Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Debating Nultolerance Greenland represents a new frontier for global mining companies. The thawing of permafrost and melting of ice caps are improving the accessibility of mineral deposits previously considered too expensive to exploit. Abundant mineral deposits of rare earth elements (REE), uranium, copper, and aluminium have attracted global investors and fuelled predictions of a future race to secure extractive rights. This increased commercial interest around Greenland’s resources is fuelling an on going debate around the moratorium on mining radioactive elements, such as uranium. Parliamentary Resolution (Folketingsbeslutning) nr. 103 af 29. marts 1985 formally excluded nuclear energy from the national energy grid and in 1988 , the Joint Committee on Mining in Greenland (Fællesrådet vedrørende mineralske råstoffer i Grønland) made a decision not to issue licences for uranium exploration or mining. Whether what is called the ‘zero tolerance’ policy was debated before or after the 1988 ‘nuclear’ elections is unclear – the minutes from the Committee meeting remain classified to this day. But it is clear that the zero tolerance policy, which has been in place for almost 25 years, has been smart policy. The debate now is how to accommodate uranium in the current drive for utilising Greenland’s wealth of natural resources. Zero tolerance has both commercial and political implications. Commercially, the pressure to relax this policy is not so that companies can mine Greenland’s uranium per se, but mine its REE. REE are metals that are increasingly being used for manufacturing electronic devises used by the automotive, communications, and defence industries. China currently controls close to 97% of the world’s supply of these elements and pre-feasibility studies indicate that the Kvenefjeld project in Southwest Greenland alone could potentially supply 20% of global rare earth metals demand. The mining of REE in Greenland could be a significant game-changer for international markets and begin to break the Chinese monopoly on these minerals. The complication for Greenland is that large amounts of uranium are present along with REE. To mine REE, uranium will also have to be extracted. If Inatsisartut decides to issue a mining licence for REE, it will inevitably have to consider allowing uranium production as well. Politically, the dilemma of relaxing the policy to allow uranium extraction in Greenland is the fact that uranium is the main ingredient of the nuclear fuel cycle, which produces fuel for nuclear reactors, but also for nuclear weapons. Presently, Greenland does not have the required export controls or regulatory system to meet domestic and international obligations regarding nuclear safety, security and safeguards. In 2010 Inatsisartut began to relax its nultolerance policy by granting permission to two companies to include radioactive elements in the exploration phase while they were prospecting and exploring for REE. One suggestion to accommodate the debate has been to relax the policy to allow for the mining of uranium as a by-product - if the revenues from uranium are lower than the revenues from REE, it could be mined. This addresses the commercial interests regarding REE, but not the complex domestic and international political implications it necessarily involves. Given the rising global demand for natural resources, Greenland will be under increasing pressure to issue a mining licence for Kvanefjeld sooner rather than later. Inatsisartut will be debating the zero tolerance policy in its spring 2013 session. Whether a by-product or not, uranium mining still requires a specific regulatory body with international obligations that have to be met both by Greenland and Denmark before a mining licence for Kvanefjeld is issued – a process that will take years to put in place (global experience is a minimum of five years).Greenland could choose not to export uranium, but then it would have to deal with issues of long-term uranium storage – which also require domestic regulation. Given that the security and non-proliferation implications of uranium mining fall within the constitutional remit of Denmark’s foreign policy while Greenland has full authority for its natural resources under the 2009 Act on Self-Government, Nuuk and Copenhagen have to work together today to ensure a Kingdom-wide approach to uranium governance. France Bourgouin and Cindy Vestergaard