Despite numerous political measures to rationalise Sámi reindeer husbandry since the late 1970s, the state has remained concerned about overpopulations of reindeer and pastoralists. Over the last 40 years, authorities such as LMD, members of Parliament and the office of the auditor-general have described reindeer husbandry in Finnmark as both ecologically and economically unsustainable, resulting in overgrazing, degraded pastures and low productivity (see Innst. S. nr. 167, 1991–1992;
Riksrevisjonen, 2004; Riksrevisjonen, 2012; Stortinget, 2013).
Figure 5: Registered reindeer numbers in West Finnmark for the period 1980–2017
Bars show reindeer numbers per year and the line indicates the state decisions on upper reindeer numbers for West Finnmark. (Source: personal communication with staff at the Norwegian Agriculture Agency (March 2015), Statens reindriftsforvaltning (2014) and Landbruksdirektoratet (2015, 2016a, 2017a))
Reindeer number per year in West Finnmark
20 000 40 000 60 000 80 000 100 000 120 000
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Registered reindeer number as registered by the state State-decided upper reindeer number for West Finnmark
Situating the study
In Section 6.6, I present the measures taken to decrease the numbers of reindeer after the introduction of the 2007 Reindeer Act. (Figure 5 presents the reindeer numbers of West Finnmark from 1980 to 2017.) The destocking process affected the siidas of most of the pastoralist participants of the study and is therefore an important backdrop for understanding the information they shared during interviews, and for contextualising the particular period when this study was conducted. A more detailed discussion about the destocking is presented in Paper 1 and a book chapter that I wrote as part of the Dávggas project (see Johnsen, 2016).
I begin by discussing the notion of overgrazing. The Oxford Dictionary defines
overgrazing as “excessive grazing which causes damage to grassland”. As a response to a request from Parliament in 2000 to set upper limits for reindeer numbers, the Reindeer Husbandry Administration calculated the carrying capacity of West Finnmark (Ims & Kosmo, 2001). The calculations were done using mathematical models, based on the assumption that a state of balance – or equilibrium – can be reached in the relationship between the pastures and the number of grazing animals (Benjaminsen et al., 2016a). Based on the calculations, the upper limit for reindeer numbers was set to 64,300 animals. Ten years later, more advanced models and new calculations have set an upper limit of 78,150 reindeer in West Finnmark.
However, an alternative way of understanding the tundra ecology is through non-equilibrium thinking (Benjaminsen et al., 2015). (Section 3.2 introduced the concept of non-equilibrium ecology.) According to this thinking, the annual and seasonal climate conditions and variations affect the tundra ecology more than grazing. Also, more than the number of grazing animals, it is precipitation and temperature that affects the reindeer’s ability to access pastures – and thereby, their condition and survival rate.
Non-equilibrium thinking fits the traditional Sámi reindeer-herding knowledge about the complex relationship between reindeer and pastures, as described by MN Sara (2001).
As a measure to reduce the number of reindeer, LMD established a working group in
Situating the study
develop indicators and criteria for sustainable herd sizes. The working group
developed a set of indicators that were understood as simple, objective and verifiable.
For example, carcass weights were presented as a useful indicator, and the weight criteria for a slaughtered calf were set to 17–19 kg for the reindeer number to be classified as sustainable. Another indicator suggested was meat production; the criteria for a sustainable number of reindeer were set to a production of 8–9 kg of meat per animal in the spring herd (LMD, 2008a). Further, the working group agreed that more subjective indicators would yield important complementary information to assess the sustainability of the herd sizes. They stated that subjective indicators would better reflect the herders’ traditional knowledge about the observable features of the animals, which included the morphology of the reindeer’s antlers and body and the quality of its coat (LMD, 2008a). However, LMD’s final guidelines for the herders, Guidelines for setting ecologically sustainable reindeer numbers, put less emphasis on traditional knowledge (see LMD, 2008b).
The herding districts were given until July 2009 to submit their proposals for the upper limits of reindeer numbers based on the guidelines, and districts with slaughter weights and production below the set criteria were required to include plans for reducing herds (Brekk, 2011). At the end of 2010, the proposals of the first six herding districts in West Finnmark were approved by the National Reindeer Husbandry Board.
Meanwhile, LMD revised its perception of sustainable weights and overruled the decisions. According to the herders and government officials interviewed, this change was not communicated to the herding community (Johnsen, 2016). A background document developed for the Reindeer Husbandry Board in April 2011 referred to a minimum carcass weight of 19 kg for calves and stated that the preferred carcass weight should be above 20 kg (Reindriftsstyret, 2011a). One can also find traces of the adjustment of the weight criteria in a report by the office of the auditor-general in June 2012, which states that LMD had emphasised that the carcass weight of calves should be more than 19 kg (Riksrevisjonen, 2012). In December 2012, an article in
Reindriftsnytt (“News of Reindeer Husbandry”) published by the Norwegian Reindeer
Situating the study
Husbandry Administration explained that the carcass weight for calves should be above 20 kg (Reindriftsnytt, 2012).
Given the adjusted understanding of the weight criteria, very few herding districts in Finnmark were regarded as conducting sustainable reindeer husbandry
(Riksrevisjonen, 2012), and in the end, only one herding district in West Finnmark got its proposed reindeer number approved. The Reindeer Husbandry Board made decisions about the upper reindeer numbers for the rest of the districts in West Finnmark – on average, the stipulated reindeer numbers were 15% lower than proposed by the districts (Reindriftsstyret, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, 2011d, 2011e, 2011f, 2011g).
The Reindeer Husbandry Administration requested the herding districts to develop plans for reducing their numbers of reindeer to meet the set herd sizes, but most of the districts did not comply. The herders argued that they no longer recognised the criteria for sustainable reindeer numbers, while LMD claimed that the herders had participated in the working group that developed the indicators and criteria (Johnsen, 2016). In December 2011, the Minister of Agriculture and Food, Lars Peder Brekk, stressed the need for accelerating the destocking of semi-domesticated reindeer in Finnmark. The minister announced that if the herders were not willing to reduce their reindeer numbers voluntarily, the state would enforce a destocking process
(Aftenposten, 2011). In October of the same year, half the reindeer-herding districts in Finnmark received notifications about slaughter requirements from the Reindeer Husbandry Administration (Reindriftsforvaltningen, 2012).
In January 2013, after some public debate, the Norwegian Parliament’s Standing Committee on Scrutiny and Constitutional Affairs unanimously supported coercive measures to bring down the number of reindeer in Finnmark (Stortinget, 2013). In February 2013, LMD instructed the National Reindeer Husbandry Board to make decisions for a “proportionate reduction of the number of reindeer” for herding districts without an approved reduction plan (letter from LMD dated 14 February
Situating the study
201314). A divided Reindeer Husbandry Board followed up by making mandatory reduction plans for most districts/groups in West Finnmark and some of the districts in East Finnmark. Orders for destocking were issued to approximately 220 concession units distributed in 16 herding districts in Finnmark. The decisions implied a
destocking of between 6.5% and 62.4% of the herds, an average of about 30%, by 2015 (Reindriftsforvaltningen, 2012, 2013). The concession holders were also informed that those that did not destock accordingly would be fined.
During 2013 and 2014, the meetings of the National Reindeer Husbandry Board were dominated by herding districts’ complaints about the destocking decisions. A young herder from West Finnmark, Jovsset Ánte Sara, whose upper reindeer number was set to 75 animals, took his case to the Inner Finnmark District Court in 2016 and won. Sara argued that the provision on the proportionate reduction of herds, described in §60 of the Reindeer Act, was contrary to his civil and human rights as outlined in the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. The district court agreed that the destocking decision violated the herders’ rights. It stressed that the young herder was particularly affected by the proportionate herd reduction as he was in the middle of establishing his own livelihood and it would be impossible to earn a profit with a herd of 75 animals. The State appealed, but Sara won again in the Hålogaland Court of Appeals. The court found that the ministry's decision on destocking was invalid and an infringement of Sara’s right to engage in reindeer husbandry. The State appealed again and in
December 2017, the majority of the Supreme Court (four out of five judges) supported the application of the Reindeer Act (Norges høyesterett, 2017b). However, Sara has said he will take the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (Dagsavisen, 2017).
In April 2017, LMD issued a new white paper on Sámi reindeer husbandry (Meld. St.
32, 2016–2017). At a public hearing shortly after, the Sámi Parliament, the Sámi
14 The letter is accessible here:
Results – the abstracts of the four scientific papers
Reindeer Herders’ Association, and representatives of various herding districts criticised the white paper for having a poor knowledge base and proposing a
continuation of the Norwegianisation of Sámi reindeer husbandry, which started with the political reform of the 1970s. The issue of the Norwegianisation of the Sámi population (all Sámi, not only herders) is receiving increasing attention in the public debate. In June 2017, the national Parliament approved the establishment of a commission to examine the Norwegianisation of the Sámi (and Kven) (Kontroll- og konstitusjonskomiteen, 2017; Larsson et al., 2017). In June 2018, the Parliament decided to establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to map out and assess the consequences of the Norwegianisation policies and injustices against Sámi and Kven, and propose measures that will contribute to reconciliation and create greater equality between majority and minority populations (Innst. 408 S, 2017–2018). The
commission will submit its report to the Parliament by 1 September 2022.
Meanwhile, in March 2018, the Sámi Parliament issued a press release stating that they would not appoint members for the National Reindeer Husbandry Board for the term 2018–2021 (Landbruksdirektoratet, 2018; Sametinget, 2018). The Sámi Parliament requests reindeer husbandry policies that are better aligned with international law and greater influence for reindeer herders on the Board.
7 Results – the abstracts of the four scientific papers
This thesis studies the governance of Sámi reindeer husbandry and the competing accounts of what reindeer husbandry is and ought to be by examining four different cases focusing on a governance conflict between reindeer herders in West Finnmark and the state or society. The cases have been published as scientific papers which are presented in their full lengths in Part 2 of this thesis. The papers are independent but interrelated and jointly address the objective of this PhD study. Chapter 7 presents the abstracts of the scientific papers.
Results – the abstracts of the four scientific papers