   True, 43 per cent of the total Greenland area is covered by a single conservation measure for the protection of the North Greenland National Park, which is the world's largest conservation area. This preservation dates right back to 1974, when the Danish Parliament voted to protect this enormous area after recommendations by Greenland's Provincial Council. This area is invaluably important for such species as: Walrus, Polar Bear, Musk Ox, Goose, Wader and many other life forms.

   But, in reality it is not this uninhabited high-arctic zone where development of modern Greenland is excerpting most pressure. On the contrary, the majority of people live in the lowarctic zone and this is where most of the pressure on wildlife is taking place today.

   By contrast, wildlife protection is minimal in these populated areas. Outside the North Greenland National Park's boundaries less than 3 per cent of Greenland is covered by preservation orders, and these also include marine areas.

   For example, in 1998 it was in the low-arctic zone that the Greenland Home Rule Government gave German car manufacturer Volkswagen permission to build a 35-kilometre gravel road from Kang­er­lus­su­aq/Søn­dre Strøm­fjord into the inland ice through a reindeer wilderness. Volks­wa­gen will construct a further 100 kilometres of test tracks, together with a hotel and workshops, for testing new car models under extreme conditions. The German corporation has invested a three-figure million sum so far, but otherwise information about the test facility is very thin on the ground.

   The go-ahead for the entire project was given in 1998 without any kind of environmental evaluation. With the exception of the German project's operators and the Greenland Home Rule Government, access to the site is strictly prohibited to all including Greenlanders and everyone else for that matter.

There are a total of only seven large conservation areas in Greenland. The table below shows the distribution of land, sea and ice areas.

Hunting laws what hunting laws?

Apart from the conservation areas mentioned above there are 12 birdlife sites that have access restrictions. These are spread along 2,200 kilometres of coast stretching from Qaa­naaq/Thu­le in the north to Qa­qor­toq/Jul­ia­ne­håb in the south. These include specific cliffs and islands with breeding colonies of Guillemot, Eider Duck and Arctic Tern. Landing at, or approaching the sites within 500 metres is forbidden in the period 1 June to 31 August. Nonetheless, most restrictions are openly flouted.   

   These regulations are only applied in a few municipalities. In Uper­na­vik, for example, prohibited access signs have been put up at the four birdlife conservation sites, with access controlled by a gamekeeper. Regulations are infringed on a massive scale in other municipalities, for example at Saat­tu­ar­su­it near Grøn­ne Ej­land and on the Ydre Kit­sis­sut island group in southern Greenland.

   A prime example of the consequences of this lack of respect for conservation laws can be found on the 1,070 metre-high Salleq bird cliff the only protected location in the Uum­man­naq municipality. Sal­leq was once home to an enormous colony of Guillemot, numbering an estimated 150,000 members in 1949. Since 1989 the colony has been extinct the result of illegal summer hunting and egg collection.

   Regulations also preclude shooting and making unnecessary noise[CW1]  within 5 kilometres of all bird cliffs with their populations of Guillemot, Razorbill, Black Guillemot, Little Auk, Black-legged Kittiwake, Northern Fulmar, and Cormorant. The same regulations also apply within 200 metres of low islands with breeding populations of Common and King Eider Duck, Black Guillemot, Tern and seagulls other than Kittiwake.

   This is probably the most flouted regulation of the few official attempts made to protect birdlife during the breeding season. Over the past years (see page 29 ff.) there are countless accounts, observations and sightings documented in several reports amongst others from the Institute of Natural Resources in Greenland, and in many newspaper articles that confirm this lack of respect for the laws governing access and hunting restrictions shown by hunters, leisure hunters and others in Greenland. 'Hunting rules only apply within sight of a township', is the popular justification for this attitude.

Denmark's Nelsonian blind spot

Ultimately, 11 sites in Greenland totalling 15,458 km² have been categorised under the Ramsar Convention as Wetlands of International Importance.

   The Convention on Wetlands, signed in Ramsar, Iran, in 1971, is an intergovernmental treaty which provides the framework for national action and international cooperation for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources. There are presently 128 Contracting Parties to the Convention, with 1095 wetland sites. Only 28 of these lie within the artic climate zone: 5 in Spitsbergen, 7 in Siberia, 4 in Ca­na­da, 1 in Alas­ka and 11 in Greenland.

   The sites in Greenland have to comply with the Convention's aims for their protection, and especially in relation to birdlife. Although the 11 sites were identified in 1987, they have never been legitimised under Greenland law. This has meant that hunting, trapping and access remain unregulated.

   However, a small proportion of Greenland's Ramsar sites are protected by other legislation. Two areas, Hoch­stet­ter For­land and Ki­len comprising a total of 2,961 km², are situated within the North Greenland Na­tio­nal­ Park and are thus covered by the special regulations applying there. But these regulations offer no protection against mineral and oil exploration and extraction. Additionally, hunters from Il­loq­qor­to­or­mi­ut/Sco­res­by­sund are still allowed to hunt in the North Greenland National Park for Polar Bear in the traditional way.

   Three other areas are partially or completely protected by hunting laws covering breeding sanctuaries.

  The non-implementation of the Ramsar Convention has had serious consequences. Two important wildlife areas, both included on the Ramsar list, have been denuded of their outstanding birdlife.

   Uncontrolled hunting and fishing for scallops has driven 30,000 King Eider Duck out of the Aqaj­a­rua-Sul­lor­su­aq area in Disko Bay. This happens to be Canada-Greenland's most important moulting site for the combined populations of King Eider Duck in the western Arctic region. The Aqaj­a­rua-Sul­lor­su­aq site comprises 224 km^2.

   The other area is Grøn­ne Ej­land in Disko Bay, which was once home to the world's largest breeding colony of Arctic Tern, comprising between 80,000 and 100,000 breeding pairs. Unchecked egg collection, hunting and other disruptions have driven the birds away. The Grøn­ne Ej­land area covers 69 km².

 This non-implementation over the past 14 years is a clear violation of the Ramsar Convention's rules. According to Nick Davidson, Deputy Secretary General, of the Ramsar Secretariat in Switzerland, implementation has to be carried out within six years of a site being designated.

 In real terms the 11 Ramsar designated sites in Greenland, which officially comprise approximately 1.5 million hectares an area twice the size of the Danish island of Zealand have only existed in theory. No administrative plans, conservation rules, traffic regulations or other forms of legal protection have ever been drawn up in relation to the Convention's articles for the prevention of designated locations and their wildlife content.

   Even though it is common knowledge that Greenland has not fulfilled the terms of the agreement, and that birdlife was known to have vanished in numerous locations, Denmark's National Forest and Nature Agency, as the designated Ramsar Administrative Authority, has turned a Nelsonian eye on the Convention's non-implementation.

   According to Nick Davidson, the Danish National Forest and Nature Agency is the designated Ramsar Administrative Authority for Denmark and Greenland, and is responsible for reporting on progress and deterioration of the sites, including those in Greenland. Yet, despite this fact, the Ramsar Secretariat in Switzerland has never heard that there might be problems in Greenland.

   But the National Forest and Nature Agency in Copenhagen denies ultimate responsibility. Jens Pe­ter Si­mon­sen, Deputy Director, confirms that Denmark is a signatory to the Ramsar Convention, and that the National Forest and Nature Agency is the designated authority reporting on implementation status. But he passes the buck over to the Greenland Home Rule Government. Jens Pe­ter Si­mon­sen states that it is the Home Rule government that is responsible for sites in Greenland, and that the National Forest and Nature Agency merely passes the information on without taking a position as to whether this tallies with the actual situation on the ground.

In June 1999 the Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum of the Greenland Home Rule Government issued a set of 'Rules for fieldwork and reporting regarding mineral resources (excluding hydrocarbons) in Greenland'. This publication identifies a considerable number of important wildlife sites. Because they host sizeable bird populations, all the non-implemented Ramsar sites are included on the list. However, despite being identified by the Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum none are covered by Greenland's legislation. There are restrictions, for example applying to helicopter flights and other traffic, for ensuring that wildlife is disturbed as little as possible in the designated areas. These rules only apply to the exploration for raw materials.

The rising tide of international criticism

While Beluga Whale and Walrus populations have disappeared from the waters around Greenland, and the enormous bird colonies teeming with life fall silent, a new chorus of voices is making itself heard both in and outside Greenland. This criticism comes from organisations like NAMM­CO, CAFF, ICES, JCCM, RAM­SAR, CI­TES, WWF, DOF, Bird­Li­fe In­ter­na­tio­nal and other environmental organisations, commissions and international partners.

   Greenland is on the point of being identified as the Arctic's black sheep, or a Nordic equivalent to Malta where anything that moves is shot.

   'Friends' also raise their eyebrows. Canada has repeatedly voiced its criticism about the management of Common and King Eider Duck, and is especially concerned about small whales. In autumn 2000 Iceland placed the Brünnich's Guillemot on its Endangered Species list in a direct reference to alleged over exploitation of Icelandic breeding birds at their wintering sites in Greenland.

   Officially, up to now, Denmark has said very little, but behind the scenes the Ministry of Environment and Energy is increasingly alarmed. The reduction of wildlife in Greenland is viewed with concern. The government and Danish Parliament will hardly be able to keep all this under wraps for much longer because Denmark is Greenland's principal sponsor in this skewed development via an annual block grant of DKK 2.8 billion. The paymaster is also responsible for how the money is used. In fact Danish taxpayers pay 80 per cent (1998) of the running costs of the Greenland Home Rule Government, equivalent to a subsidy of DKK 50,000 for every man, woman and child in Greenland.

 But the most disturbing aspect for Greenland's society is the burgeoning international criticism. As the international community tunes in to what is happening in Greenland, critical media disclosures will arouse violent indignation. Only this time it is about much more than baby seals, Brigitte Bardot or Greenpeace. The myth  of the sustainable Inuit is heading for a fall.

From Kayak to Yamaha

How has it come to this?

"The crazy persecution of this magnificent bird resulted in its astronomical number being sharply reduced over a period of time something that was almost inconceivable given the numbers of these birds. Finally, after many and considerable obstacles were overcome, the birds were totally protected during the breeding season along the entire coastline."

Knud Oldendow, Greenland the country and its people in our time (Grøn­land Folk og Land i vore Dage), 1936. Knud Oldendow  was born in south Greenland. Later he became section head in the Greenland Administration.

This consistent over exploitation representing more than a century of predatory extermination is the real reason behind the loss of Greenland's magnificent wildlife over the years.

   But, in terms of flesh and blood what do words like 'over exploitation' or 'ruthless exploitation' really mean?

   The following passages provide a snapshot of what actually lies hidden behind the many abstract words and terms that can be read in a plethora of scientific reports on the need for 'sustainable exploitation' of living resources in Greenland.  The accounts demonstrate that even well disciplined biologists can be shocked, when directly confronted with Greenland hunters' mindless treatment of the last remnants of biodiversity of former times.

   In the summer of 1998 a biologist from the Institute of Natural Resources in Greenland was engaged in fieldwork south of Uper­na­vik. He described the observations that he had noted in his diary to the Greenland newspaper Ser­mit­si­aq, September 25, 1998. The title of the article read: Just another ordinary day at the King­it­toq bird cliffs?

   The following passages represent a comprehensive extract:

'Friday July 17, 1998. We wake early, the sun is shining and temperatures in the tent have risen to undreamt levels. We are just south of Uper­na­vik, west of King­it­toq, which is the largest of the four remaining Guillemot colonies in southern Upernavik. We are here, today and for the next 11 days, to carry out research on how Guillemots are doing. Since their introduction in 1989, have the tighter hunting regulations had a beneficial effect, or is the trend continuing in the direction of a drastic fall in population sizes, in the same way as the last 25 years?  

    Today the only thing we know for certain is that there are 10 fewer breeding birds to count than yesterday. The birds were shot late yesterday evening close to King­it­toq. We were somewhat outraged because the birds are supposedly protected by a conservation order at the present time. But, all things considered, it was only 10 Guillemots and Upernavik's inhabitants are only allowed to shoot Guillemots for just a short season so who can blame them if they occasionally shoot a few Guillemots in the close season. ()

Tuesday July 21. () Today we can confirm that some of the Guillemots are bringing food back in their beaks eggs are also beginning to hatch. Guillemot pairs will be busy in the coming 3-4 weeks, because every breeding pair now has an extra mouth to feed. For approximately 100 Guillemots this task will be impossible. These are the 100 Guillemots that lost their mates yesterday evening. Three boats were out shooting simultaneously and in less than two hours the damage was done. We feel frustrated on behalf of the Guillemots. Single parents remain looking after their eggs or chicks, waiting in vain to be relieved. At some point hunger will force them to abandon their offspring, imposing an immediate death sentence on the hatchlings in question. The egg or chick's temperature will quickly fall and it is only a matter of time before the embryo or chick dies or is taken by a Glaucous Gull. We are keeping our fingers crossed in the hope that yesterday evening's episode was an exception actually number two. On our way back to camp we had to kill two Guillemots and two Black-legged Kittiwakes to put them out of their misery. They were perched huddled up on flat rocks at the base of the cliff maimed but not dead.

 Friday July 24. () There has been shooting again this evening near King­it­toq 40 shots were fired close to King­it­toq in a 35-minute burst with 26 Guillemots killed. However, 6 of those were shot for no particular reason and were simply left to float in the water, dead or half-dead. These incidents are beginning to seem preposterous to us. It is bad enough that these people apparently have no intention of complying with hunting regulations, shooting breeding birds and in the process sentencing not only this years offspring to death, but also their offspring for the next 10, 15 or 20 years to come. But furthermore, if they do not even respect the spoils they shoot, not bothering to retrieve them then, yes, something is drastically wrong.

Saturday 25 July. () Unfortunately our work was interrupted. Some of the birds have been frightened off the cliff by volleys of shots. Also, it is the same two boats that we saw operating together five days ago. Having discovered our presence near the cliff, the shooting stops for a while and the hunters appear obviously somewhat bewildered. We headed for camp and had hardly tied up our rubber dinghy before the shooting started again this time 26 shots and 13 hits. That evening a new boat, obviously sailing through, arrived in the area and promptly despatched 6 Guillemots with 26 shots. We begin to realise that these events we are witnessing are not uncommon just a thoroughly ordinary occupation on a completely ordinary day at King­it­toq.

Sunday July 26. A thick fog hangs cold and damp like a heavy shroud over the camp near King­it­toq. Not one bird is visible. We chat about this and that and try to ignore the somewhat depressive mood that often accompanies this type of weather. A positive benefit of the fog is that the Guillemots can be at peace for a while.

    However, this illusion is shattered in the afternoon. First 70 shots ring out, then 13 more. Later still, with visibility down to 2-300 metres, shots really start in earnest. Bullets are whizzing everywhere and we are forced to intervene with a VHF call to the boat. Our call-up is met with silence, but the firing stops abruptly. We crawl back into our sleeping bags and try to forget another ordinary day near King­it­toq.

Monday July 27. Our last day. We are busy packing up camp. The Guillemot study has gone well and we can now go home and complete the work. Provisional results indicate that Guillemot numbers in Upernavik's southern colonies have declined sharply. Exactly by how much will only become apparent when we factor in data on natural variation. A continued decline is expected. During the time we were there, 3-4 per cent of the breeding population was shot with 4-5 per cent of offspring lost as a result of this hunting.

    Finally, we finished packing up and, with the boat loaded, we are on the point of casting off, when we heard a dinghy on the other side of the fjord. Its owner was in the process of bagging a couple of Guillemots while they are still around. I wondered whether the expedition's final day might really be the last thoroughly ordinary day I will experience near King­it­toq?'

Dreams of arctic paradise

The biologist's account of his experiences at King­it­toq finds endless repetition in countless different ways along the length and breadth of Greenland's rocky coastline. Eye-witnesses' accounts make for salutary reading: hunters pumping gun shots into huge whales with no earthly hope of killing them, hunters cruising around in motorboats shooting down seagulls without bothering to stop and collect the kill, and even hunters killing walruses merely for the skull's sake, and then allowing the carcasses to rot.

  Scientific reports over the last fifty years have accumulated in stacks, metres thick, all reaching the same conclusion: wildlife in Greenland is disappearing to the point of extinction.

   The determining factor is quite simply Greenlanders' unwillingness, or inability to regulate catches at a sustainable level.

   Very few people outside Greenland have heard about the apocalyptic abuse of this enormous country's living resources. In a world where most peoples' images are limited to media coverage of Frederik, crown prince of Denmark sledging through magnificent uninhabited East Greenland with the Sirius patrol in 2000, it is hard to understand that this dazzling-picture-postcard landscape represents only one side of reality.       

   And when facts threaten to change our dream image we mobilise the additional force of psychological aversion. There is no doubt that idealised representations of an unspoilt Greenlandic paradise are deeply entrenched in the hearts of most people. Even experienced parliamentarians, professional journalists, and scientifically trained men and women appear to avert their gaze when the unpleasant aspects of Greenland society sail into view.

   The man in a kayak with raised harpoon, the camouflaged hunter, inching across the ice, the woman flensing a seal on the beach holding the traditional ulo we all have our own image of a Greenland Eskimo in our minds' eye. Yet we continue to cling to these traditional images of Greenlanders despite the advent of Yamaha engines, fibreglass dinghies, Remington rifles, snow-scooters, GPS navigators, helicopters and Tenson clothing.

   We seem to want to keep this dream of an unspoilt Greenland alive in our hearts. This explains why so many of us simply close our eyes to the depressing sides of Greenland society: the terrible social problems, the deficient democracy, and wholesale destruction of living resources.

   Many of Greenland's politicians, trade unionists, business leaders and intellectuals still willingly play a role that fits into the picture-postcard image of this unspoilt virgin land, way up north. But they may be doing more damage than good to their country? Problems do not disappear simply by a process of collective denial. Or, put another way: the numbers of Beluga Whale, Walrus, Greenland Halibut, Scallop, Eider Duck and Brünnich's Guillemot will not increase by merely arguing that biologists have got it wrong.

   In addition there are demographic and technological changes that have affected Greenland society over the last 100 years. These also exert a pull in the wrong direction in relation to Greenland's old hunting society. All modern societies have been subjected to these developments but most countries have managed the process of change without squandering all their living resources.

   Today's Greenland is a modern society, which unhesitatingly takes advantage of the latest technology: for example, 35 per cent of all homes in Greenland boast a PC. But, the management of living resources still occurs as if Greenland hunters were paddling their kayaks, and using harpoons and feathered darts as in the days of yore, when wildlife resources seemed inexhaustible and the population was far smaller than now.

The population explosion

Greenland's population in the twentieth century increased more than four-fold. Around 1900 there were just 11,621 Greenlanders, but their numbers have grown to 49,369 by 2000. The greatest growth occurred in a ten-year period from 1960-1970, when the population increased by approx. 8,000.

   Today, in line with other modern societies annual growth is modest, at less than 1 per cent.

Population of Greenland 1901-2000. Source: Statistics Greenland.

Problems particularly exist on the west coast. These are closely connected to the fact that this is where the population and much of the living resources is concentrated. Of the 49,369 people making up the Greenland population (2000) only 6.6 per cent, or 3,258 inhabitants, live in East Greenland's two municipalities.

   Greenland's 17 towns are currently home to 81.5 per cent of the population, while 16.5 per cent live in 59 settlements. The remaining 2 per cent live on sheep farms, or at fishery and hunting stations. Over the last 30-40 years the population has been concentrated in towns. This is an ongoing trend.

   The Nuuk/God­thåb area is the biggest magnet. In 2000, a quarter of the population (24.6 per cent) lived in the capital. Ten years earlier the corresponding figure was 22.8 per cent.

Growth of population in towns: Number of inhabitants (born in Greenland) in the Nuuk/God­thåb municipality area, 1970-2000.

* Add 3,213 persons born outside Greenland to this figure.

On the face of it, although mistakenly, one might be led to believe that concentrating the population in just a few towns would be advantageous for animal and birdlife, simply because the abandonment of dwellings and settlements would result in a greater number of uninhabited areas.

 This has not happened, mainly for two reasons.

 Firstly, towns have many more consumer durables on offer. The hunter and his family naturally want to have their share of these items. To satisfy this need today's hunting income has to be on a far larger scale in comparison to the times when hunting culture was purely a question of survival for those living in remote areas. This is why hunting expeditions are more frequent and as living resources diminish they last longer.

 Secondly, mobility has played a decisive role. Assisted by motorboats, snow-scooters and modern telecommunications the limitations once imposed on hunters by kayak, umiak and dog sled, vanished long ago. Other developments include commercial buying  of kills Beluga Whale and Brünnich's Guillemot for example by trading vessels and shore facilities. This also increases the pressure on living resources.

Kayaks in museums of the imagination

Although far too often forgotten the winds of change have been blowing through Greenland's hunting culture for more than half a century. Just read the 1952-53 yearbook published by the Danish Tourist Association, which chose to bring Denmark's northern colony under the spotlight that year. Writing about jobs and occupations in Greenland under the heading 'From kay­ak to cutter' (remember the year was 1952), the book's editor, ­Kjeld Rask Ther­kild­sen noted:

'() Although it is an increasingly rare occurrence, even today some Greenlanders still set out in their fragile, graceful kayaks to gather food for the family. Where previously hunters glided silently forward between rocks and ice floes with feathered darts and harpoons at the ready, now fishermen set their nets and lines to the throbbing sound of motor and fishing boats' engines reverberating round the grey cliff walls ().' 

In just 60 years, the number of motorboats in Greenland has risen 20-fold. Simultaneously, and particularly since 1960, better and more powerful engines have arrived on the market above all outboard motors. Consequently today, any professional or leisure hunter with a fast speedboat can cover in a couple of hours the same distance that previously took his father several days to complete.

   This means that the very smallest corners of West Greenland's deep fiords are accessible. Even remote islets out in the skerries places that would otherwise never be visited are exploited today. Despite their remoteness from human habitation, no trout stream, Eider Duck colony, White-tailed Eagle eyrie or bird cliff is free from predators. Along that part of Greenland's coastline stretching from Na­nor­ta­lik in the south right up to a couple of hundred kilometres north of Uper­na­vik i.e. along the entire southern and western coastline one town or settlement starts where another's boundaries end. Stretching for more than 1,800 kilometres, this coastline today forms one unbroken hunting ground, through which an armada of motorboats sail daily.

A vast hunting ground

A 1989 census of motorboats in the Uper­na­vik municipality where at that time 2,361 people lived counted 407 motorboats, mostly powered by outboard engines. This corresponded to one motorboat for every 5-6 inhabitants.

Number of motorboats in Greenland, 1939-1999.

Source: Wildlife protection in Greenland. Technical report no. 29, 2000, Institute of Natural Resources of Greenland.

The use of modern motorboats has led to a dramatic increase in the range covered by west Greenland hunters. Using a speedboat fitted with an 85 HP outboard engine just about every ice-free area along the west coast of Greenland can be reached from a town or settlement within three hours. The large circles indicate the range from towns (3 hours sailing time at 20 knots). The small circles indicate the range from settlements (3 hours sailing time at 10 knots). Source: Technical report no. 20, 1998, Institute of Natural Resources of Greenland.

In recent times many more Greenlanders have become interested in building cabins in the open countryside, mainly up the fjords. These are basically small buildings (30-50 m²), used very much like summerhouses in Denmark. During the holidays and at weekends, people sail by boat to their cabins, where they relax with a bit of fishing and hunting.

   Littering an open landscape with cabins is not the problem. For example, even though there are hundreds of them along the Nuuk/God­thåb fiord they are hardly visible in the huge landscape. The biggest problem is that they actually contribute to increasing the range covered by hunting and fishing activities. Amongst other things many local stocks of Arctic Char have been severely affected.

   Swarms of pleasure boats and part-time hunters around the larger towns and settlements force professional hunters to operate even further afield. This means that hunters also visit remote, previously undisturbed areas more frequently.

Modern times

Without a shadow of doubt many fishermen and hunters have understood the consequences of the dramatic increase in hunting pressure but most keep their mouths shut.

   After all, it is also difficult to advocate restricting one's own occupation especially when having to provide a family with food, a centrally heated house with mains electricity, telephone, TV and running water as well. Then there are overheads to cover: the cost of fishing tackle, dinghy, outboard engine, various firearms, ammunition and fuel, not to mention the cash required for the purchase of smart clothes for the kids, video films, modern furniture and if possible a winter holiday somewhere south.

 Hunters are no exception: lots of bills need paying every month, and increasing numbers of Beluga Whales will need to be sold to keep up families' living standards. Wildlife pays a terrible price, because a professional hunter returning to port every other day with a haul of possibly 50 Guillemots will be lucky to get DKK 1,000 for his efforts.

   Previously, hunters only needed to hunt for food, clothes and the few other essential items needed for life on the settlement. But now hunters need to earn money to buy some of those tempting modern consumer goodies that even Greenlanders find attractive after all, we do! Hunting's raison d'être has moved from a question of survival to being a business.

   This is probably why so many fishermen and hunters keep their misgivings to themselves, concentrating instead on grabbing their share of the living resources before the party ends. Others blindly ignore all the data and vociferously deny that problems exist. Their views receive support from KNAPK, which consistently opposes any recommendation of restrictions in blazingly rhetorical terms.

   And it is not just the 2,569 registered professional hunters who have raised the tempo. Many employed Greenlanders still regard themselves as 'hunters'. There are 8,094 leisure hunters who also want to hunt, shoot and fish in their spare time.

   For many Greenlanders hunting remains an extremely important part of their life quality and identity. One example of this attitude was neatly expressed by Henrik Lund, the colourful mayor of the Qa­qor­toq/Jul­ia­ne­håb municipality, who retired from politics in April 2001. Apart from a spell of 4 years Henrik Lund had been king of the town since 1975. Asked what he would be doing now that he was retiring, he promptly replied: I hope to have more time to hunt Razorbills.­

   Finally, the 'in­dus­tri­a­li­sation' of catches should not be forgotten. In the colonial era up to 1980 it was the Royal Greenland Trade Department (KGH), which set the rules governing the economic exploitation of living resources. Subsequently, the Greenland Home Rule Government has trudged along KGH's well-worn sledge trail, without so much as a sideways glance as to whether living resources are able to support this rising exploitation or whether the exploitation is at all commercially viable.

   The old KGH has simply been re-branded under names like Ro­yal Gre­en­land A/S, Nuka A/S and Gre­at Gre­en­land A/S. By and large these companies manage the purchasing, processing and export of all living resources in the country. These Home Rule Government owned companies receive annual subsidies running to millions of Danish kroner. Nevertheless, they operate at a loss.

   In the financial year 1999/2000 the largest of these companies, Ro­yal Gre­en­land A/S, had a turnover of in excess of DKK 3.5 billion. But profits were a meagre DKK 11 million. The previous year's profits had been no better a measly DKK 10 million. Even these modest returns fail to take into account the cost of servicing the interest.

   The Greenland Home Rule Government owns 100 per cent of Ro­yal Gre­en­land A/S and, amongst other things, it uses the company as an instrument for developing the labour market in Greenland. To this end, Ro­yal Gre­en­land A/S is subsidised by the provincial treasury and here we are not talking of small change. For the financial year 1999/2000 the subsidy amounted to DKK 57 million.

   But despite all this patronage, including a total subsidy of DKK 269 million for the period 1998-2002, Ro­yal Gre­en­land A/S is heavily debt-stricken to the tune of nearly DKK 3 billion. This is equal to the amount that Greenland receives from Denmark in annual block grants. There will be little room for any talk of sustainable exploitation if this debt is to be repaid from profits extracted from Greenland's living resources.

The fateful story of the Eider Duck

Travelling several hundred years back in time would be the only way of experiencing the reality that lies behind the myth of an unspoilt Greenland.

  Over exploitation began from the dawn of time. Even the earliest explorers wrote of rotting mounds of meat as a common feature at Inuit settlements. In modern times professional hunters are simply carrying forward the centuries-old tradition of taking any, and every, hunting opportunity whether an animal is needed or not.

   Thousands of seal carcasses are dumped back into the sea after skinning, and whale meat by the ton is simply abandoned on the ice once the tasty (and valuable) mattack has been flensed away. Having been shot Musk Oxen are incinerated, and walrus carcasses are left lying after hunters have hacked off the heads with their large tusks. That is today's hunting reality.

   In terms of meat-weight volumes Greenland's hunters kill birds and mammals in quantities that correspond to at least one and a half times the population's total meat consumption. (See also p. 129, Meat consumption in Greenland.)

   The fate of the Eider Duck is one of the best-documented examples of how wanton over exploitation wrecked stocks hundreds of years ago, when levels were far greater than they are today. This decimation was already complete some 160 years ago, and although Eider reproduce at a faster rate than Brünnich's Guillemot, large colonies have never re-established themselves across most of Greenland. Migratory Canadian Eiders currently comprise a significant proportion of birds taken by hunters.

   Unremittingly intensive hunting, unregulated collection of down and eggs together with other intrusions at nesting sites have effectively prevented numbers from picking up again. The Eider Duck has a far better reproductive rate compared to the Brünnich's Guillemot, laying 3-6 eggs to the Guillemot's one. Denmark, amongst others, has shown that the introduction of hunting restrictions and the establishment of breeding sanctuaries is quickly rewarded by increased numbers of Eider.

   Stocks were already overexploited in 1906 when Ras­mus ­Müller published his 519-page opus 'Wildlife and hunting in Southern Greenland'. ­Müller was the colony manager for Jul­ia­ne­håb, God­thåb, Hol­steins­borg and several other areas, and he went to great lengths in his book to show that continuous all-year-round Eider hunting occurred everywhere. By using documents such as accounts ledgers showing the quantity of eider down purchased during the 1800's, ­Müller proved that stocks had probably already collapsed before 1900!

  But read for yourself what ­Müller wrote in 1906 about the Eiders:

'No other bird is as profitable for Greenlanders as the Eider Duck; the eggs and meat provide them with food, feathers and down provide them with money for other necessities of life, and the skins with down attached yield an excellent fur, which is partly used for clothes and partly turned into those highly-prized rugs. But nevertheless no other bird is so shamefully mistreated by them. On every windward headland that the birds have to pass on their morning and evening flights, a sharp shooter sits waiting, while out to sea Greenlanders lie in wait in kayaks and boats, blasting away at them. Exactly the same thing happens during the spring and autumn migrations. They seek out the places in kayaks where the birds dive for food then shoot or kill them with feathered darts. Even when the birds take refuge on the beaches hunters lying in ambush guarantee them a warm reception. In short, the birds get absolutely no peace anywhere, except in those remote places, which Greenlanders cannot reach during the winter. Luckily, there are many such places otherwise the Eider would certainly be extinct by now.

  Although, and especially in recent years, the number of Eider kills has undoubtedly been considerable, their numbers would scarely have diminished if the birds had been left in peace during the breeding season. Systematic destruction and disturbances during the breeding season are the main causes for the large decline in the number of birds, even thogh many have sought out alternative and more peaceful breeding sites. Greenlanders are not just content to plunder the nests once because the Eider lays 2-3 eggs, this practice might just be acceptable if birds were allowed to brood the second or third egg undisturbed but instead they raid the nests two or three times, as often as the bird can lay eggs, leaving not a single egg behind. And even chicks recently hatched from their shells, fledgelings found in the nests, which are worthless as food, even these are taken home for the hunter's children to play with. Mother ducks are shot near, and on their nests, rifled away from chicks irrespective of age. The birds literally cannot breed in peace except in those places inaccessible to Greenlanders. These are few and far between because hunters' kayaks and umiaks sail along the entire coastline and into all the fiords all summer long.'  

Müller painstakingly researched the ledgers showing the annual purchases of Eider down in the nineteenth century. Two interesting facts emerge when comparing figures from specific years and various municipalities:

   In the early 1800's far more Eider Ducks were breeding in southern Greenland compared to the more northerly areas. Today the reverse situation applies. At the same time, throughout the century, numbers declined sharply both south and north. Between 1822-31 the average annual sale by weight of Eider down was 9,167 pounds. In the period 1887-1896, as the turn of the century approached, this annual average had declined to only 940 pounds.

   Polar explorer Lau­ge Koch is another contemporary witness who described how, in the present northwest Greenland, Greenlanders destroyed countless Eider colonies at the beginning of the twentieth century. At that time people were migrating northwards from Uparnavik and it was the Eider that suffered the consequences. Lau­ge Koch wrote about this exploitation in an article published in Information on Greenland (1945), part of which is quoted below:

'Without the authorities noticing it, this population exterminated numerous eiderduck colonies on the outer islands between Tasiusak and Holms Ø. In the period 1916-23 the present author had the opportunity to observe this migration. Quite commonly a family chose an island with eiderduck colonies for its summer camp site. This was of course very destructive to the eiderduck colonies of the islands. I have often visited Eskimo families in the winter who had catched several thousand eiderduck eggs, which were used as food for the dogs. In the early summer of 1923 I went in a motorboat to one of the outermost groups of islands within the district to examine whether eiderducks were breeding there. On my arrival I met an Eskimo family who had settled there, so even this remote eiderduck colony was going to be totally destroyed.'

According to hunting regulations still in force today for the municipalities of Ava­ner­su­aq and Il­loq­qor­to­or­mi­ut/Sco­res­by­sund the collection of Eider Duck down and eggs from nests is permitted until 25 June.

© Kjeld Hansen 2002