presentations about reindeer husbandry?
8.1.1 Conflicting knowledges
The subcases of this thesis show that the government reports and the interviewed pastoralists have very different ways of presenting Sámi reindeer husbandry (Paper 1, 2, 3 and 4). The overall objective of state policies is to “develop the reindeer husbandry industry as a rational market-oriented industry that is sustainable in a long-term perspective” (Prop. 68 S, 2014–2015, p. 9). The policies and public reports on reindeer husbandry are influenced by positivist-reductionist thinking, which tends to dominate contemporary Western resource management. Since the 1970s, the state perspective on optimal reindeer pastoralism has been based on mathematical models for calculating correlations between reindeer meat production, animal numbers and densities of reindeer (see Lenvik, 1990; Ims & Kosmo, 2001; Fauchald et al., 2004;
Tveraa et al., 2007; Bårdsen & Tveraa, 2012; Bårdsen et al., 2014). Based on these studies, the state has identified standardised quantitative indicators and targets for
Discussion – revisiting the research questions
the optimal herd structure, carcass weights, reindeer numbers and animal densities (see Reindriftsstyret, 2011a, 2012). Every year, the herding districts report on the set targets, and the data are published annually in the “Resource accounting for the reindeer industry” report (Ressursregnskap for reindriftsnæringen). And through the Reindeer Agreement, pastoralists that meet the targets for upper reindeer numbers, production, calf harvest figures, etc. receive subsidies. Those with ‘too many reindeer’
can be sanctioned (Paper 3).
By using indicators and targets as tools to regulate reindeer, herders and pastures, the state seeks to enhance the predictability and control of reindeer husbandry, while also achieving the political objectives of maximising meat production and improving the economy of those who engage in reindeer husbandry as their main activity
(hovedvirksomhet). Furthermore, the state uses the same targets as indicators to assess the sustainability of the practice of the different herding districts.
However, optimal and sustainable carcass weights, reindeer numbers, and animal densities are not exact values; they are defined according to the needs, values and aspirations of those who set the targets. If, for example, as the mathematical model of Bårdsen et al. (2014) indicates, the desire is to produce calves with a carcass weight of 19 kg in West Finnmark, one should slaughter about 40% of the herd every autumn and have an upper reindeer number of 85,777. However, if the intention was to produce calf carcass weights of 20 kg, one should harvest about 50% and keep no more than 71,261. The model calculates how to maximise production, but different herders have many additional considerations to consider when planning and practising reindeer husbandry. Mathematical models – based on the concept of
‘carrying capacity’ – are simplified and generalized versions of reality and its causal effects and do not reflect the local and varying realities that pastoralists face on the tundra or in pastoral practices. For example, the model of Bårdsen et al. (2014) is based on two false assumptions, namely that there are no adult reindeer bulls in the herd and that calves are the only animal category slaughtered.
Discussion – revisiting the research questions
The participatory working group that developed the indicators and criteria for sustainable reindeer numbers identified simple, objective and measurable criteria for managing reindeer numbers. However, it acknowledged that these types of indicators did not capture all relevant knowledge, particularly not the pastoralists’ own
subjective indicators for assessing animal well-being, which include the behaviour of the reindeer, the morphology of its antlers and the quality of its coat (LMD, 2008a).
However, in the Guidelines for setting ecologically sustainable reindeer numbers, which LMD issued based on the recommendations of the working group, the subjective indicators were not acknowledged in the same way. Instead, the guidelines stressed the objective criteria for sustainable reindeer numbers and said that the herding groups who wanted to, could add subjective criteria to their assessment (LMD, 2008b) (see Paper 1).
While the state seeks predictability in and control of reindeer production and herding practices, the ideal within traditional reindeer husbandry is to seek balance in the relationship between the herd, the herders and the landscape (Paper 4). The notion is that the world is constantly changing, as captured in the Sámi proverb jahki ii leat jagi viellja (this year is not last year’s brother). According to the herders who participated in the study, the balance between the reindeer, people and nature can best be
maintained by remaining flexible and constantly adapting to variations in the seasons, weather conditions, landscape, predators, insects, access to pastures, human
disturbances and social relations. According to the same herders, flexibility can be sustained through three key techniques. Firstly, through deep knowledge about the herd and the factors that affect it. This is best achieved by spending time with and observing the behaviour of the herd and the condition of the reindeer. Secondly, flexibility means being mobile and always prepared to move with the herd. And thirdly, flexibility can be enhanced by having access to buffers – that is, extra pastures, extra reindeer and extra labour. Preserved pastures provide alternative grazing in times when the regular pastures are inaccessible, for example because of extreme weather conditions. The rationale for keeping more reindeer than ‘needed’ is that there are always losses in the herd – some reindeer are likely to be killed by predators
Discussion – revisiting the research questions
or vehicles, some might die due to illness or extreme weather, and some might become stray animals. The buffer labour force consists of reindeer owners and family members who do not herd on a daily basis but who help out in the more labour-intensive periods of reindeer husbandry such as during migration, earmarking and rounding up the animals for slaughter (Paper 4).
The herders’ traditional governance of reindeer husbandry is largely based on
practical experience and contextual knowledge accumulated where observations of the reindeer behaviour and morphology are essential. The state governance system, on the other hand, is largely based on conceptualised knowledge about the biology of the reindeer and the ecology of the pastures; regulations are therefore informed by standardised thinking about the causal effects of the grazing conditions, carcass weights and animal health. Moreover, the state fails to recognise the factors and knowledge that underlie the livelihoods of Sámi reindeer herders and undermines the resilience of reindeer pastoralists by insisting on using management tools that do not resonate well with the pastoralists (O'Brien et al., 2009).
While I refer to traditional and indigenous knowledge systems in the study and in this thesis, I recognise that indigenous knowledge is “a tricky idea because most
knowledges are not simply local but complex hybrids drawing upon all manner of knowledges” (Watts, 2000, p. 264). And though I make generalisations about both traditional Sámi herding knowledge and Western knowledge, these “generalizations must be recognised as indicative and not definitive” (Barnhardt & Kawagley, 2005, p.
10). As with Western science, indigenous knowledge systems are diverse and
“constantly adapting and changing in response to new conditions” (Barnhardt &
Kawagley, 2005, pp. 10-11).
According to the state, sustainable reindeer husbandry is achievable through the following logic: Ecological sustainability provides the basis for economic sustainability, and ecological and economic sustainability together make it possible to maintain and develop cultural sustainability. This linear argument was first introduced by a white
Discussion – revisiting the research questions
paper in 1992 (St. meld. 28, 1991–1992) and has been maintained and included in the latest White Paper on reindeer husbandry from 2017 (Meld. St. 32, 2016–2017).
Traditional reindeer-herding knowledge, on the other hand, has a more complex and integrated understanding of sustainable reindeer husbandry. IMG Eira et al. (2016) have visualised sustainable reindeer husbandry as the centre of a wheel with nine spokes, representing nine factors that are all crucial for upholding the centre: The pastoralist, resources (nature and labour), the herd, the knowledge, the worldview (includes ethics), rights, the earmarking system, the household, and the siida.
I nevertheless found – as Heikkinen et al. (2007) did in their research on the sustainability of reindeer husbandry in Finland – that the governance of reindeer pastoralism tends to detach the economic and ecological variables from the broader political, economic, and ecological contexts, and not recognise the interplay between the variables and the politics of power and knowledge. According to Berkes (2008), the positivist-reductionist approach in Western science has dominated contemporary resource management and has synthesised knowledge about the world into ‘value-free’ generalisations – for example, about overgrazing and overstocking – independent of context, space, and time (Berkes, 2008). The state policies and practices tend to see these problems as technical and non-political. The standardisation of weight targets and calf production simplify the state governance of reindeer husbandry and make it legible to government officials (Li, 2007b). However, governance of reindeer
pastoralism based on these simplifications – what JC Scott (1998) refers to as “seeing like a state” – leaves little room for the herders’ complex situated and local knowledge of reindeer and pasture management, and may even undermine it. (Paper 1 provides a longer discussion about the notion of “seeing like a state”.)
For example, from a state perspective, a focus on calf production is rational because younger animals have a higher growth intensity than older reindeer. Thus, by
slaughtering calves in the autumn, more nutrition would be provided for the pregnant females during winter and increase the weight and survival rate of the rest of the herd.
Consequently, the winter herds would be more sustainable and the pastoralists could
Discussion – revisiting the research questions
live better with fewer animals. However, from the perspective of traditional herding knowledge, harvesting calves is not considered the right thing to do. If the animals lived another year, their volume and meat quality would be better and the bone structure would have more marrow. The herders have therefore explained that traditionally, the varit (one-and-a-half-year-old male) is the preferred animal to harvest. Further, to achieve the calf production target set by the state, the herds have to consist of a very high ratio of female reindeer. According to the herders, these herds are not able to utilise the full variety of pastures within a herding district, because male reindeer are more tolerant of human disturbance and can graze in areas that females and calves avoid.
Furthermore, according to traditional herding knowledge, calf harvesting is
understood as an unethical practice. It is regarded as unfeeling to separate calves from their mothers before the young ones are independent. The separation causes stress within the herd because the females, who have a strong connection with its offspring, will search for their calves and sometimes even get lost (IMG Eira et al., 2016). In addition to decreasing the animals’ welfare, this also creates more work (Paper 3).
8.1.2 Competing worldviews
While Western ontology makes a distinction between nature and society, indigenous ontologies tend to understand people as part of nature – people belong to the land rather than the other way around (Blaser, 2009a, p. 891). Where Western ontology sees a nature/culture divide and understands nature as an object that must be appropriated and exploited through privately owned entitlements, indigenous ontologies see the natural environment as an entity that “constitutes their territory and includes earth-beings who must be respected” (Acuña, 2015, p. 86). The herders I interviewed acknowledged nature as an actor influencing the survival rate and production of the herd. One participant explained that a herder would not be able to increase his or her reindeer number unless nature let it happen. According to this worldview, where nature determines the production of a herd, the state’s standardised targets for sustainable animal weight and density have little practical value. The
Discussion – revisiting the research questions
participants argued that on the one hand, herders should avoid pasture degradation out of respect for nature; however, on the other hand, when a herd grows beyond the state-set upper reindeer numbers, it means that the herd size is within the limit of nature (Paper 4).
Further, according to Sámi ontology, the reindeer is an actor inside the siida system; it
“chooses its own movements and course of life” (MN Sara, 2009, p. 173). According to this thinking, humans can never obtain complete control over the reindeer. The reindeer belong to the landscape where, according to pastoralists’ worldview, it is free, mobile, and independent (Bull et al., 2001, p. 300). The Sámi myth of the origin of reindeer-herding emphasises a voluntary companionship between humans and reindeer, and herders often refer to reindeer as “a good governed by the wind” (MN Sara, 2009, pp. 171-172). Therefore, the pastoralists’ exercise of control over the reindeer is understood as a compromise based on the herders’ knowledge of and respect for the animals’ needs and nature (MN Sara, 2009). The state governance regime undermines the Sámi pastoralists’ traditional worldviews; the political
ontology of Sámi pastoralism hence includes a struggle for recognition for its rationale for sustainable management of reindeer, land and people (Paper 4).