Research question 2: What are the actors’ presentations of ‘proper’ management of reindeer, herders and land?
In all the subcases of this thesis, the herders and government officials had competing presentations of what was going on, namely what the conflicts were all about, and why they had occurred.
8.2.1 The dominating narrative
According to the government officials, the conflicts examined in the four subcases were all related to the problem of too many reindeer and irrational reindeer herders.
Discussion – revisiting the research questions
Excessive numbers of reindeer degrade the tundra ecology, hamper animal welfare, jeopardise the reindeer meat production, contribute to global warming15, graze on farmers’ crops and in private gardens, occupy too much space, is an obstacle for industrial and economic development, create conflicts with other land-use interests, and threaten the future of Sámi reindeer husbandry. Government officials argued that destocking would strengthen the herders’ economy, enable co-existence with the mining industry, agriculture and other land-use interests, and ensure a sustainable reindeer husbandry. Independent of the problem identified, destocking seems to be the answer (Paper 1).
When asked about why there were too many reindeer in West Finnmark, the
interviewed government officials referred to the tragedy of the commons and argued that the growing numbers of reindeer were a result of internal competition within the pastoral community. ‘Too many reindeer’ and herders’ well-being were also the government officials’ explanation for the introduction of the rationalisation policies for reindeer husbandry in the 1970s (papers 3 and 4). In the subcase of the destocking in Finnmark during 2008–2015 (Paper 1), the government officials explained that where too many reindeer existed, it was because the herders did not follow expert advice on sustainable reindeer husbandry, but instead increased their number of animals for personal gain.
The government officials claimed that the Reindeer Husbandry Act of 2007 gave the herders both the tools and the responsibility to ensure the sustainable development of their livelihood (Johnsen, 2016). However, the government officials stated that self-governance tools and participation did not facilitate destocking because the herders were self-centred and refused to apply the agreed guidelines and targets for destocking. The officials explained that a mandatory destocking was necessary to preserve pastures and secure – in accordance with international law – the future of the
15 In 2009, LMD also promoted destocking reindeer herds as a measure to cut greenhouse gases. In a White Paper titled Climate challenges – agriculture part of the solution, it is argued that destocking the reindeer herds by 30,000 animals would reduce the national emissions of greenhouse gases by
Discussion – revisiting the research questions
Sámi pastoral society in Finnmark (Paper 1). In the subcase exploring land-use conflicts (Paper 2), politicians in Kvalsund argued that the attempts to find ways in which reindeer husbandry and mineral extraction could co-exist were unsuccessful because the herders were unwilling to be part of a dialogue and unwilling to consider the needs of society at large. The politicians’ rationale for approving mineral extraction was securing the economic development and well-being of society.
8.2.2 The counternarrative
In the studies, the reindeer herders had a very different way of presenting the governance-related conflicts, why the conflicts had occurred, and how to best solve them. In all cases, they claimed that the conflicts arose because the decision-makers ignored the herders’ needs, knowledge and rights. Many of the herders I interviewed about the destocking process in 2012–2014 agreed to a certain extent that there had been too many reindeer at that time compared to available pastures in some places in Finnmark. However, they did not concur with the authorities’ explanations for the relatively high reindeer numbers or their accounts about the impact of the high numbers. While the government officials referred to the tragedy of the commons, the herders had a more complex explanation for the high reindeer numbers, and they pointed to a combination of factors, namely the economic incentives that promoted herds with a high ratio of fertile female reindeer, and the fact that large numbers of females enabled the herds to grow rapidly. They added that many herders slaughtered fewer reindeer than planned due to unreliable access to the market and low meat prices. Opposition to the state-driven destocking – or more generally to the state governance of Sámi pastoralism – could cause pastoralists to let their herds grow as a way to resist state-made decisions. Furthermore, the notion of too many reindeer could be understood as a reaction to §60 of the 2007 Reindeer Act, which allows the authorities to proportionally reduce the reindeer numbers of the concession holders if the total number of reindeer within a herding group was too high. Larger herds and more intensive grazing were advocated as a possible measure to claim rights to land threatened by encroachment or competition for the commons by neighbouring
Discussion – revisiting the research questions
pastures undermined traditional land distribution and management, allowing some herders to move into new territory and to expand their herds. Many argued that as long as the interior of Finnmark was treated as commons by the state, the framework for regulated reindeer numbers could not be developed (Johnsen, 2016) (see also Paper 1).
The herders did not agree with the state’s understanding of the impact of having too many reindeer. Rather, they identified the main problem with large herds as the risk of intermingling. They explained that when different herds are located close to each other, it requires more herding than usual to keep the neighbouring herds separate.
Intermingling can create conflicts between siidas. Paine (1994, p. 130) points out that herders have a contextualised view of the notion of too many reindeer. He explains that an owner losing animals to others may recognise that he has ‘too many’ to handle;
conversely, when the herder’s children are old enough to help out, the same number of reindeer might be considered ‘too few’. Paine (1996) further explains that too many reindeer during one type of season could mean too little pasture during other seasons.
Like Paine, I also found that the herders sought a balance between possessing too many and too few reindeer and that the optimal number varied according to the weather, access to pastures and social relations. For example, when two reindeer herders marry, the tradition is that one of them – often the wife – moves their reindeer to the herd of the spouse. The result is that the reindeer number increases in one herding district and decreases in another district.
Further, while the state defines surplus reindeer numbers and land degradation as the main threats to Sámi pastoralism, the herders are more worried about how the fragmentation and loss of pastures will affect reindeer husbandry. The herders argue that the government officials do not acknowledge the negative consequences of infrastructure development or the destocking or rationalisation policies, because their hidden agenda is to downscale reindeer husbandry to make room for alternative land uses, such as mines, windmill parks, dams and recreational cabins.
Discussion – revisiting the research questions
The herders had their own way of explaining why participation did not result in destocking and why dialogue did not facilitate a common understanding and solution to the land-use conflicts. According to them, LMD’s statements about participation and indigenous peoples’ rights in the governance of reindeer husbandry is only lip service.
In reality, they said, the government officials do not recognise the herders’ knowledge or their rights. The herders argued that they had never had a real opportunity to influence and participate in the destocking process because the government officials changed the agreed targets for destocking without involving or informing the herders, and the state did not apply its own procedures for consultations (Johnsen, 2016) (see also Paper 1). The herders declared that they were invited to dialogue meetings about the land-use conflict, but the decision-makers never acknowledged their concerns (Paper 2).
8.2.3 The domination of one narrative over the other
The state’s narrative claims that herders hold a considerable amount of decision-making power. The pastoralists’ narrative argues that the state neglects the herders’
rights to participate in decision-making relevant to their livelihoods. The state’s narrative emphasises the need to regulate the number of reindeer and herders to ensure sustainable use of the pastures and the economic viability of reindeer pastoralism, and to safeguard Sámi culture (§1 of the Reindeer Act). The pastoralists’
narrative claims that the state regulations are undermining Sámi customs and herding knowledge while creating a Norwegianised reindeer husbandry. While the views of the government officials are often reported in the media and online discussions, the pastoralists’ counternarrative is rarely represented in the political debate.
For many pastoralists, the structure of the political debate on Sámi reindeer husbandry makes it challenging to participate. The debate is conducted in technical and
bureaucratic Norwegian language – a foreign language with foreign concepts, which are “poor substitutes for their own rich and complex understanding of their lands and herds” (MN Sara, 2011, p. 142). In these debates, the herders’ perspectives about
Discussion – revisiting the research questions
state’s perspectives on the same issues are understood as objective. Moreover, a premise for participating in public decision-making is to read documents and to follow the procedures and deadlines defined by politicians’ schedules. For example, the public hearing about the latest white paper on reindeer husbandry (Meld. St. 32, 2016–2017) was set in the middle of the spring migration – one of the busiest times of the year for reindeer pastoralists. Truth is also discussed in Section 8.3.1.
The story of the irrational herders, the excessive numbers of reindeer and the consequences for the tundra ecosystem, animal well-being, and other land-use interests is reflected in the media by alarming headlines – here translated to English:
Reindeer husbandry threatens nature in Finnmark (NTB, 1987); Too many reindeer in Finnmark (NTB, 1992); Emergency meeting about reindeer husbandry (NTB, 1999); The forecasted the tragedy (NRK Sápmi, 2010a); Fear of mass death on the tundra (NRK Nordnytt, 2012); The number of reindeer must decrease (Nationen, 2012; NRK Troms, 2012); The number of reindeer remains large (NRK Sápmi, 2014); The tragedy on the Finnmark tundra (Adresseavisen, 2014); The reindeer herders should accept modern animal welfare requirements (NRK Nordland, 2015); and Believes that a reindeer reduction can prevent loss to carnivores (NRK Nordland, 2018) (see also, NRK Sápmi, 2010c; Aftenposten, 2012; Nationen, 2014; NRK Troms, 2014; NRK Nordland, 2018).
The perception that Sámi pastoralists are irrational and that there are too many reindeer in Finnmark has become a dominant narrative that seems to resonate well with the general public. There are numerous threads of discussions on the problem of overstocking in social media and in the comment fields of related online newspaper articles. Since most Norwegians might internalise one or several of the problems associated with too many reindeer, the narrative also resonates with many different interest groups. As such, the dominant narrative unites “communities that might otherwise seem disparate” (Robbins, 2012, p. 140), such as advocacy groups for the protection of protected predators and interests advocating industrial development.
Discussion – revisiting the research questions
Furthermore, in the comparative case study on land-use conflicts (Paper 2), I found that the politics of belonging affected the politicians’ accounts of what was going on. In both land-use conflicts, the mining companies claimed a right to the disputed land by arguing that they were creating jobs and economic development and that through co-existence it was possible for both reindeer husbandry and the municipality to thrive. In both cases, the herders countered that mining activities would jeopardise their customary rights to land and have a severe negative impact on reindeer husbandry.
The study shows that the decision-making and the rhetoric that legitimised the decisions in Kvalsund and Kautokeino were different. In Kvalsund, on the northern coast of Finnmark, the herders were referred to as summer guests (outsiders) that claimed rights and benefits at the expense of the majority of permanent residents. In Kautokeino, in the interior of the county, on the other hand, the mining project triggered a debate about the herders’ land rights and the importance of reindeer husbandry for the local identity of people in the municipality.
The politics of belonging not only affects how the actors regard Sámi pastoralists;
examples of the notion of belonging are also reflected in actors’ accounts of the whereabouts of reindeer. The local and national newspapers share many accounts of residents from Kvalsund and other towns on the coast of West Finnmark that observe reindeer where they ought not be, namely in urban areas, in gardens, on cultivated grassland, at the roadside (VG, 1998; Altaposten, 2006; Aftenposten, 2009; Finnmark Dagblad, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2016; Finnmarken, 2016). The accounts construct a reality of where the reindeer do not belong – a reality that competes with the nature of semi-domesticated reindeer.