correlated with the number of use conflicts between the herders and other land-use interests (Bull et al., 2001). For example, while public assessments at the end of the 19th century describe Sámi pastoralism in the north in positive terms, the increasing herder/farmer conflicts in the Røros area (Sør-Trøndelag and Hedmark counties) have resulted in a very negative attitude towards pastoralism in the south (Bull et al., 2001).
From the end of the 1880s, the authorities began to divide Sámi reindeer husbandry areas into smaller herding districts (Bull et al., 2001). All pastoralists belonging to a particular herding district were made responsible for damage caused on farmland by reindeer belonging to the district (MN Sara, 2009). Though the summer pastures in Finnmark also were divided into districts, a law about economic liability was not introduced in this county until 1933 (Bull et al., 2001). The autumn/spring and winter pastures in the interior of Finnmark continued to exist as more autonomous and larger
Situating the study
nomads’ land”, an area without important natural resources or any potential for economic development (Bull et al., 2001, p. 265). It was only after World War II that infrastructure development opened this area for competing land uses. As the competition increased, the description of reindeer husbandry in the interior of Finnmark became more negative (Bull et al., 2001).
While the legislation of the first decades of the 20th century was aimed at limiting the extent and rights of reindeer husbandry (Bull et al., 2001), a national focus on integrating reindeer pastoralists into the modern welfare state developed during the postwar period (Arnesen, 1979; Riseth, 2009). The ethnographer Ørnulf Vorren, who assessed reindeer husbandry in Norway in 1946, described the need for a radical modernisation and rationalisation of the livelihood. Vorren said that especially in West Finnmark, the herding practices were “out of date” (Vorren, 1946, p. 217). He observed that while Sámi pastoralism elsewhere in Norway had become more sedentary, whole West Finnmark families continued to migrate with the herd throughout the year as in former times. Vorren argues that “if this source of livelihood is not to be lost”, the herders in this region had to alter their nomadic lifestyle and become more modern and rational like reindeer herders had done other places in Norway (Vorren, 1946, p.
220). Still, while pastoralism south of Finnmark had gradually begun to settle before the turn of the 20th century, pastoralism in West Finnmark remained fully nomadic until approximately 1960 (Paine, 1994; Riseth, 2000; MN Sara, 2001).
After the war, and especially from the 1960s, reindeer husbandry everywhere experienced extensive technological, economic and political changes that entailed the introduction of obligatory schooling, infrastructure development and different kinds of subsidies. For example, a state housing programme was introduced in 1958 (Lenvik, 1998, p. 9), and in 1969, a fund was established to cover losses related to extreme weather and reindeer deaths, and the early retirement of herders (St. meld. 13, 1974–
1975). Access to motorised vehicles made herding more effective and households became more dependent on the external market for both selling and buying products, which also gave them a regular income for purchasing goods (Paine, 1994; Riseth,
Situating the study
2000). In the same period, Norway experienced a baby boom; from the 1950s, the population of Sámi pastoralists tripled (OK Sara, 2004, p. 36). In addition, government officials were becoming increasingly concerned that too many pastoralists were building up their herds, creating internal land-use conflicts and overgrazing (Villmo, 1978; Bjørklund, 1990; Storli & Sara, 1997; Lenvik, 1998; Bull et al., 2001; Bjørklund, 2004; Paine, 2004). Simultaneously, there was a public worry that the reindeer, and thereby wealth, were unevenly distributed among the pastoralists (Bjørklund, 1990).
The government officials were also concerned that some – especially in Finnmark – had lost too many animals during the war to sustain their families. Despite the concerns about overstocking and overgrazing, the poorest families therefore received state support from 1953 to 1978 to purchase reindeer to rebuild their herds (Bull et al., 2001).10
The public concerns about the growing reindeer numbers and outdated pastoral practices were also reflected in the report of a consultative committee (established in 1960 to revise the Reindeer Husbandry Act of 1933) (LD, 1966). Twenty years after Vorren published his assessment of reindeer husbandry in Norway, this committee acknowledged that the reindeer industry had not progressed at the same pace as the rest of society in Norway. Like Vorren, the committee argued that reindeer pastoralism had to change. It claimed that reindeer pastoralism could only be safeguarded by very rapid development – it took the agricultural sector several generations to achieve a similar development (Hætta et al., 1994). The committee recommended engaging science and innovation to modify and adjust the old traditions and practices of reindeer husbandry to a new reality (Storli & Sara, 1997).
Scholarly experts rather than practitioners were hence appointed as advisers on the development process (Paine, 1994; Riseth, 2000). According to Riseth (2000), the knowledge base for the reindeer husbandry politics was developed by a relatively small number of people during the 1970s. A scientific approach to optimising reindeer
Situating the study
meat production through optimal herd composition and slaughter strategies, coupled with the government officials’ concerns about an oversupply of reindeer and too many pastoralists, formed the value and knowledge base for the political reform – often referred to as the modernisation, rationalisation or optimisation of Sámi reindeer husbandry (Bjørklund, 1990; Lenvik, 1990; Paine, 1994; Berg, 1996; Riseth, 2000;
Bjørklund, 2004; Paine, 2004; H Reinert, 2008; Hausner et al., 2011) – of reindeer husbandry governance in the 1970s.
Since the 1970s, the state's governance regime for Sámi reindeer husbandry has been revised in several ways. At the end of the 1980s, the notion of sustainability entered the public debate and became a new rationale for policies, but the overarching focus of the reindeer husbandry policies did not change. Today, 40 years after the political reform, rationalisation is still the main objective of state governance of Sámi pastoralism. A white paper published by the current government11 in April 2017 expresses the political objective of the government as follows: “to develop reindeer husbandry into a rational market-oriented industry that will be sustainable in the long term” (Meld. St. 32, 2016–2017).
6.4 The state’s governance of Sámi reindeer husbandry