Perceptions of public participation in impact assessment: a study of offshore oil exploration in Greenland

Abstract

Oil exploration presently takes place offshore NW of Greenland. The recent entry of the oil industry in this sparsely populated area carries the potential for radical and unpredictable societal change. To ensure local adaptation, Public participation (PP) is implemented as a legal requirement in environmental impact assessment of offshore oil exploration. However, NGOs and associations, industry and individuals in Greenland express general frustration of how PP is conducted. This paper presents an analysis of stakeholders' PP perceptions and their implications in Greenland. It is found that differences in PP purpose perceptions among stakeholders cause disagreement on what is considered good performance. Furthermore, the stakeholders disagree on the desired level of engagement. While NGOs emphasise a need for PP to influence decision-making, the public seems to accept a role as passive recipients of information about decisions already made. This leads to a discussion about the need for a more specific PP guideline based on dialogue among stakeholders, with emphasis on the cultural barriers related to power structures and communication.

Keywords::

• public participation
• environmental impact assessment
• oil
• exploration
• offshore
• Greenland

Introduction

In search of new oil and gas fields, international oil companies have turned their attention far north to the Arctic (Robertson & Pierce 2008; Nutall 2012). According to a 2008 report by the United States Geological Survey, the Greenland basin alone is estimated to contain 17 billion barrels of oil and 138.000 billion cubic feet of natural gas (Bird et al. 2008). This represents considerable amounts of what is expected to be the worlds' last unexploited reserves (Bird et al. 2008). Since 2011, a total number of 20 offshore exploration licenses have been granted west of Greenland, and seven international operators including Maersk Oil, Cairn Energy, Shell and ConocoPhillips currently undertake oil exploration activities in Greenland (Statistics Greenland 2013). At present, no commercial founds have been made (BMP 2011).

The establishment of an oil sector in Greenland will cause societal changes, challenges and opportunities for Greenlanders (Aaen 2011; Hansen & Larsen 2013). Already, public expectations for the potential benefits of oil exploration are high (Government of Greenland 2012). In general, Greenlanders are positive towards oil exploitation (Redder & Braemer 2013), but they worry about potential impacts on the natural environment and the livelihoods of the small and wide-scattered population (Hansen & Kørnøv 2010; Larsen 2011; Hansen & Hussain 2013).

Both the Government of Greenland and local NGOs seem to acknowledge that the inclusion of Greenlanders in decision-making during the early development processes is essential to secure local adaptation and achieve desired benefits (Aaen 2011; Olsen 2012). Public participation (PP) is integrated in environmental impact assessment (EIA) and social impact assessment (SIA) processes, as the authorities may require execution of public consultations as part of EIA preparations (BMP 2009, 2011). However, no specific guideline for PP exists.

The expectations to PP benefits in Greenland are in line with international EIA literature. Supporting arguments for PP include that PP may contribute to conflict mitigation, serve as a tool for information exchange and mutual learning, and as a means to avoid costly delays. In addition, PP may provide proponents access to local knowledge, concerns and preferences, and the potentially affected communities arguably gain a better understanding of the proposed project or plans, facilitating their capability to make an informed opinion (Weston 1997; Bisset 2000; George 2000; Kapoor 2001; Glasson et al. 2005; Kørnøv 2007; O'Faircheallaigh 2010). Overall, PP may lead the way to a more democratic process, where transfer of power from government to the citizens enables the public to influence the decision-making process (Kørnøv 2007; Cashmore et al. 2008; Chavéz & Bernal 2008; Lockie et al. 2008; Ottinger 2013). However, to achieve these benefits, PP must be applied effectively in EIA, which has been a central theme among EIA scholars in recent years (Glasson et al. 2005; Stewart & Sinclair 2007; Chavez & Bernal 2008; O'Faircheallaigh 2010; Weitkamp & Longhurst 2012).

In a recent investigation on the degree of active involvement of stakeholders in PP processes in Greenland by Aaen (2011), it is concluded that there is a need to discuss the purpose of PP to achieve more effective and inclusive PP in Greenland. Aaen (2011) indicates that stakeholders have different perceptions of the PP objectives and thereby different perceptions of the criteria for effective PP. These diverse interpretations of PP may arguably be caused due to the varying interests of the stakeholders (Bisset 2000; Glasson et al. 2005; O'Faircheallaigh 2010). Similarly, the varying interests create different expectations towards PP among stakeholders within offshore oil exploration in Greenland. The diverse expectations of the stakeholders are not always fulfilled, which cause barriers towards meaningful PP of the local communities (Olsen 2012). Arguably a more well-defined PP guideline would improve the basis for the Greenlandic government and authorities on which demands to set for the exploration companies in order to achieve more effective PP (Aaen 2011).

NGOs and associations in Greenland express criticism and concern over the current form, content and practice of PP. Their criticism entails lack of proper available public information and lack of transparency in the decision-making processes regarding the approval of activities. Furthermore, they call for a higher level of inclusiveness to ensure that the interest of the general public is taken into account and a sustainable development is pursued (Aaen 2011; Titussen 2011; Myrup 2012; Nutall 2012; Hansen 2013).

Morgan (2012) argues that case studies of PP in EIA can guide discussions about potential improvement of PP practice. To contribute to the discussion on how to achieve successful PP in Greenland, this paper entails a study on perceptions of purpose, tasks and desired level of PP, as well as challenges in PP by involved stakeholders in Greenland. The aim was to create an overview of these features and to gain an overview of potential implications for successful PP execution.

The paper is divided into four sections. First, the methodology, including case study and data collection, is presented. Second, the analytical framework and findings are portrayed and implications discussed. In the third section, reflections are made on issues that were captured by the analytical framework but not fully unfolded, which calls for further research to better understand the Greenland context. The final section summarises the findings and concluding remarks about potential improvement of PP in Greenland.

Methods of data collection and analysis

Data collection was carried out by the first author of this paper, who participated as observant on a public consultation tour (the tour) in April 2012, arranged by four operating oil companies: Cairn Energy, Maersk Oil, Shell and ConocoPhillips. Furthermore, the national oil company of Greenland, NUNAOIL, a carried partner in all licences, participated. These are henceforth referred to as ‘the companies’. A representative from the Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum (BMP), the formal governmental body responsible for administration of oil licenses in Greenland, and the research institution, the Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, also participated, based on recommendations from the BMP.

The tour was planned as a part of the legally required hearing process for a draft EIA (Maersk Oil 2012) as the companies planned for seismic exploration in NW Greenland during the fall of 2012.

As the investigation relies on a case study conducted in NW Greenland, the investigation does not reflect all oil exploration areas and potentially affected communities in Greenland. However, it is likely that similar practice is followed elsewhere in Greenland due to the common current legislative guidelines provided by the Greenlandic government and authorities .

As settlements in NW Greenland are small and isolated, the infrastructure is limited. A helicopter was used for transportation, and overnight stays were arranged in the larger settlements (Figure 1).

Figure 1 License Map of The Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum. Source: BMP (2013).

An overview of stakeholders included in the study is provided in Table 1. The stakeholders participating in the tour are marked with ‘*’ and categorised into four groups: (1) government officials and their advisors, (2) company representatives, (3) NGO and associations and (4) local government officials and local public (individuals living in the potentially impacted area).

Table 1 Stakeholder groups.

Stakeholder categories	Stakeholder representatives (no.)	No. of interviewees
1: Government officials and advisors	The Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum^a (1)	1
	Danish Centre for Environment and Energy^a (1)	1
2: Company representatives	Nunaoil A/S^a (2)	1
	Maersk Oil Kalaallit Nunaat A/S^a (2)	2
	Cairn Energy PLC^a (1)	4
	ConocoPhillips^a (2)	2
	Shell Greenland^a (two representatives)	0
3: NGOs and associations	KANUKOKA (The municipalities association)	1
	NUSUKA (Employers association)	1
	Inuit Circumpolar Council (Interest Organisation)	1
4: Local government officials and local public	Qaasuitsup Municipality^a	1
	Local public	166 (Questionnaire responds)

a Participants on the PC tour in NW Greenland April 2012.

The NGOs and associations included in the study did not participate on the tour. However, in line with the EIA guideline, these were addressed in the PP process (BMP 2009), wherefore their perception of PP was equally important to include in this study.

Data collection during the tour included two parts.

A total number of 11 qualitative semi-structured interviews, comprising open questions, were conducted, capturing the opinions of the stakeholders, both individuals who took part on the tour and representatives of relevant NGOs. Each interview lasted between 1 and 1.5 h.

Furthermore, a questionnaire survey was conducted to capture the input from the locals attending the meetings. The questionnaires comprised both open and closed questions. However open questions, where the respondents could explain their choice of reply, were encouraged. The questionnaires were handed out at the end of each meeting, and collected typically within a range of 5–15 min. The choice of conducting a questionnaire survey instead of individual interviews among the local meeting attendees was based on an attempt to collect as many views as possible during the very limited stay at each city and settlement.

Both the interviews and questionnaires were designed to bring forth the individuals' own views and understandings, approaches and perceptions to PP. Perceptions of stakeholders are in this study to be understood as understandings defined by senses according to May (2007) and Mather (2008), where meanings are closely related to the individuals' own experiences. The perceptions may thus vary among each interviewee and questionnaire respondent.

Table 2 provides an overview of the cities and settlements where the public consultations were undertaken and the number of inhabitants, meeting attendees and questionnaire responds.

Table 2 Meeting attendees and questionnaire responds.

Cities and settlements	Total inhabitants	No. of meeting attendees	Questionnaire responds
Qaanaaq	642	18 (3%)	9 (50%)
Upernavik	1155	37 (3%)	22 (78%)
Kullorsuaq	444	16 (4%)^a	9 (44%)
Innaarsuit	162	21 (13%)	15 (67%)
Tasiusaq	239	44 (71%)^b	16 (34%)
Savissivik	67	30	–
Nuussuaq	206	–	–

Source: Statistics Greenland (2013).

a The public meeting in Kullorsuaq was cancelled as most of the locals were preparing for the yearly dog sledge race with a neighbouring settlement. Instead, a spontaneous meeting with the local council and a meeting with younger people in the settlement were arranged.

b Seventeen individuals, equal to 39% of the total meeting attendees, in Tasiusaq were younger school children.

Due to a strict time schedule with limited time available, merely observations were conducted in Savissivik. The consultations in Nuussuaq and Tasiusaq were held simultaneously wherefore the stakeholder participants were divided into two groups. The author of this paper attended the meeting in Tasiusaq. Accordingly, Savissivik and Nuussuaq have not been included in the survey.

Findings

The output from the two surveys described in the former section are analysed based on a framework developed by O'Faircheallaigh (2010). The framework presents PP purposes divided into three categories where the level of participation increases continuously. The categorisation is not intended to encourage an understanding of the different forms of PP as entirely separate of each other. As argued by O'Faircheallaigh (2010), it is vital that the nature and extent of PP is maintained flexible to successfully implement PP into public policy-making, and the different PP forms may thus interrelate across the categories. The PP levels are presented in Table 3.

Table 3 PP levels related to perceived purposes.

Level	Broad purpose	Specific purposes and activities
1: Low	Participation as input for decision makers	1.1 Provide information to public
		1.2 Fill information gaps
		1.3 Information contestability
		1.4 Problem solving and social learning
2: Med	PP in decision making	2.1 Reflect democratic principles
		2.2 Democracy in practice
		2.3 Pluralist representation
3: High	Reframing decision making	3.1 Involve marginalised groups
		3.2 Shift the focus of decision making
		3.3 Entrench marginalisation

Note: An illustration of the analytical framework as presented by O'Faircheallaigh (2010).

As aforementioned, the term of PP can comprise many features. Multiple objectives involve different concepts, activities and consequences and may be interpreted in various ways (O'Faircheallaigh 2010). For this study, the framework above is found useful to identify the diverse stakeholders' perceptions of PP and explore their implications.

The stakeholders included in the study have been divided into two groups: those in charge of the meeting presenting to the local public (the consulters) and those invited as receivers of information and respondents in the PP process (the consulted). This division is also used in the presentation of the findings. An overview of main findings is presented in Table 4.

Table 4 Summary of perceived experiences of PP by stakeholders.

Consulters and consulted	Perceived purposes	Perceived tasks of consulters	Desired level of PP	Perceived challenges
Companies	– Act responsible– Create awareness– Manage expectations– Achieve social licence to operate	– Provide information– Enter dialogue	Level 1 (low)	– Create mutual trust between companies and public– Understand public context
Government officials	– Show public meaning is important - we care– Diminish fears– Balance interests– Secure common understanding of planned activities	– Provide information– Enter dialogue– Listen and take public worries into consideration– Prepare for future local content in projects	Level 1 to 2 (low-medium)	– Target audience by choice of communication form (language, technical level and media)
NGOs and associations	– Exchange information– Create understanding– Ensure local training and employment– Enhance openness– Secure democratic processes– Work for public access to influence decision-making	– Provide information.– Enter dialogue– Adjust projects according to local wishes and values	Level 2 to 3 (medium-high)	– Present EIA results in an understandable way– Make people engage and speak up
Local Government and local public	– Exchange information	– Provide information	Level 1 (low)	– Gain access to information
	– Ensure transparency in decision-making– Build bridge between public and companies– Prepare for development– Create understanding of recruitment procedures and opportunities for jobs in/related to industry	– Answer questions raised by public– Present procedures regarding future recruitment of locals		– To pose critical questions– Overcome language barriers (language, technical level)– Acquire training and jobs

The perceived purposes are captured and supplemented with perceived tasks and challenges. Based on this, the desired levels of PP are identified.

Perceptions of purpose

Regarding the perceptions of PP purpose, a general agreement was found among the consulters and similarly among the consulted. However, remarkable differences were found between the two groups. Details about the expectations related to the perceptions of purposes are presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Expectations to PP related to perceptions of purposes by consulters and consulted.

During the interview survey, the company representatives expressed that they generally consider the PP process as a means to inform the potentially affected communities about the projects the companies plan to implement. PP is regarded as an opportunity to manage public expectations, and to illustrate to the Greenland authorities and public that the companies act in a responsible manner. The general aim of PP is not perceived by the companies as community engagement in itself, but rather as a means to fulfil legal requirements and achieve ‘social license to operate’, as one company representative expressed.

In contrast, the government officials viewed PP as a means for the Government of Greenland to ‘show the flag’, and send a signal that the governmental administration and the politicians care about the interests of the locals. In this way, the government officials perceive PP as an opportunity to create trust and understanding, and as a means to limit fear and opposition to the projects.

NGOs and associations expressed that they expect the PP process to be a communication forum through which common understanding of the current and potential projects can be developed. However, they also highlighted PP as an opportunity for the public to access and influence decision-making, and hence promote a more democratic process. As stated by the KANUKOKA representative: ‘The public meetings are for the public. The public is to be in focus no matter the interests of other stakeholders,’ while a local government official described the purpose of PP as ‘an opportunity for information exchange, securing transparency and bridge building through the process of planning.’

The locals similarly emphasised the importance of thorough information campaigns, arguing that proper information enables a better understanding of the projects and the potential impacts. Through a better understanding, the public expects to get a chance to prepare for the development and captures the opportunities for employment in – or related to the industry. The public, along with the NGO – and association representatives, emphasised the need for information during PP about what can be expected to happen, how it will influence the every day life of the locals, and job opportunities.

Gaps between desired levels of PP

The stakeholders' desired levels of PP were interpreted based on the analytical frame presented in Table 3. Opposite to the findings of perceived PP purposes, no consensus was expressed between the consulters or between the consulted regarding the desired levels of PP. However, consensus was found across the two.

The company representatives – the local government and the local communities – were placed on the first – and lowest – level on the scale of O'Faircheallaigh (2010). According to the company representatives, the public should be involved in a limited manner in accordance with their perception of PP as a means to first and foremost deliver information and enter dialogue with the communities.

The local government and the locals did equally not express a desire for a higher level of participation beyond gaining access to information about employment in the industry. However, the government official and the advisor seemed slightly more ambitious as they regarded it beneficial to undertake PP somewhere between the first and second levels of the scale by ‘listening to concerns of the public’ and ‘preparing the public for future employment opportunities’.

NGOs and associations landed a desired level of participation between the second and third levels through their aim to include local values and wishes, and through their view of PP as a pathway for a more democratic decision-making process. Through increased public influence, the NGOs and associations representatives argued that the public ought to have a say, which could potentially change the course of the planned projects.

The desired level of PP by each stakeholder group closely related to what the various groups perceive as PP purposes and tasks. The stakeholder groups thus ranged differently, covering different levels of the scale, a discrepancy that indicates a larger gap between information sharing and empowerment of the public.

Trust-building and cultural context challenges

Even though the stakeholders held different perceptions of PP purpose, tasks and desired level of PP, there seemed to be general consent on the perceived challenges of PP in Greenland. All interviewed stakeholders addressed two common issues, both related to a feeling of not being able to meet and interact in a comfortable manner.

Due to lack of confidence among the Greenlandic public that their government protects the interest of the public through the existing structures, including the legislative framework, the NGO and association representatives raised trust building as a challenge. They argue that the companies are not met with the proper requirements by the BMP and that the requirements lack specificity. The public expects the companies to protect own interests, and therefore view the Greenlandic authorities as responsible for good PP performance. If the public does not trust the company representatives nor the authorities, the incentive for the public to engage at the public meetings arranged by these parties arguably descents. Establishing trust may be gained through increased transparency and understanding, preconditions that the stakeholders appear to seek to reach through providing more thorough information. However, the NGOs and association representatives highly question whether information alone is adequate to secure trust building between the government, the companies and the public. First, they argue, difficulties in communication between these stakeholders must be addressed.

In relation to communication, the company representatives highlighted difficulties in understanding the Greenlandic cultural context and getting in dialogue with the local, whereas the government official expressed ‘a need for identification of the right communication channels to reach the public’. The interviewed NGO and association representatives argued that a dialogue might be hard to attain as the public is not active and engaged enough in the general debate. Furthermore, they expressed concerns regarding the available information materials about the general content of the projects. In the view of most of the interviewed NGO, and association representatives, information materials are based on the assumption that the public in Greenland possesses a basic understanding of the oil sector. One representative argued that this assumption is wrong and that it causes a crucial information gap. In addition, it was problematic that some materials are available in English only as locals arguably miss the opportunity to collect information from other sources than the few project-specific translated documents provided by the companies, and presentations held by company representatives at the public meetings. To overcome these issues of ‘language barriers’ and ‘difficulties in accessing information’, the representatives called for more available materials in Greenlandic (Kalaallisut).

The PP challenges mentioned by the different stakeholders all relate to issues of mistrust and difficulties in communication between the different stakeholders. Despite attempts to overcome these challenges of trust building, and mutual exchange and understanding through communication, there are strong indications that the current practice does not promote a more successful PP process.

Discussion

As identified in the analysis in the former section, the varying perceptions of PP purposes among the different stakeholders lead to diverse and seemingly disparate expectations to PP execution. Consequently, a consensus regarding the PP success criterions is lacking, and as success criterions are not defined in the EIA guideline either, the point of departure for the PP process is arguably weak. Similarly, the PP process appears decoupled, as it does not provide an arena for mutual dialogue, information exchange and trust building – features seemingly desired by all stakeholders involved. This has led to reflections by the authors on how to strengthen the PP structures and execution as presented in the following.

Strengthening PP structures

The findings in this paper illustrate that successful PP in Greenland does not appear by coincidence, it must be carefully planned to fit the context. The varying perceptions of PP purpose arguably indicate a need for more detailed PP regulation. To secure consensus on purpose and content of the processes, it is suggested that a PP guideline, based on dialogue between all stakeholders, is developed. This recommendation is not based on the assumption that the stakeholders necessarily will reach agreement on the content, but rather secure that all stakeholders are heard in the PP process. Furthermore, the responsible authorities may be more capable to capture and understand the stakeholders' perceptions prior to decision-making on the content of the guideline.

The development of a guideline will thus not only make it clearer, which requirements and objectives companies undertaking PP must fulfil, but also serve as information for the authorities and make their role as frame or structure-maker more visible. As the interviews conducted pointed at mistrust towards the government in relation to protection of interests of the locals, facilitation of a more specific PP guideline might improve their image.

Furthermore, it seems that more evaluation and research is needed to create more knowledge of PP and the cultural context in Greenland, not least to know when and how to approach the general public in an appropriate manner.

Even though the findings presented seem to indicate that the local communities view PP as highly desirable, there are also indications that Greenlanders in general does not contribute to the general PP debate and PP discourse (Hansen et al. 2009; Olsen 2012). This lack of engagement may arguably be explained by Greenlanders being relatively inexperienced in attending public meetings. Arguably, the locals are unaware of what to expect and hence which demands may be made for the PP process. Furthermore, there appears to be a cultural tradition to ‘mind one's own business’ (Lynge 2003). Hansen et al. (2009) explain the missing voice of the public as a characteristic cultural feature in Greenland stating that ‘the direct form of debating itself is not a traditional way of addressing conflicts in Greenland.’ In addition, Hansen et al. (2009) argue that a ‘widespread clan consciousness’ exists within the Greenlandic communities. Accordingly, it seems a more indirect debating culture and a certain hierarchical interrelationship among the locals exists in Greenland. Whereas debates may be lively among families in their own homes, public debates are often dominated by a smaller group of more dominant individuals.

Observations during the PP trip in NW Greenland support the claims of Hansen et al. (2009), as a certain hierarchy between the meeting attendees appeared to be present and influence the dialogue. For example, mainly elderly men uttered their opinion and posed questions; a matter that arguably affects the direction of dialogue and a barrier to a more inclusive dialogue. It could be relevant to find a way to capture the voice of the women and the youth in the communities as well, for instance, to identify their aspirations for the future regarding education and job opportunities. The disclosure of their aspirations might impact the PP process and arguably pave the way for more effective involvement of the generations to come, for example, through better understanding the needs for education and therefrom devise how these people could be included. Further studies of the communicative behaviour of the locals could arguably contribute to the understanding of how good dialogue is achieved in Greenland.

Improving PP execution

Findings of this study, moreover, indicate that the public do not seem to hold high aims for PP in terms of influencing the activities that may impact the environment they live in and which many feed on. They take on a role as passive recipients perceiving PP purposes and tasks of PP as something provided from outside, not within, the community. This arguably indicates that PP execution at present neither encourages nor provides the locals with a suitable opportunity to speak their minds and pose more critical in-depth questions or comments.

As earlier mentioned, the lack of local engagement might stem from cultural issues. However, other issues were also mentioned during the stakeholder interviews, specific issues which point in the direction of potential improvement of PP performance.

To improve local engagement, several stakeholders emphasised the importance of creating a comfortable atmosphere during the meetings. Furthermore, the NGO and association representatives both pointed at the need to secure that the public gain a basic understanding of the oil industry in order to feel comfortable to engage in debate during the meetings. Observations during this study support these suggestions, as the questions raised during the trip in NW Greenland indicated that the public understanding of the planned activities, and hence their potential impacts, was below the level that what was the target of the presentation. In order to create a dialogue on the basis of the existing level of knowledge, the public could be invited to contribute to the agenda prior to the meetings. Public input could also inform the companies about which topics the locals would prefer to include and address at the meetings. Hence, an inclusive setting of agenda would serve as a platform for a more mutual dialogue.

Finally, it is thought-provoking that, the BMP and their advisors were included on the PP trip, while other stakeholders were not. Travelling in Greenland is very expensive, but the companies and the BMP ought to consider inviting the NGOs and associations to attend the public meetings as this might contribute to a more nuanced debate at the meetings.

Conclusion

Dialogue between stakeholders in relation to offshore oil exploration in Greenland, as probably everywhere else in the world, is a prerequisite for achieving a mutual understanding on which a potential sustainable development can be founded. PP is required in EIA and SIA processes providing an opportunity for stakeholders to meet and enter dialogue around the potential impacts of activities planned. However, this paper found that the expectations related to both the content and execution of PP varied significantly between consulters and consulted, but also between the NGOs and the public. The variation in perceptions of PP purpose arguably originates from different interests being pursued. Arguably these interests are not brought together, partly due to the absence of an overall definition and objective of PP in the EIA guideline, but also as information sharing, rather than dialogue, takes place during PP.

Differences in perceptions of PP purpose between consulters and consulted further cause disagreement on what is considered good PP performance. It is also found that the consulted stakeholder groups disagree on the desired level of engagement. NGOs emphasise a need for PP to influence decision-making, while the public seems to accept a role as passive recipients of information about decisions made. There is, however, a general agreement when it comes to identifying challenges.

The findings of this study led to a discussion about the potentials for strengthening PP structures and execution in Greenland. Arguably, there is a need for a more specific PP guideline in Greenland based on dialogue between stakeholders. Moreover, further research, with emphasis on the cultural barriers related to power structures and communication, is needed to guide PP in Greenland, and it is recommended that public consultations are planned with point of departure in the existing level of knowledge about the industry and in topics of local preference. Adaptation, understanding and dialogue between the relevant stakeholders, which are the objectives by PP promoted by the Government of Greenland, does not appear to be secured by a requirement of the companies to provide the frames and setting up meetings. It is a first step and a prerequisite for PP, but careful planning is also a prerequisite to shape the PP programmes to the Greenland-specific context.

Acknowledgements

We thank all who contributed to this study including Maersk Oil Kalaallit Nunaat A/S, Cairn Energy PLC, ConocoPhillips, NUNAOIL A/S, the BMP, the DCE, Qaasuitsup Kommunia, KANUKOKA, KNAPK, NUSUKA, ICC Greenland and not least the people in the local communities. Finally, we thank Maersk Oil Kalaallit Nunaat A/S for granting the funding that made the case study in NW Greenland possible.