(Science|Business) Anchor Greenlanders in Arctic climate research, experts tell EU ahead of policy update

For the original publication, please click here.

The European Commission is looking to strengthen Greenland’s role in Arctic research, both as a participant in EU-funded projects and as a unique site for gathering information on climate change and critical minerals. Stakeholder groups do not disagree, but want that relationship to be more equitable, with greater involvement of indigenous groups and more of the benefits of research flowing back to the island.

This conversation is taking place in the context of heightened geopolitical tension over Greenland, not least thanks to Donald Trump’s threatened land-grab, and ongoing plans to update the EU’s Arctic policy.

On a practical level, the Commission wants to see more Greenlandic researchers involved in Horizon Europe projects. To this end, it organised a webinar in March sharing tips on making successful applications with over 60 participants, and highlighting upcoming collaborative research calls on topics of “particular strategic importance,” such as natural resources and energy.

This initiative builds on a rising trend in participation from Greenland. Under the sixth EU Framework Programme for research and innovation (FP6), Greenlandic researchers were involved in just two grants, worth €184,400. This rose to six grants, worth €1.27 million, during FP7 and 17 grants, worth €2.73 million, during its successor, Horizon 2020. 

Four years into the current programme, Horizon Europe, 14 grants have already been awarded, worth €3.19 million. Most of these projects seek to reinforce environmental knowledge on subjects ranging from wildlife conservation to geomaterials. 

But those involved in Arctic research want Greenland to receive even more support. According to Kati Lindström, vice-chair of the Polar Research Committee of the Estonian Academy of Sciences, this could include dedicated Horizon Europe calls and the addition of Arctic themes to other programmes, such as the Ocean Observation Initiative.

“National funders often copy or draw inspiration from European schemes, so if polar research is no longer mentioned in the calls as a priority area, this will translate into less funding at both the EU and national levels,” she told Science|Business.

Karen Motzfeldt, special advisor at Nuuk-based organisation Oceans North Kalaallit Nunaat, suggested introducing dedicated Arctic participation schemes or bilateral agreements for Greenlandic organisations to have a more direct, simplified access to EU financial support. 

“A genuinely co-designed EU-Greenland research partnership does not only produce knowledge,” she said. “It demonstrates, in practice, that Arctic science can remain a space for international cooperation even when geopolitical temperatures rise.” 

Research for and with Greenland

With its front-line experience of global warming, Greenland is a vital research hub for Europe and the world, informing global climate models, sea-level rise projections and observation of other environmental shifts. It is also an archive of the Earth’s environmental history, with hundreds of thousands of years of evidence held in its thick ice sheet. 

Unlike Antarctica, however, international scientific access to Greenland and the rest of the Arctic is not protected by an international treaty. This makes political stability and the goodwill of Greenlanders particularly important. 

As Danish nationals, Greenlanders are EU citizens, but Greenland as a territory is not part of the EU or its political alliances. “As this is a territory outside the European Economic Area, working with Greenland is currently different from research elsewhere in the European Arctic [which encompasses territories of the five Nordic states],” Lindström said. “The Greenlanders themselves should decide what they need and how closely they want to be affiliated with the EU,” she went on.

Greenland’s first-ever research strategy, published in January 2023, emphasises the need to anchor knowledge production more strongly in the island. For Motzfeldt, this implies promoting co-leadership in partnership agreements made with Greenlandic institutions, in order to guarantee that knowledge is produced, communicated and owned locally.

“There is a difference between research about the Arctic and research with and for the Arctic. Much existing research is designed, funded and owned from the outside, and its results are not always communicated back to Greenlandic citizens and decisionmakers,” she said. “Greenlandic institutions are competent, but do not always have the resources and access to participate on equal terms internationally. That is the structure the EU can help change.”

This is not about replacing existing collaborations, she added, but “lifting them to a new level.”

Sian Prior, lead advisor to the Clean Arctic Alliance, a coalition of campaigning non-profit organisations, believes that any new initiatives or funding streams should begin by incorporating indigenous knowledge and perspectives. “The EU should be a strong contributor to collaborative research programmes working closely with Arctic peoples and communities,” she said.

According to Lindström, however, not all countries have adequate ethical guidelines for working with indigenous minorities or on their territories. “If such financing schemes are put in place without checks and balances in the ethics and collaboration procedures, we end up with yet another extractive practice, where we are using already scarce social and infrastructural resources of the North for the benefit of the capitals,” she said.

Care is also needed to ensure that colonial attitudes to the Arctic are not perpetuated, Lindström added. “If the EU wants to be better than yet another colonial power, it needs to ensure that local organisations and populations are involved in a meaningful way.”

“This is about real mutuality,” Motzfeldt said. “The EU brings institutional weight, financing capacity and diplomatic reach. Greenland brings something equally important: a position in the Arctic grounded in self-governance, democratic legitimacy and lived experience. Neither is sufficient alone.”

Competitiveness versus climate

The Commission is currently canvassing opinion for a revision of the EU’s Arctic policy, which was adopted in 2021. The aim is to promote climate and environmental protection, particularly through research, while addressing new security and geo-economic concerns. Much of this concern centres on access to rare minerals necessary for the green transition and other critical technologies. 

Those responding to the call for evidence see a tension between these competitiveness goals and broader environmental priorities. “If structured well, science and policy goals can strengthen each other,” said Katrine Moland Hansen, director of operations at Norway’s Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center. 

“Preparing for extreme weather, rising sea levels and changing ecosystems is costly and directly affects both resilience and competitiveness,” she told Science|Business. “At the same time, climate research must keep its broader purpose. Biodiversity has value in itself, and so do the livelihoods and rights of communities, including indigenous communities in the Arctic.” 

The challenge, she added, will be “to avoid narrowing the agenda to European competitiveness alone.”

Lindström sees a greater divergence in interests. “In general, Arctic climate research will not be suitable for generating profits for shareholders, even if some tech development for cold conditions might be competitive from a strategic geopolitical perspective,” she said.

Motzfeldt agrees. “Research driven by resource interests asks different questions than research driven by scientific curiosity,” she said. “The knowledge we need most in the Arctic is not about where the minerals are. It is about what is happening to the sea ice, the ocean currents, and the communities that depend on them.”