Support for Goals, Concern Over Monopoly
In a pointed statement, Julia Pars, board chair of Pisiffik, and Avijâja Rosing-Olsen, board leader of Brugseni, have made their position clear regarding the recent recommendation for a comprehensive, long-term alcohol policy presented by the Naalakkersuisut earlier this month. “We support the goal,” they assert, “but not the monopoly.”
Both retail giants, Pisiffik and Kalaallit Nunaanni Brugseni, highlight their ongoing commitment to responsible sales practices, including rigorous age control, thorough employee training, and an expanded range of non-alcoholic beverage options.
The Call for a Robust Debate
As discussions around this proposed alcohol policy develop, the stage is set for a vital political debate. Anna Wangenheim, the Minister for Health, stated, “It’s time for the political dialogue to unfold within Inatsisartut, preferably this autumn. We’ll explore which recommendations should shape our new alcohol policy.” Wangenheim emphasized the importance of legislative engagement, noting, “This process must involve negotiations with Inatsisartut to ensure we best protect families, youth, and children in our society.” Echoing this sentiment, Mads Pedersen of IA stressed, “Nothing happens without the involvement of Inatsisartut.”
Addressing Financial Implications
The proposed Finance Act for 2026 indicates significant revenue from import duties on alcohol sales, forecasting DKK 220.2 million for the upcoming financial year. Both Pisiffik and Brugseni warn that a shift to a state monopoly could drastically affect private retail operations. They caution that such a change could lead to diminished revenues, potentially resulting in store closures, job losses, and increased prices for consumers.
Drawing on experiences from Norway and Sweden, they argue that monopoly models have not effectively curbed alcohol abuse but have instead driven prices higher.
A Call for Collaboration
Rather than endorsing a monopolistic approach, these chains are advocating for enhanced collaboration between the business sector and governmental authorities. “We believe in partnership over prohibition,” they state. “A revised alcohol policy should focus on prevention, education, and community action rather than resorting to restrictive measures and monopolies.”
Details of the Proposed Monopoly
The monopoly proposition arises from the multi-year evidence-based alcohol policy introduced by Wangenheim and Pedersen. It suggests consolidating all alcohol sales under a state-run monopoly, Pilersuisoq, after a five-year transition period. Additionally, it’s proposed to raise the legal drinking age from 18 to 21 and limit sales hours to weekdays from 10 AM to 6 PM, excluding Sundays and public holidays.
While Pisiffik and Brugseni agree with the underlying goal of reducing alcohol availability and misuse, they remain firm in their opposition to the monopolistic strategy proposed. They advocate instead for a more balanced approach that prioritizes community well-being.