Towns and settlements

Since the Danish modernisation of Greenland in continuation of World War II, settlements, their importance and development have stirred debate, both culturally, economically and politically. The debate is often emotive and characterised by cultural markers that cannot be easily rationalised or made up in economic models.

The Danish State’s major development plans G-50 and G-60 aimed, on the one hand, to improve health and housing conditions and thus the living conditions of the population, and, on the other hand, to develop a self-sustaining economy based primarily on fishing. In order to reduce the cost of housing construction, health and education, etc., as well as to ensure manpower for fishing and fish processing, part of the G-50 and G-60 was about decommissioning settlements and bringing together the population in open-water towns.

During the first generation after World War II, the Greenland population doubled while the number of settlements halved, and most of the increase in population was seen in the large towns. However, right up to the turn of the millennium, the total population in the settlements remained roughly stable at around 10,000 people, because some moved to the large settlements that gradually came to be included in the fisheries. It was largely the excess of births in the settlements that contributed to overall increase in population because the urban birth rate gradually declined and is below two children per woman today.

Up through the 1960s and 1970s, popular opposition to the G-50 and G-60 and the associated centralisation emerged and that became an important argument for the desire for home rule. After the introduction of the Home Rule in 1979, the Naalakkersuisut (the Government) and Inatsisartut (the Parliament) took several steps to support the settlement population.

Livelihood of the settlements

Since the turn of the millennium, the population of the settlements has decreased significantly – from 10,219 in 2002 to 7,010 in 2021 – a decrease of 30 %. However, where the population decreases in most settlements, it increases in others, while some have a stable population. The explanation is primarily to be found in the overall livelihood of each settlement and the population’s abilities and opportunities to exploit the natural resource base.

For the vast majority of the settlements, the livelihood is fishing combined with hunting. Often the catch and proceeds of the hunt are not, or only to a limited extent, part of the measurable economy of the settlement. However, the catch and proceeds of the hunt contribute significantly to the local food base, and particularly the small settlements maintain the old traditions of giving meat as gifts to people who do not themselves have the opportunity to go hunting, while in the larger settlements, the catch and proceeds of the hunt are distributed primarily within the family structures.

At the same time, the catch and proceeds of the hunt contributes to the overall income of each hunting family, either through exchange for other catch, berries or similar products from other districts, or it is sold by informal channels across most of the country. This makes much of the hunting and part of the fishing in the settlements a non-measurable subsistence economy. Part of the catch is included in the measurable economy, including when it is traded at fish factories in some of the settlements. This applies, for example, to parts of the whale meat, mattak (whale skin), caribou and muskox caught by the settlement population.

Part of the explanation for the overall decreasing population of the settlements should thus be found in changes in the livelihood of each settlement. When cod disappeared from the southwest Greenland coast due to international overfishing in the North Atlantic from the late 1980s, most of the livelihood of the settlements in this area disappeared, and this is where the largest and fastest depopulation of settlements is seen. During the same period, fishing for Greenland halibut started gaining ground in Uummannaq and Upernavik districts, which is why the population of some of the settlements in the districts continued to increase. These settlements are among the towns and settlements that have the greatest contribution to export income measured per capita.

In terms of time, the cod fishery collapse partly coincides with Greenpeace’s campaign against sealskins and the imposition of international restrictions on the sale of walrus and narwhal tusks, polar bear skins, etc., that challenged the economy of the settlements that had few alternative sources of income.

Another important factor in the development of each settlement is whether the necessary infrastructure to exploit the resource base is maintained. Unless the settlement has an trading facility or factory within a reasonable radius, it will not be possible to exploit the local resource base, this is a challenge for a number of settlements. In a number of settlements, the trading facility has insufficient freezing capacity, meaning that trading needs to stop during the period of sea ice because the warehouse cannot be emptied.

Other settlements are challenged by insufficient or lack of fresh water supply for fish production, insufficient electricity capacity, or by the lack of sufficient draught in the harbour. At the same time, settlements are challenged by changing pricing structures, meaning that certain goods and services are much more expensive in the settlements than in towns. In particular, young people’s desire for increased opportunities for education and jobs, better public and private services, for example in the field of healthcare, as well as actual cultural and leisure time activities.

Maintaining the settlements

For decades, it has been debated whether the decentralised settlement pattern of 17 towns and 56 settlements is too expensive, and in particular whether maintaining the settlements is too costly. This is a complex and nuanced issue. There is a lot of difference between settlements, just as between towns. A number of towns and settlements have lost their natural livelihood and therefore barely contribute to exports or the national food supply, and the primary occupation is to maintain the town or settlement. A challenge for insular communities where commuting is not an option.

Measured per capita, public spending is at roughly the same level for towns and settlements, but it reflects very large disparities in service levels that are far better in the large towns. If the service levels of the settlements were to be up to the level of larger towns, the settlements would become significantly more expensive per capita. On the other hand, in terms of the working age group of the unskilled, fishermen, hunters and people outside the labour market, public spending per capita is significantly less in the settlements than in towns. This is because the settlement population is far more self-sufficient.

The realisation that town versus settlement is a false contradiction is gaining a foothold in the Self-Government and municipalities, where there is an increasing focus on the overall livelihood of each settlement and the extent to which society supports the opportunities for the people to exploit the natural resource base through infrastructure, pricing structures, etc.

In addition, a number of settlements have great untapped tourism potential and some settlements have gradually changed their status to ‘summer settlements’ with leisure huts for the nearby town, where the settlement’s permanent inhabitants contribute to running the summer settlement.

The pattern of settlement in Greenland has always been dynamic, and there will also be settlements that grow and thrive, and settlements that depopulate and close.

The two settlements of Kangerlussuaq and Narsarsuaq were originally founded by the Americans as airports during World War II and today serve as the primary entrances for passengers to and from Greenland. Therefore, they are described separately in the sections on the towns – under their respective municipality.

Further reading

• Avannaata Kommunia
• Hunting and subsistence economy
• Industry and labour market
• Infrastructure
• Kommune Kujalleq
• Kommune Qeqertalik
• Kommuneqarfik Sermersooq
• Locations with agriculture and sheep farming
• Population and demographics
• Qeqqata Kommunia
• Self-Government
• The five regional municipalities
• The Greenlandic insular community

Read more about the Municipalities and towns in Greenland