Extracts from Report on the Greenpeace Meeting with Indigenous Survival International Greenland, August 30th - September 2nd"

"I do not believe it is in the best interests of Greenpeace to alienate indigenous/subsistence peoples ..... they are prepared to confront us, in a year or two I believe they will be a strong political force and initially, at any rate, they will have the press on their side"
".... we have destroyed the market for sealskins .... you are correct to criticise us and perhaps be angry with us but we've got to face reality - the market in Europe has gone"
"I do not see why Greenpeace should not accept a policy which simply leaves indigenous/subsistence peoples alone, neither promoting nor protesting their way of life"

Details of the visit
Lorraine Thorne and I travelled form London to meet Michael Nielsen in Kangerlussuaq situated on the arctic circle on Friday 30th August. Due to poor arrangement by the Greenlandic Home Rule only two could proceed to Uummannaq, and, bearing in mind the importance of the fur campaign, I chose Lorraine to accompany me further....

.....Early next morning we all departed to Niaqornat, a two hour speedboat ride. Today we saw our only kayaks, a traditional 44km kayak race with six participants. Niaqornat is a forbidding place, a village stuck on the only bit of available land in the dozens of miles of mountainous coastline. Just enough room for a huddle of about 15 houses, 82 people and seemingly ten times as many dogs. And it was cold! Everywhere seal skins, fish, whalemeat and sealmeat hanging to dry (lots more clicking cameras as we walked around trying to warm up). A village whose only electricity is from individual generators and whose water comes from melt-water from the numerous icebergs everpresent. We were immediately met by a sealer dragging in a dead seal. The TV crew just had time to set up their cameras before flensing started. We were invited to watch at close quarters and the only time I lost my temper was now, when for the umpteenth time the TV interviewer tried to get us those 10 meters closer. So many things had been set up, and so many more were still to come. Presumably the Home Rule Govt's doing? There followed a welcome from the village elder, more statements of concern, question time from the media and again it was made quite clear that Greenpeace was responsible for their future. The meeting was adjourned until 20.00 when the villagers would be invited and again a "spontaneous" request was made if we would be prepared to answer their questions. No PR today, after eating a guillemot leg (as an ornithologist I was repulsed) I declined the dry whalemeat, fresh seal steak and raw blubber and ate Lorraine's cheese.

Reflections on subsistence hunting in Greenland circa 1985
There is no doubt in my mind that the northern Greenland communities ARE subsistence hunters, they have absolutely no other means of livelihood. However, the subsistence is clearly to maintain a lifestyle that is very much modern and part of the 1980's. Without any historical perspective I could not see the impact of the harp seal campaign but it is plain that without the possibility to hunt and sell skins, the life style they are leading now cannot be maintained and must therefore decline. Furthermore, as their standard of living increases, so their population is growing thus placing an ever increasing burden on the wildlife they hunt. In other words, they are now living beyond their capabilities. They have become the victim of a change in the fur market which has so far only seen them become prosperous. Their problem is that they have no alternative unless it be exploitation of minerals and oil which will end their traditional way of life in any case and perhaps cause even greater ecological problems in the future.There is also little doubt that the Greenland Home Rule, only a government since 1979, are playing this to the hilt. The government wants independence from Denmark within the next 25 years and it is obvious that to do so they need a viable economy, at the moment that can only mean fishing and sealing, hence the importance of the fur market to Greenland. I am afraid that the Home Rule Govt are manipulating the situation and perhaps even worse, manipulating their people, Greenpeace is a very useful scapegoat for them.

So where does Greenpeace go from here? The wildlife meeting held in February in Newhaven clearly recognised the problem of Greenlandic sealing but could come to no solution other than that which we already had. However, in order to avoid confusion and controversy, Greenpeace does need a policy statement on indigenous peoples and subsistence hunting. I do not believe it is in the best interests of Greenpeace to alienate indigenous/subsistence peoples whether or not they are aspiring to reach our standard of living. They are prepared to confront us, in a year or two I believe they will be a strong political force and initially, at any rate, they will have the press on their side.

For my own part, I do not see why Greenpeace should not accept a policy which simply leaves indigenous/subsistence peoples alone, neither promoting nor protesting their way of life (unless it involves utilisation of endangered or threatened species etc) - even if that subsistence is enabling them to reach a comparable standard of living as that which we enjoy. However, there is one important proviso - if their means of living is dependent upon market forces in the (Western) world, and those market forces change for whatever reason - then they must take the consequences. In the case of Greenland the consequence is a reduced standard of living. They cannot have their cake and eat it.

APPENDIX 3
Public Meeting in Niagornat, Saturday 31st August
(extracts from transcript)

Alan Pickaver, Greenpeace:
I believe that dialogue is vital and we are prepared to enter into a dialogue to solve these problems..... What we have to do is to make sure that we in Europe and North America can alter our society while at the same time preserving yours and that we can only do if we work together. Perhaps if we had done that 7 or 8 years ago you wouldn't have your problems of today. However we must work together to make sure that that doesn't happen again. If we understand your problems and you understood ours, then we can all win.....

WWF representative, Tommy Dybro:
From what I've seen today, I feel I understand better. From WWF I can promise you we will produce information to the public, write in our magazines and perhaps appeal to the media/journalists. We would really like to support you in this difficult situation. As I have said earlier there will be no problems to wear a sealskin coat with the WWF panda......

Question from the media:
In terms of the ban in Europe, are you prepared to assist us in our marketing efforts and assist us lifting the ban?
Alan Picaver, Greenpeace (responding):
I had the privilege today of watching a kayak race so I have indeed seen a kayak. In terms of Greenpeace helping to lift the ban, that decision can only be made by our Council and I cannot answer that. Again I stress the working group and these are matters we can discuss. Again I stress Greenpeace is only one group and cannot be sure others would follow suit. In terms of lifting bans, it will not help to lift the ban. I personally believe the European market is dead, Germans, Dutch, Europeans will not wear sealskins. Lifting the ban is not the answer to your problem. However I believe other markets may exist in South America, Japan, Asia and one would hope your own Home Rule Government, who might have anticipated your problems a few years ago, would be helping you to seek out those markets........
.........we have destroyed the market for sealskins - this is true, but as I said before if we'd understood your problems seven years ago you could probably still sell your furs now. You are correct to criticise us and perhaps be angry with us but we've got to face reality - the market in Europe has gone. There is clearly a need to see this doesn't happen again either with you, with the Dene or any other indigenous peoples and Greenpeace is prepared to try and work toward that end.....
.....I will state categorically in front of Danish TV that Greenpeace is not against subsistence sealing even if the skins are sold on the market.....
.....Greenpeace did not oppose the Canadian baby seal hunt in '85, neither do we intend to next year. As far as Greenpeace is concerned that side of the hunt is over for the time being however, it is clear the Canadian commercial hunters are trying to reopen markets, trying to sell penises to Japan, skins of adults as leather. If they succeed in any of these, if the commercial hunt restarts for any reason, Greenpeace will go back again. We are opposed to large scale commercial hunts for people who don't need the money.

APPENDIX 4
Public Meeting in Uummanaq, 1st September, 1985.

Question: How do you differentiate between commercial hunting and indigenous hunting?
Alan Pickaver, Greenpeace (responding): As far as Greenpeace is concerned the commercial hunt is one which is done primarily for sale to the national and international markets for fur, leather, oil. We are not opposed to the killing for seals if it done primarily for survival, and that includes sale of pelts to the international market. We have one exemption, species from endangered or threatened populations.

APPENDIX 5
First Meeting of Greenpeace with ISI (Indiginous Survival International), September 1st, 1985.

The meeting opened by the self-appointed chairman, Einer (sic!) Lemcke (Greenland Home Rule Government), reading a statement: We want you to carry the following points forward, that you actively restore the damages that have been done, that you prevent them happening in the future and that you take an active attitude for example, in general terms, by allowing indigenous peoples to determine the management of species, and not Greenpeace. Greenpeace must work to restore the damages done, with seals in particular, you must do something actively - bringing messages to the public - sealing by Inuit is necessary for their living as an integrated part of their culture. Inuits need to sell the sealskins they are not utilising themselves - consumers can buy products taken by Inuit.

APPENDIX 6

Press Conference, Uummannaq, September 1st, 1985.

Q: What is our personal opinion after visiting a hunting society?
Alan Pickaver, Greenpeace: I can certainly feel sympathy, but we've never been against Greenlandic sealing.....
Q: Do you think, Greenpeace, as a responsible party, can do something?
Alan: I do not think that Greenpeace is the responsible party.
Q: But you said in public that Greenpeace was responsible.
Alan: OK, if you said I said so, then I said so. However, there are many other parties that are responsible and I do not think Greenpeace should be the only party to be considered.
Q: Will you help the Greenlanders regain their markets?
Alan: That depends on whether the organisation ask me to. If money is put forward for the working group then we'll try to solve these problems. I'd like to say here I'm really dismayed at the type of questions you are putting forward and your tone. It's significant to me that Greenpeace is the only group here, not even World Wildlife stayed for this meeting, the only one that is positive enough to attend and put our head into the lion's mouth. And all we are getting for out trouble is flack. Why don't you put all these questions to the groups that aren't here, that refused to come. At least Greenpeace is trying to be positive.