There may be no better phrase to describe the past century of southern intervention in the Canadian Arctic than the maxim “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” As philanthropic, charitable, and non-governmental organizations seek to address development challenges in the region unmet or abandoned by the public sector, it is well worth asking whether their good intentions are redressing past injustices or perpetuating them.

Ideological and paternalistic

To be sure, the history is spotty. Ask Northerners what they think of when they think of outside charitable or non-governmental actors, and Greenpeace will probably come to mind. In 1976, Greenpeace Canada began a campaign to expose and end the commercial hunting of marine mammals, in particular the seal hunt. The campaign effectively destroyed the market for seal pelts, resulting in severe socio-economic ramifications for Indigenous and non-Indigenous hunters. It also vilified their traditions and livelihoods, casting them as murderers of innocent, cherubic seal pups.

Greenpeace apologized for their role in this debacle in1985 and adopted a policy in 2014 in support of Indigenous rights to a subsistence lifestyle and the right to sustainable development. But not everyone is ready to forgive and forget. Nunavut MP Leona Aglukkaq, in a 2014 speech to the Inuit Circumpolar Council, iterated that “these groups do not base these campaigns on facts or science, but instead on what they view to be a moral high ground. The ironic part is that from their moral high ground, they completely disregard the rights and traditions of entire groups of people.”

Actions speak louder than words. Many Arctic inhabitants are critical of Greenpeace’s popular #SavetheArctic campaign, which has been a boon to the organization’s fundraising efforts. But to the skeptical, the entire premise of #SavetheArctic implies, variously, that: a) the people of the Arctic need external actors to save them; b) the Arctic environment needs saving and the people don’t matter; and c) the people of the Arctic are either incapable or unwilling to protect their own environment. It can be galling.

Greenpeace is the most prominent, but certainly not the only, example of a Southern organization pursuing ideological ends at the expense, intended or not, of local interests. As new groups with philanthropic mandates have sought to engage in the Arctic, they may have been surprised and dismayed by the mistrust and suspicion they’ve been greeted with. But given recent history, it’s justified. Philanthropy in the Arctic seems too often to be motivated by either condescension or paternalism.