Arctic Prime Fisheries Under Scrutiny for Procurement Failures
For years, the obligation to secure catches in Greenland has stirred vibrant debate among fishermen, shipping companies, authorities, and politicians. Recently, a troubling issue has emerged regarding Arctic Prime Fisheries ApS (APF), which appears to have fallen short of meeting its procurement duties tied to its license for offshore cod fishing in both East and Southwest Greenland.
Recent revelations indicate that from 2020 to 2025, APF breached its procurement obligations in multiple years—specifically in 2020, 2023, and 2024. This information surfaced in a response delivered by Peter Borg, the Minister for Fisheries, Catching, Self-sufficiency, and Environment, to Jens Napãtôk, a member of the Inatsisartut and fisheries rapporteur for the Naleraq party.
Procurement Numbers Raise Eyebrows
Napãtôk had submitted a series of ten probing questions to the Naalakkersuisut (Government of Greenland), seeking clarifications about APF’s activities. Among his inquiries was a request for annual figures on the volume of offshore cod procured by APF in South Greenland from 2020 to 2025.
The data provided by Borg revealed that the company’s performances in procuring cod from the offshore fishery have been less than impressive. In 2020, for instance, APF was required to land 50 percent of its quota to support its factories located in either Nanortalik or Qaqortoq. However, the company managed to land only 34 percent that year.
“In 2020, APF engaged in discussions with the ministry regarding its obligations, suggesting that the sending of freezer containers from Iceland to Nanortalik constituted compliance with its procurement duties, as it generated local employment,” Borg elaborated.
A notable development occurred in 2022, when the prior Naalakkersuisut reduced APF’s procurement requirement from 50 percent to just 25 percent. The rationale behind this significant cut remains unclear from Borg’s response. Following this change, APF’s compliance dipped further, with the company managing only 19 percent of its quota in 2023 and 18 percent in 2024. Conversely, the years 2021 and 2025 marked the only occasions during this five-year span when the company upheld its procurement responsibilities.
Tax Obligations and Transparency
An additional layer of concern surrounds APF’s financial dealings. Not only has the company failed to meet its procurement targets, but it has also raised questions regarding tax contributions in Greenland. Napãtôk directed inquiries towards the absence of corporation tax from APF, yet Borg’s answers were vague and did not address the implications of APF’s reported losses.
When pressed about whether the company’s ongoing losses, which inhibit tax contributions, would factor into future quota assessments, Borg recounted the licensing and quota distribution process but sidestepped the core question. His remarks suggested that the government does not see APF’s financial shortcomings as problematic.
Investigations Into Company Operations
The scrutiny doesn’t stop there. Napãtôk has also linked Arctic Prime to potential “straw man” operations benefiting Icelandic interests. In his questions, he sought the Naalakkersuisut’s evaluation of whether APF functions merely as a front for these interests. Borg’s reply reiterated that there is currently no evidence supporting such claims.
Ownership of Arctic Prime Fisheries is intriguing: the company is fully owned by Arctic Prime Coastal ApS, which in turn is partly owned by Icelandic firm Línuskip ehf., helmed by the notable Gudmundur Kristjánsson. Since 2014, APF has posted significant losses, raising alarms among stakeholders about its sustainability and credibility.
Over the years, Naalakkersuisut has allocated substantial cod quotas to APF, hoping to bolster employment and support regional fisheries development. However, the implications of APF’s dwindling compliance and its financial trajectory pose critical questions for the future of sustainable fishing practices in Greenland.
As the situation unfolds, the responsibility now rests with authorities to ensure that regulations are enforced and that local fisheries are not compromised in favor of interests that may lie far from Greenland’s shores.