Arctic Yearbook 2014 - Page 238

238 Arctic Yearbook 2014 In a Statement addressed to BMP dated 21 April 2010, ICC Greenland formally lodged a complaint with the Government of Greenland stating that based on ICCs experience with the Cairn Energy Drisko West Drilling Programme, the hearing process “points to contradictory, confusing, persuasive, hurried, and possibly deceitful” practices (ICC Greenland 2010). As accounted by ICC Greenland (2010), representatives were invited on short notice to three meetings within the span of 15 days. The first two were promoted as informational only, but during the first meeting on February 1, 2010, BMP representatives left the meeting later explaining “government representatives should not be present during the meetings with others.” ICC Greenland was then questioned by representatives from Cairn Energy, the global consultancy firm Environmental Resources Management (ERM) and other industry agents, none of which had been revealed to ICC Greenland prior to the meeting, giving the impression that the meeting was something other than “informational.” The second BMP invitation was relayed by email and a phone call asking to meet again the next day on February 2. At both meetings ICC Greenland stressed that they did not consider the meetings to be a formal consultation, and that their remarks should not be included in ERMs Social Impact Assessment report (SIA). When ICC was then invited to a third meeting promoted as a “consultation” on February 15, they declined citing the short timeframe and lack of sufficient resources to properly prepare. Against ICCs insistence, ERM not only quoted, but also misquoted ICC several times throughout the SIA report. ICC Greenland noted that it was unfortunate that “time constraints and lack of financial resources” prevented them from conducting a thorough review, thus unable to make a “valuable contribution to the substance of the project.” The ICC Statement expressed broader concerns such as weakness in the broad public hearing; lengthy technical reports (greater than 50MB) that were either too big to download or too costly given the capacity of Greenland’s Internet; or non-technical summaries that leave out critical information and deemed “sloppy.” In total, based on ICC Greenland’s experience, they consider the process as a fundamental violation of human rights, not only for Inuit but also for all indigenous peoples throughout the world. Following Cairn’s discovery of oil from one of its drill holes off the shores of Western Greenland, Aqqaluk Lynge remarked, “We really need a democratic infrastructure in Greenland,” and proclaimed, “these are not in place” (George 2010). Subsequently, ICC Greenland partnered with Oceans North Canada to commission an independent review of Cairn Energy’s offshore drilling program in Western Greenland. The technical analysis conducted by Harvey Consulting (2013), argued that the Government of Greenland, specifically BMP, obscured information from public view, citing “chronic delays,” missing or redacted documentation and an overall attempt by BMP to avoid public scrutiny of the “response and contingency plans that in theory are designed to protect the public and the environment” (Inuit Circumpolar Council 2013). ICC Greenland, however, did not rely on its partnership with Oceans North Canada alone to make the point that the Government of Greenland was woefully remiss in its attention to the public consultation process. In 2012 ICC Greenland partnered with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) again to drive the point that Greenlandic authorities, which are viewed as pro-business, have largely based the decision-making process on economic gain. Gitte Seeberg, the Secretary General of WWF Dingman