Disaster Risk Reduction and Response: Greenland

Back to Publications

Greenland’s ocean at Kapisillit. Photo: Ilan Kelman

The Arctic Institute Polar Disaster Series 2026

---

Interventions designed to prevent disasters and minimise their consequent impacts are encompassed within the framework of Disaster Risk Reduction and Response (DRR/R). This framework comprises the entire continuum of disaster-related actions, ranging from pre-disaster measures – such as prevention, preparedness, planning, and mitigation – to the primary post-disaster phase, response. An effective approach to disaster response involves the establishment of a coordinated Search and Rescue (SAR) operational framework.

Greenland is undergoing rapid environmental change. Rising temperatures, retreating ice, permafrost thaw, and increased glacial melt are profoundly affecting physical systems and human communities (e.g., in relation to sea-level rise and ecosystem change). These transformations change hazard frequency and severity, especially linked to maritime risks, coastal erosion, and potentially catastrophic events such as landslides and tsunamis. There is therefore an urgent need to assess Greenland’s capacity for DRR/R, situating this capacity within international legal frameworks, infrastructure constraints, and sociocultural considerations.

Environmental Drivers of Disaster Risk in Greenland

Climate change, ice melt, and permafrost degradation

Greenland’s ice sheet is losing mass at an accelerating rate. Modelling of subglacial bed topography improves understanding of ice dynamics, which is crucial for projecting meltwater runoff and associated hazards.¹⁾Tama, B. A., Krishna, Mansa, Alam, H., Cham, M., Faruque, O., Cheng, G., Wang, J., Morlighem, M. and Janeja, V. (2025) DeepTopoNet: A Framework for Subglacial Topography Estimation on the Greenland Ice Sheets. arXiv preprint Permafrost thaw is also affecting ground stability, increasing the probability of slope failures, infrastructure damage, and release of greenhouse gases.

Extreme events: landslides, tsunamis, and coastal hazards

One dramatic example is the 2023 Dickson Fjord landslide in northeast Greenland, which generated a large tsunami with run-up measurable over considerable distances. Such events highlight the hazard posed by glacial de-buttressing and permafrost weakening in steep terrain.²⁾Kristian Svennevig et al. (2024) A rockslide-generated tsunami in a Greenland fjord rang Earth for 9 days Science 385: 1196-1205 Coastal erosion, rising sea levels, and storm surge, especially in communities near fjords, are additional risk influencers.

Increased maritime traffic and risks of marine pollution

As sea ice diminishes, formerly ice-bound waters become navigable for longer periods, increasing shipping, tourism, exploration, and resource extraction activities. These activities change the risk of incidents, oil spills, pollution, and disturbance of marine ecosystems.³⁾Humpert, M. (2011) Greenland Releases Oil Spill Plan – U.S. Coast Guard Lacks Arctic Response Capabilities. The Arctic Institute. https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/arctic-response-capabilities-greenland/. Accessed on 1 January 2026 Instruments like the Polar Code (under the International Maritime Organization)) are intended in part to mitigate such risks.⁴⁾International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (Polar Code). International Maritime Organization. https://www.imo.org/en/ourwork/safety/pages/polar-code.aspx. Accessed on 15 August 2025

Legal and Governance Frameworks

International agreements and obligations

• Polar Code: The International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters is a mandatory framework under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), covering ship design, operations, training, and environmental protection in polar regions.⁵⁾International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (Polar Code). International Maritime Organization. https://www.imo.org/en/ourwork/safety/pages/polar-code.aspx. Accessed on 15 August 2025
• Arctic SAR Agreement (2011): Under the Arctic Council, this agreement delineates areas of SAR responsibility among Arctic states and obliges cooperation in aeronautical and maritime SAR in the Arctic. Greenland (via Denmark) is a signatory.⁶⁾Arctic Council (2011) Agreement on Cooperation on Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue in the Arctic. http://hdl.handle.net/11374/531. Accessed on 15 August 2025
• Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic (2013): Also under the Arctic Council, this legally binding agreement aims to strengthen multinational cooperation in preparing for and responding to oil pollution incidents.⁷⁾Arctic Council (2013) Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic. http://hdl.handle.net/11374/529. Accessed on 15 August 2025

These legal frameworks provide a basis for DRR/R but do not themselves ensure capacity; local implementation, resource allocation, and logistical readiness remain critical constraints.

National and regional governance and community involvement

Greenland has a semi-autonomous government with responsibility for many internal affairs, while Denmark retains control over foreign policy and security. Governance for DRR/R must operate in this dual structure. Recent academic work emphasises the importance of Greenlanders’ knowledge, and of addressing colonial legacies in disaster policy: for example, displacement, relocation, and loss of traditional resilience strategies are significant issues.⁸⁾Cullen, M., Holm, B. S., and Olsen, C. E. J. L. B. (2024) A Human Rights-Based Approach to Disaster Risk Management in Greenland: Displacement, Relocation, and the Legacies of Colonialism. Yearbook of International Disaster Law 5(1): 77-100

Constraints on Response Capacity

Geography, remoteness, and infrastructure deficits

Greenland’s remote and sparsely populated settlements, particularly in the east and north, pose huge logistical challenges for timely disaster response. There is limited road infrastructure, port facilities are sparse and often inadequate, and access by air or sea is often dependent on seasonal or weather-dependent conditions. The absence of reliable connectivity and supply chains exacerbates vulnerability.

Limited SAR infrastructure and monitoring capability

SAR operations in Greenland face challenges: the vast areas to cover, seasonal ice, sparse population in many regions, limited local assets, and sometimes long delays in deploying external assistance. Maritime monitoring is similarly constrained: tracking of ship traffic, pollution risk, and ice calving or iceberg drift require both observational programmes and platforms (satellites, vessels, and buoys) which are not yet uniformly established. Projects such as iceberg tagging in Disko Bay enhance drift and decay data for icebergs, contributing to situational awareness for maritime traffic.⁹⁾Felipe Reisch (2021) ONR Global Leads Iceberg Tagging in Greenland for International Maritime Situational Awareness. Office of Naval Research, 1 Jan,  https://www.onr.navy.mil/organization/onr-global/news-releases/onr-global-leads-iceberg-tagging-greenland-international-maritime-situational-awareness. Accessed on 15 August 2025 Also, the Greenland Integrated Observing System (GIOS) is being developed to install permafrost monitoring stations in West Greenland along key transects.¹⁰⁾PERMAFROST.DTU.DK (2021) Greenland Integrated Observing System (GIOS), 11 Feb, DTU Civil Engineering project. https://permafrost.dtu.dk/Projekter/GIOS. Accessed on 15 August 2025

Existing Strengths and Ongoing Initiatives

Monitoring and ecosystem baseline programmes

Greenland Ecosystem Monitoring, particularly via MarineBasis (in Nuuk, Disko, Zackenberg), provides long-term, consistent data on physical, chemical, and biological parameters in coastal zones. These datasets are essential for early warning systems and understanding environmental change trends.¹¹⁾Greenland Climate Research Centre (n.d) Greenland Ecosystem Monitoring – MarineBasis Nuuk. https://gcrc.gl/research-projects/greenland-ecosystem-monitoring-marinebasis-nuuk/. Accessed on 15 August 2025 Recent funding for benthic ecosystem monitoring (seafloor communities) under Greenland’s “Green Growth” programme will improve knowledge of marine biodiversity, ecosystem function, and potentially sensitive areas that could be prioritised for protection or risk mitigation.¹²⁾Greenland Climate Research Centre (2023) Monitoring Greenland’s Benthic Ecosystems. Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, 23 Nov, “Green Growth” programme. https://gcrc.gl/year/2023/project-funding-breathes-new-life-into-monitoring-greenlands-seafloor/. Accessed on 15 August 2025

Institutional cooperation

Through the Arctic Council and related fora, Greenland gains access to multilateral cooperation in oil spill response, SAR coordination, shared data, scientific collaborations, capacity building, and joint exercises. These strengthen normative frameworks, raise awareness, and help build skills and interoperability.

Gaps and Recommendations

Based on the literature and recent developments, the following gaps are salient, and recommendations are proposed:

Area	Gap / Challenge	Recommendation
SAR infrastructure	Sparse assets; delays in response in remote regions; seasonal limitations	Build distributed SAR stations in remote regions; improve air/sea lift capabilities; ensure trained personnel locally; leverage community first responders
Maritime Monitoring and Pollution Response	Incomplete coverage; lack of sufficient equipment; monitoring of ship traffic and iceberg hazards remains costly and technically demanding	Investment in radar, AIS (Automatic Identification Systems), satellite surveillance; improved remote sensing; robust oil spill response capabilities (equipment, contingency plans)
Connectivity and Infrastructure	Inadequate ports/airfields; limited transport during adverse weather; poor backup systems	Prioritise critical infrastructure: e.g. deep-water ports, runways, communication networks; ensure redundancy
Greenlanders’ Knowledge	Historical neglect: sometimes centralised policies do not match local risk perceptions or capacities	Integrate local knowledge in hazard mapping, risk perception, early warning; participatory planning; ensure legal frameworks recognise local rights and responsibilities
Early Warning Systems and Forecasting	Need for better modelling of ice dynamics, landslide-tsunami risk, climate change scenarios	Expand networks like GIOS, support predictive modelling (e.g. subglacial topography and meltwater models), invest in real-time monitoring of critical variables
Funding and Political Will	DRR/R often underfunded; delays in implementing legal obligations; balancing competing priorities	Secure dedicated funding streams; strengthen institutional capacities; embed DRR/R into national development plans

Infrastructure Commitments 2025-2029

One salient recent development is the 2025 Denmark-Greenland framework agreement: Denmark’s commitment of DKK 1.6 billion (~US$253 million) for the period 2026-2029 to support infrastructure and healthcare in Greenland. Key elements include constructing a new runway in Ittoqqortoormiit in eastern Greenland, a deep-water port in Qaqortoq in the south, and an agreement for Denmark to cover costs for Greenlandic patients treated in Danish hospitals. These investments directly address some of the constraints previously noted, especially in transport infrastructure and access to health services.¹³⁾Jacob Gronholt-Pedersen (2025) Denmark pledges DKK 1.6 billion for Greenland’s infrastructure, healthcare. Reuters, 16 Sep,  https://www.reuters.com/world/denmark-pledges-253-million-greenlands-infrastructure-healthcare-2025-09-16/. Accessed on 6 October 2025 Combined with scientific monitoring projects (e.g. MarineBasis, GIOS, benthic ecosystem mapping), there is a recognition at policy level of the importance of strengthening both “hardware” (infrastructure, transport, response assets) and “software” (knowledge, community capacity, governance) for DRR/R in Greenland.

Conclusion

The dual pressures of greatly changed environmental hazards (including from climate change) and of rising human activity (shipping, tourism, exploration) in Greenland’s maritime zones underscore that disaster risk remains a major present challenge. Legal frameworks like the Polar Code and Arctic Council agreements establish essential norms, yet they do not guarantee resilience in practice. The remote geography, sparse settlement patterns, variable accessibility, and extreme weather all mean that DRR/R must adopt strategies tailored to Arctic conditions. One size does not fit all. Measures will need to be adaptive, highly localised, and cognisant of both technical constraints and cultural realities.

Moreover, incorporating local Greenlanders’ knowledge can improve early detection, risk perception, and community response, while supporting legitimacy and trust in governmental action. There is also a geopolitical dimension: Arctic states are increasingly attentive to Greenland’s strategic position, which may bring more resources and more competing interests. Greenland is at a critical juncture with respect to disaster risk reduction and response. It operates within several strong international legal instruments, has committed scientific monitoring infrastructure, and is receiving renewed investment in transport and health infrastructure. Yet major gaps remain in response capacity, especially in remote regions, maritime monitoring, early warning systems, and community engagement. To safeguard both human and environmental security in Greenland – and more broadly in the Arctic – there must be sustained investment, political commitment, and inclusive governance.

Teresa Barros Cardoso is at the Jean Monnet Oceanid+ Centre of Excellence on Sustainable Blue Europe which promotes maritime sustainability and the blue economy in Europe.