Greenland lawmakers grapple with how far to go to save the country’s hamlets
Some of Greenland’s smallest communities may not be self-sustaining—but lawmakers can’t agree on what their fate should be
Itilleq, in central-west Greenland, has a population of about 90. (Photo by David Stanley/Flickr, CC BY 2.0)
If there is a third rail in Greenland politics, it may be the fate of the country’s 54 hamlets — the small, remote settlements that, for many, are the essence of what it means to be Greenlandic.
The most recent lawmaker to grab hold of the issue is Aaja Chemnitz Larsen, one of the country’s two representatives in the Folketing, the Danish national assembly. In an address during the opening session earlier this month, she suggested that, in the event a hamlet was no longer viable, Nuuk should not use resources to ensure it could remain populated; instead residents should be helped to relocate to towns where there were adequate social services and infrastructure.
While there is no official definition of what constitutes a hamlet, they are typically remote settlements with less than 500 residents. The smallest has just 12. A handful have grown in population in recent years, and in some, where fishing is good, incomes are among the highest in the country.
Even so, the overall picture of hamlets is one of decline, poverty and social ills. In 1979, the year Greenland was granted home rule from Denmark, the 76 hamlets that existed at the time had an estimated collective population of 12,000, slightly less than quarter of the country’s 49,000 residents. Today, the national population has risen to 56,000, but the number of hamlet residents has fallen to just over 7,000.
“It’s appropriate to ask whether a society with 12 people can maintain the level of welfare that they expect,” Larsen said, noting that in six hamlets there is no form of law-enforcement.
In her comments from the rostrum, as well as after, Larsen chose her words carefully, underscoring, for example, that not all hamlets were the same, and, crucially, that those that weren’t viable should be allowed to die a “natural” death, by which she meant that residents would not be forced to relocate, as happened during Danish-led modernization efforts starting in the 1950s.
Even so, she has been criticized roundly for what opponents labelled a “disrespectful” and “degrading” attitude towards hamlet residents and their lifestyle.
Technically speaking, Larsen’s comments were out of line. Her party, IA, toes the political consensus in supporting Greenlanders’ right to “settle where they want,” Múte B. Egede, the party leader, said in a public reprimand. “No one,” he added “will ever be denied that right.”
Larsen had stated from the outset the comments where her own opinion, and not the party’s position, but she is not alone in suggesting that lawmakers consider the future of hamlets; one previous proposal would have wound down hamlets that had less than 100 residents, another suggested ranking which hamlets should be first in line for the resources they needed to survive, as well as coming up with an “orderly” strategy for winding down hamlets that were not able to survive.
Similarly, in 2017, Kommuneqarfik Sermersooq, the municipal authority that governs Nuuk and its associated hamlets, drew up guidelines that legislators could use when seeking to determine which hamlets should get which resources.
Asii Chemnitz Narup (no relation), a member of IA and mayor of Kommuneqarfik Sermersooq at the time the guidelines were drawn up, suggested last week in response to Larsen’s address that national lawmakers do something similar.
“Some hamlets,” she said, “are blessed by an abundance of living resources that afford them a good basis for existence. Other hamlets don’t have the same opportunity.”
This article originally appeared at Arctic Today and is republished with permission.
I would love to see an equally rational and calm conversation in Nunavut. Winding down some Nunavut hamlets is a very rational thing to do, but it isn’t going to be seriously discussed anytime soon.
I don’t mean this in an aggressive way, I’m actually curious: Which communities would be at the top of your list to “wind down”?
.
I think naturally you look at population first, which would mean Grise Fiord. I’ve never been, but from what I’ve heard it seems the residents there are fairly content. It’s also Canada’s most northerly community, which makes it somewhat of a landmark in and of itself. And it’s the gateway to Quttinirpaq National Park. I think Grise Fiord stays.
.
Next is Resolute. Well, if Grise Fiord is the gateway to Quttinirpaq, Resolute is the gateway to Grise. I guess if you wound down just one, then the other could serve both functions. I’d put Resolute on the ‘maybe’.
.
Next is Kimmirut. I’d leave Kimmirut as-is.
.
Whale Cove. Either connect it to Rankin or wind it down.
.
Chesterfield Inlet. See “Whale Cove” above.
.
Qikiqtarjuaq. One side of the Pang Pass. Gotta stay.
.
Hall Beach. Nunavut’s Walrus Capital. Gotta stay.
.
Arctic Bay. Has mining jobs.
.
Sanikiluaq. Oh poor forgotten Sanikiluaq. I don’t even know what to say, because it’s so rarely spoken of.
Kinda Baffin bias going on with your list, if you have Whale cove a hunting paradise and Chester the same, I’d also have include Kimmirut, Qikiqtarjuaq, Hall beach and Arctic Bay on the list.
Maybe Clyde also.
I was definitely thinking of Whale and Chesterfield. Encourage folks to move over the next decade or so with good relocation packages, then let the communities die a natural death. I have been told that that there are communities in the Kitikmeot in the same category, but I’m just not familiar enough with that region to have a meaningful opinion.
It is certainly an area open to study and discussion.
Sani…yes, I don’t know what to say. If the Kit folks feels isolated and ignored by the rest of Nunavut, I can only imagine what it is like in Sani.
Having spent a little time in Sani and knowing a few people there the question sometimes comes up as to why they aren’t part of Quebec. Not saying there is a consensus here but it does seem like a good question. Granted, not much can be done about that at this point.
.
Was going to write earlier and say the same about Whale and Chester.
Kimmirut, doesn’t have a real airport, close enough to Iqaluit or Cape Dorset
I’ve always found it interesting that these small communities in Greenland have such good infrastructure for their size, small place of 20 people with a deep water port, utilidor, internet and cell service that are surprisingly fast.
Very organized and clean in their layout. Such a contrast to what we are used to.
I too have noticed that, beautiful roads and walk ways, underground power lines, they do not pour gravel everywhere like we do. It sure makes the communities look so much cleaner and more natural, less dust too.
People probably show up to work there…
The Danes have a better way about them in showing how to be successful in the western world while holding onto the traditions and culture.
This being lacking in Canada where they tried to assimilate natives and kill the native in them,
Much different philosophy and we can see the difference in these two places side by side.
Night and day.