DECLARATION:
I, Andrei Florin Marin, declare hereby to the Senate of the Agricultural University of Norway that the present thesis is the original product of my own research. All sources of information used as references and materials other than my own are duly acknowledged. The present work has not been submitted to any university other than NLH for any type of academic degree.
Aas, May 20003 Andrei Florin Marin
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
There are few occasions in life when one lives his dreams. I had been granted one of these occasions. Living above the polar circle, interacting with a group of pastoralists for one winter has been the fruition of many ‘toils and troubles’. This would have not been possible without the help of a few special persons. All I can do to express my gratitude to them here is a mere reminder, but, as ‘scripta manent’(latin- ‘the writing remains’), I hope to make this the token of my appreciation all to often unexpressed.
First and foremost I am indebted to Øystein Holand at the Institute for Animal Husbandry/ AUN, as a supervisor, mentor and friend. My fieldwork and the subsequent study would have been more difficult, less exciting and probably unattainable if it weren’t for his efforts. I am deeply grateful for all the encouragement, patience and time Øystein has provided ever-since we first met, especially during periods when the odds seemed very much against me and my plans. It made a world of difference! Tusen takk!
To my supervisor Gufu Oba at Noragric/ AUN for encouraging my interest in rangeland ecology and pastoralism, I also owe a great deal of gratitude. I am also grateful for all the hours in which we planed my research and discussed the outcomes. I would have been lost without his sharp perception of worthy ideas entangled in my wordy writing. To both Øystein and Gufu, a sincere ’thank you’ for keeping me focused and motivated and for struggling to help me with all the practical difficulties.
To Josie Teurlings and Ingunn Andersen at Noragric for going out of their way to help me with the all-too-many details and problems that come with being ‘a special case’- you made it seem easier, at times even funny.
I also thank Mikkel Nils Sara and Nils Oskal at the Saami Institute in Kautokeino for their help and encouragement- hopefully next time things would be easier.
To Jonathan Coleman for sharing his passion and inspiring me to pursue my dreams- I bid an honest ‘thank you’ and my admiration.
Lastly, I owe a ‘thank you’ to all the herders who took their time to talk to me and help me understand better the complicated realities of a pastoralist’s life. I appreciated their effort even more as they didn’t give in to any prejudice related to my affiliation. Hopefully, their efforts will eventually make a difference.
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Page
DECLARATION………….. ………... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.. ……….. ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS….. ……….. iii
LIST OF FIGURES………... ……….. v
ABSTRACT vi FOREWORD………... ……… 1
CHAPTER 1.………. INTRODUCTION……….. 2
1.1. Context and problem setting 2 1.2. Theoretical framework. Political Ecology 4 Discourse analysis 5 Narrative analysis 6 CHAPTER 2……….. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY………. 9
2.1. The study area 9 2.2. Pastoralism in Finnmark 13 2.3. Policy rationalisation 15 CHAPTER 3……….. METHODOLOGY……… 20
Limitations of the study 22 CHAPTER 4……….. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION………... 23
A. ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES……….. 23
1. The status of the winter ranges 23
2. Winter die-offs: factors and circumstances 28 3. Snow condition: its evolution and importance 29
4. Defining the quality of the ranges 30
4.1. Equilibrium vs. disequilibrium in Finnmark 32
B. ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES……….. 38
1. The herd as productive capital 38
2. Workforce 40
3. Strategies and perceptions 42
C. SOCIAL ARENA………. 51
1. Social coordinates for the siida’s 51
2. Mobility in the social landscape 54
3.Social networks and their limitations 57
3.1. Conflict resolution: perceptions 57
3.2. Erosion of customary power 59
D. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS……….. 64
1. Customs on the winter ranges 64
2. The role of the Reindeer Herding Administration 67 3. Security in using the winter ranges 69 4. The future laws and regulations 71 5. Conflicting visions: consequences and remedies 74 5.1. The ranges as common-pool resources 74
5.2. The tragedy in Finnmark 78
5.3. Between resignation and hope: the future law 81
CHAPTER 5……….. CONCLUSION……… 84
REFERENCES……….. ……….. 87
APPENDIX 1……… THE ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM OF REINDEER
HERDING IN FINNMARK………. 94
APPENDIX 2……… SAAMI WORDS USED IN TEXT………... 96
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1: Finnmark’s reindeer ranges……….. 11
Figure 2: Western, Middle and Eastern reindeer ranges in Western Finnmark………. 14 Table 1: Herders interviewed in Western Finnmark……….. 20 Figure 3: Evolution of the number of semi-domesticated reindeer in West Finnmark…….. 26 Table 2: Evolution of the main vegetation communities on the winter ranges of West
Finnmark………... 31
Figure 4: Comparative evolution of the size of summer herds between inner
and outer summer districts………... 43 Figure 5: Principle of the relation between number of reindeer and the
standing lichen biomass………... 44 Figure 6: Evolution of the number of herding units and persons involved in reindeer
herding in West Finnmark……… 50
Figure 7: Traditional borders of the winter siida’s in the 1960’s……… 63 Table 3: Success principles for enduring common pool resources………. 76
ABSTRACT:
Nomadic pastoralism is characterised by flexible patterns of resource use and tenure regimes, as a response to fluctuating circumstances. In sub-arctic Norway, traditional tenure and resource-use regimes of Saami reindeer pastoralism have been replaced by a formalized system reinforced by the State. Today the lichen ranges are highly degraded and the enterprise is sustained by large subsidies, legitimating more control from the Administration and calling for a drastic revision of management approach.
Using the framework of political ecology and narrative analysis, the present study addresses the environmental, economic, social and institutional impacts of the present management regime on the common winter ranges in Inner Finnmark. The article contrasts the discourse of the herders with the two meta-narratives produced by the hegemonic discourse of the State and reproduced by society at large: a single, optimum stocking density as a prerequisite for sustainable production; and a need for centrally-controlled, formalised regulation system in order to avoid resource degradation.
The paper discusses the received wisdom, simplification, methodological flaws and vested interests inherent in this approach as illustrated by herders' narratives and supported by secondary empirical evidence and scientific theories that acknowledge the influence of various circumstances (climatic, social, economic, cultural) upon the production strategy of the herders.
An opportunistic management approach that develops and legitimates local
institutions to coordinate the use of common ranges according to ecological variability and customary tenure system is proposed as an alternative.
FOREWORD:
I have always been fascinated by pastoral nomads. As a child, I used to read about the Mongolians, Tuaregs or Koryaks with the any schoolboy’s hunger for adventure and unexplored places. My interest in the study of pastoralism has been growing as I have come to appreciate their philosophies and ways of life. The question that has puzzled me is how could they possibly survive, adapt and thrive in such harsh and unforgiving environments? Why did they choose to ‘wander’ on the open steppe, tundra or desert, at the mercy of the elements, instead of the comfort of a settled life?
The present study is a partial fulfilment of my pursuit of understanding better the human dimensions of the use of nature, particularly for nomadic pastoralism. My choice of study of the Saami reindeer herders in the extreme Norwegian North was based on their relevance to the present situation of pastoralists worldwide. They too struggle for the recognition of their way of natural resource management and modes of life for promoting sustainable livelihoods rather than short-term self-interests. They cope with management regimes that often contradict their representations of nature and claims to resources, the regimes imposing rigid and formal rules over a system defined by variability and fluctuations, always at the threshold of order. In this thesis I provide the Saami reindeer herders with an opportunity to define their views of managing the resources of the ranges. My belief is that the knowledge they foster is a starting point in better understanding and managing the resource they depend upon.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Context and problem setting
Throughout the world, most of the pastoral systems in arid, semi-arid and temperate regions have been the subject of increasing pressure imposed by political decisions that take into consideration various interest groups like conservationists and farmers. This in turn creates the premises for exclusion of the pastoralists from some of their traditional grounds and often for the degradation of the resource resulting from managing variable rangelands by imposing rigid spatial and social boundaries (Fernández-Giménez, 2002).The present thesis presents a similar problem from the different ecological and economic settings of sub-arctic Norway. The livestock here is semi-domesticated reindeer (Rangifer tarandus), a ruminant adapted to the arctic/sub-arctic environment, surviving the long winters by feeding mainly on mat-forming lichens. The semi-nomadic reindeer herders in the study area are a part of the Saami minority that spreads over north-central Fennoscandia and part of the Kola Peninsula.
The recent attention to the management of reindeer ranges in Finnmark (the northernmost county in Norway) has pointed to the overall situation as an archetypal example of the “tragedy of the commons” (Hardin, 1968). The theory states that whenever the pasture resources are commonly owned and the animals are private property, each herder would act in order to maximise profits at the expense of all the others, thus “bringing ruin to all”. This standpoint has been reinforced by a series of surveys (e.g. Orvik& Prestbakmo, 1990;
Johansen& Karlsen, 1998) that substantiate a severe degradation of the common lichen ranges and explain it as a consequence of the excessive pressure imposed on the resource by too large stocking densities. The same sources also suggest that, as a consequence of reduced lichen cover, reproductive success of the reindeer herds have declined, especially during the 1990’s. This stance, adopted by the State (Reindriftforvaltningen, 2002) and reproduced by the media in dramatic tones like “environmental catastrophe” or “irresponsible management”, has provided the needed legitimacy for a strict control of the reindeer herding industry as a whole.
The official policy has been to employ different strategies (both economic incentives and law enforcement to reduce the number of animals) in order to improve the conditions of the lichen cover, the main winter forage of reindeer. One such strategy is manipulating reindeer population through increased culling. Despite the decline in reindeer numbers by more than 33%, the official policy still continues to consider stocking rates as the main cause
of the resource degradation and further reductions of the herds have been recommended as a desirable solution from the perspectives of state officials concerned with administration of the reindeer husbandry (Ims& Kosmo, 2001).
The two main conceptual thrusts of this stance are: first, that in order to ensure a sustainable use of grazing resources, the stocking density has to correspond to the carrying capacity of the range, univocally determined by the interaction plant/herbivore (in our case lichen/reindeer). This is later identified as the meta-narrative of an equilibrial ecological model. The second conceptual position is that the herders will always act towards a zero-sum competition, pursuing individual interests at the expense of the group, increasing their herds indefinitely and degrading the vegetation. Therefore the State has the duty and the legitimacy to create and reinforce a regime to govern the resources, avoiding degradation and ensuring sustainability (NOU, 2001:35). This is further identified as the ‘tragedy of the commons’meta-narrative.
The research leading to the current thesis was conducted at the time when the Government considers the revision of the herding legislation in order to reduce the damage of the winter and spring/autumn ranges (NOU, 2001:35). While some of the recommendations acknowledge the suitability of traditional patterns of resource allocation, the proposal is still based on the same conceptual framework. The goal of achieving ‘sustainable reindeer herding’ (NOU, 2001:35) as a result of these regulations might be illusionary if the actual causes and courses of the decline of the winter ranges are different from those suggested by the officialdom. Indeed, experiences on herding systems in arid and semi-arid environments are abundant to dispute the perceived “tragedy” (Behnke et al., 1993; Roe, 1999; Oba et al., 2000; etc).
Furthermore, alternative ecological models suggest that (sub-) arctic systems such as those of the Finnmark rangelands might reflect non-equilibrium behaviour similar to that observed in highly variable ecosystems in Africa (Behnke, 2000; Fox, 1996). The potential for using such models to understand the artic-rangeland ecosystems of Finnmark might be increased if ecologists treat them not as stable but rather as highly variable non-equilibrium systems (Tyler, 1999; Caughley& Gunn, 1993).
The present thesis aims not at testing the presence of non-equilibrium in the ecosystems of Finnmark (this would be my goal for future research) but rather, to provide a new analysis that incorporates the perceptions and claims of the Saami herders regarding the present environmental situation on the winter pastures. I use the epistemology of political ecology, and narrative analysis to contrast the important claims of the herders with those of
the Administration and present empirical evidence that addresses these conceptual stances.
The purpose of the thesis is to juxtapose and interrogate the arguments presented by the Administration in order to ‘tell a better story’ (Roe, 1999) regarding the extent and circumstances of the environmental degradation in Finnmark. The research will shift the discussion toward a different paradigm, one that acknowledges the complex system of ecological, socio-cultural and economic relationships that govern de facto the present management system in Finnmark. Looking in greater detail at the theoretical framework is thus warranted.
1.2 Theoretical framework. Political Ecology
The present study uses discourse and narrative analysis within the framework of political ecology- broadly defined as the study of power relations defining land and environmental management (Grennberg & Park, 1994)- to discuss the discourses related to reindeer husbandry in Finnmark. Political ecology, as a theoretical paradigm relies on the works of Blaikie (1985) and Blaikie & Brookfield (1987) that focus on “the land manager and his/her relationship to nature in a historical, political and economic context” (1987), emphasizing important issues like social origins of degradation, the plurality of perceptions and definitions of ecological problems. Thus, one purpose of political ecology is to focus on the need to link the distribution of power with productive activity, and ecological analysis with its complex vision of bioenvironmental relationships. It moves away form the traditional Darwinist perspective that competition at the individual level provides the driving force for change and that short-term self-interested behaviour plays the exclusive role within communities.
Instead, political ecology treats communities from an integrative perspective and the complex relationships between productive activity, human character and environment as flexible, historically and regionally specific (Greenberg& Park, 1994). Just as self-interested behaviour would, more often than not, result in an inadequate adaptive response in the face of chaotic disturbances, communities do not simply reach permanent ideal adaptations to their environments (Prigogine& Stengers, 1984; Schaeffer, 1985; Worster, 1990). In particular, the
“tragedy of the commons” viewed participants in environmental decision-making as contributing to environmental crisis because of self-interests prevailing over communal commitments. Instead, political ecology will be used to highlight how community constraints
act in a self-regulating, adaptive manner and that removal of these constraints can significantly increase environmental degradation.
Equally relevant here is the central role given to understanding the extent to which an alleged environmental crisis is the product of adherence to a certain construction of nature (Fairhead& Leach, 1995). In other words, what is the extent of ‘accepted’ degradation of the lichen ranges according to different models of sustainable resource use. Moreover, the paradigm argues that understanding how the status quo of a claimed environmental crisis came about is the crux of solving the crisis (Bryant& Bailey 1997:5). In this regard, I present possible causal pathways leading to range degradation, as underlined by the reindeer herders with empirical support.
Discourse analysis
Within the framework of political ecology, I use discourse analysis (more specifically narrative analysis) to examine the meaning and the construction of the resource management problem among the reindeer herders of Finnmark’s plateau in Norway. The discourse analysis relates to the constructionist tradition in the study of the social world, which focuses not only on a specific phenomenon itself, but also on claims concerning this phenomenon, claim- makers and the claim-making process (Best, 1989; Agder et al., 2001). I am here conscious of the fact that discourse analysis has been loosely applied within social sciences as
“fashionable” yet so poorly defined that it is seen as mere wordy expressions (Jørgensen &
Philips, 1999:9). Criticism aside, discourses are defined as a particular way of representing the real world through social construction, a shared meaning of a phenomenon, produced, reproduced and transformed by its adherents (Agder et al., 2001).
Seeing discourse as a truth regime, Agder et al. (2001) identify homogeneity in message as its fundamental characteristic, implying that expressions share certain knowledge and perceptions of a phenomenon, causes of problems and appropriate responses. According to Svarstad (2002), the regularities of the statements forming a discourse occur not only as content, but also in terms of expressive means, as “rhetorical devices- metaphors and meta- narratives”.
The existence of a discourse implies a certain structure or stability of specific social constructs; nevertheless, a discourse is an open structure, with no set limit. As meaning cannot be settled once and for all, discourses change over time, sometimes in a considerable, sudden way (ibid.). Therein resides the difficulty of analysing the discourse, as all limits imposed on it are artificial even though essential for a successful analysis.
Laclau and Mouffe (1985) suggest two ways of removing the constraint of interpreting discourses by setting limits towards meanings of words by excluding those words that are not relevant to the discourse and by delineate competing discourses. The approach of Agder et al. (2001), is relevant to the present research. It identifies three main elements a discourse analysis should contain: 1) analysis of regularities in expression to identify discourses. 2) analysis of the actors producing, reproducing and transforming discourses and 3) social impacts and policy outcomes of the discourses.
The relations between different discourses are of particular interest in revealing power structures and relationships among actors. A discourse is labelled hegemonic when it dominates thinking and is translated into institutional arrangements (Hajer 1995: 60-61).
Here, I identify the managerial discourse of the State as the hegemonic one based on the two meta-narratives presented earlier. In this thesis I attempt to define an alternative discourse to that of the Administration of reindeer herding in Finnmark, by using narrative analysis.
Narrative Analysis
Emery Roe (1999:2) defines narratives as stories cast in the form of an argument, with premises and conclusions. They serve as rules of thumb in interpreting phenomena, in our case evolution of pasture resources. By applying these rules of thumb, events are interpreted in different ways and different action-paths are followed according to conceptual thrusts of the discourse. For instance, adherence to the ‘tragedy of the commons’ theory often leads to privatisation of rangelands and livestock control (ibid.).
A second characteristic of the narratives is that they reveal a particular structure of the involved ‘cast’ of actors arranged in archetypes: heroes, villains and victims (Svarstad, 2002).
The distinction between narrative and discourse needs to be emphasised: while discourse can be defined as a truth system, narratives can be defined as means of expression. A discourse is a conceptual set of arguments. Narratives are the actual arguments.
Narratives are often constructed to simplify a complex reality (Roe, 1999) and they can be seen as a generalised abstractions rather than specific stories. They do not simply record events, they constitute and interpret them as meaningful parts of meaningful wholes.
They are a part of the truth regimes (discourses) and help the people who tell them construct a signifying structure. By relating this structure to a possible reality, narratives can be used to form a new reality (Hongslo& Benjaminsen, 2002).
Finally, meta-narratives are defined (Lyotard, 1997) as having an important historical role- they are stories held to represent a final truth, with great generality. They may be
considered de-contextualised and transcending the complexities of human experience, grand schemes of thought. While both the narrative and meta-narrative refer exclusively to constructions belonging to the discourse in order to illustrate its message, a meta-narrative differs from a narrative in that it has an abstract structure or pattern on which specific narratives within the discourse are formed (Svarstad, 2002).
Concluding the description of narrative analysis relevant to the present research, we have to acknowledge that, given a certain cast of actors and the ‘hierarchy’ of discourses these actors propose, narratives are often constructed to be counter-narratives, ones that ‘tell a better story’ (Roe, 1999). Roe also proposes that when appropriate, research should ‘de-narrativize’
a certain narrative by insisting that ‘there is no story to tell until the facts are in’ (ibid.).These last two aspects, of contrasting narratives and counter-narratives in order to ‘tell a better story’ and attempting to de-narrativize some of the accepted views embedded in the present management regulations within the reindeer herding in Finnmark are at the core of the present narrative analysis.
I use the information collected from the reindeer herders I interviewed in Western Finnmark during the winter of 2001/2002 in order to first define a discourse based on analyses of regularities in expression and then refine the discourse by looking at the actors producing the discourse. Of significance to this approach was to capture the language used by the interviewees as relevant to their intellectual affiliation: most of them used daily language cast in the form of scholastic examples, while others mixed them with scientific information in order to support their arguments. I intended to preserve these manifestations in the manner of translating their narratives into English. The language used is significant to the understanding of the traditional knowledge and the way the discourse is influenced by both the sources of knowledge (empirical, scientific) and the political circumstances (herders using scientific concepts in order to form a counter-narrative). I then turn to contrasting some of the main narratives within the discourse of the herders with those supported by the official administration and use scientific findings to de-narrativize some of the assumptions in the hegemonic discourse. The purpose of my study is to identify and analyse the narratives defining the discourse of the reindeer herders regarding the management of the ranges in Finnmark. To this end I have combined the information from the interviews trying to reveal the representations the herders have about their environment and the forces governing its utilization. These representations presented in reoccurring themes seem to form an argument with premises and conclusions. I treated these reoccurring themes as being the (more abstract)
meta-narratives defining the discourse of the herders, their representations of the circumstances of the winter rangeland management in Finnmark in order to:
1. Describe winter herding strategies in relation to ecological factors in Western Finnmark
2. Assess the role social interactions and traditional institutions play in herding strategies 3. Analyse the institutional goals and constraints that influence the decision-making of
the herders in Western Finnmark.
CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
2.1 The study area
The study area, the county of Finnmark, is divided into three zones (Western, Middle and Eastern) (Figure 1) and is defined by low or absent coastal mountains, which together with the presence of the Gulf Stream, produces a sub-oceanic climate. The climate of Finnmark shows two gradients, extending from the coast to the inland: the western coast is affected by the Gulf Stream bringing mild and moist air from the south. The central part of Finnmark is an inland plateau (vidda), defined by a continental climate, with cold winters and hot and moist summers, called Finnmarksvidda. These influences lead to cool summers and mild winters on the coast of Finnmark with precipitation of up to 1000-1200 mm, and cold winters (extreme temperatures to –51°C) and warm summers and less precipitation (317 mm in Kautokeino) for the inland plateau (Johansen & Karlsen, 2000).
The difference between the coastal and the inland parts of Finnmark also reflect geological variability. In the coastal zones are degradable bedrocks rich in nutrients (cambro- silurian) that generate soils able to support a high vegetation biomass. By contrast, the acidic oligotrophic and hardly degradable soils of the Finnmark’s plateau promote the mat-forming lichens in the competition with the vascular plants resulting in good winter pastures (Riseth, 2000). The twofold climatic and geological conditions reflect the movement of the reindeer herds during the year: from the winter pastures of inland, with little snow and lichen beds providing food, to the summer pastures on the coast providing cool temperatures, lush grass vegetation and shelter from insects.
The topography and patchiness of the landscape detail this migration at micro- landscape scale. The range is divided into eight specific seasonal types of pastures used by herders to meet the detailed requirements of the herds during one year (for rutting, breeding, calf marking, grazing, slaughtering, etc.) (Sara, 2001). In this context, the topography of the range is important. At the macro level, a flat landscape promotes longer migrations requiring a greater energy and a longer time, at a medium level the presence of borders between different grazing areas is important for the working strategies and movement patterns*.
* e.g. the term njarga-meaning peninsula- is commonly used for a grazing area surrounded by natural borders on three sides, this kind of landscape is considered to have a funnel effect upon the herds (Forman& Gordon, 1986:113)
Finally, at a micro level high variation in altitude provides a large spectrum of ecological conditions per unit area, and thus specific conditions for different seasons (Riseth, 2000).
From a bio-geographical perspective, Finnmarksvidda belongs to the Euro-Siberian taiga, which stretches out from the Pacific Ocean through Siberia and northern Russia and to the Atlantic Ocean. Elevations vary between 300-500 m a. s. l. Moraines and moors dominate the region. The plateau has a very evident continental trait in the southern parts; with wide spread plant communities, forming a mosaic of lichen communities, moors and numerous lakes (NOU, 1978).
During the winter, thrusts of mild air from the SW make the temperatures in the valleys much lower than those in the mountains. In the mild periods, the cold air masses recede; if these periods are long they lead to a high increase in temperature. This wide variation of the temperature on the plateau during winter influences all the activities concerning life in the open, including the availability of the lichen beds for the reindeer, plant and animal life and the decisions taken by the herders. One climatic characteristic of Finnmarksvidda is that there is very little precipitation in the interval between October- November through April-May, related to the frequent formation of stabile high-pressure areas during the winter. At the same time, 50-60% of the annual precipitations fall during June- September (NOU, 1978).
The snow comes on the plateau in October and melts by May. The snow-cover depends on the precipitations, temperature, wind and elevation, having large yearly variations for any given area. The deepest snow cover occurs in the outer parts on the plateau but in certain years the inner parts receive higher snowfall (ibid.). The thickest snow-cover is recorded in March increasing the ‘bottle-neck’ effect of food resources. This is the time of the year when the easyly-accessible lichens are scarce. The depth of the snow layer (and its density) is the most important element affecting the availability of lichen beds for reindeer consumption: the herds move into areas with less snow or with snow through which is easier to dig the so-called ‘craters’, using the hoofs. In Inner Finnmark, normally the snow is dry and without an ice layer, nevertheless in difficult years, snow may form crust on top, leading to inaccessible food, and in turn causing a high mortality among the animals (Paine, 1994).
The long periods of high atmospheric pressure during the winter lead to a relatively low intensity of the dominant winds. For areas at higher altitudes the winds are generally stronger. From October to March the main direction of the winds is between West and South East. The intensity and direction of the winds influence the density of the snow and its
locations (leaves ridges barren and fills valleys), playing an important role in accessibility of the lichen ranges (Sara, 2001).
The circumstances of the plant communities are governed by many factors, which can be highly variable in the area of interest. The main factors are geology (connected to the soil and its condition), climate, humidity, protection and species’ individual requirements as well as grazing.
In Western Finnmark, reindeer grazing pastures are divided, into summer ranges (on the coast and islands), spring/autumn ranges (farther inland) and winter ranges (farthest inland on the plateau):
Figure 1: Finnmark’s reindeer ranges (redrawn after Aarseth, 1985)
The summer ranges are administratively divided into 26 districts: 8 in Western, 11 in Middle and 7 in Eastern Finnmark. The autumn/spring ranges (District 30) are managed as commons and represent key reosurces for the migration patterns of the herds and calving grounds in the spring.
The study was conducted on Finnmark’s plateau in the area of the town of Kautokeino, in the middle of the winter ranges of Western Finnmark (District 31).
WESTERN FINNMARK
MIDDLE FINNMARK
EASTERN FINNMARK
Winter Ranges Autumn/spring ranges
Summer ranges Year-round ranges
These ranges are divided into a western, middle and eastern part. They cover 5433.4 km2, including 5% represented by surface water. The most important vegetation types are birch forests, with or without lichen beds (37%), heathers and moors (10%), lichen-moors (12%) and marshes of different origins (16%) (Johansen & Karlsen, 2000). These ranges are undoubtedly the critical food resource for the reindeer as they allow survival through the winter and development of the foetuses to be born the next spring.
In this respect some ecological aspects regarding the ecology of the lichens and their relation with the reindeer need more detailed explanations. Thus, during winter reindeer prefers likens such as Cladonia stellaris, C. rangiferina, C. arbuscula, Stereocaulon spp, and Flavocetraria nivalis (Tømmervik, et al., 1996). Although the protein content in the lichen biomass is generally low, the reindeer has the ability to use the nutrients in the lichen forage and together with the fat accumulated during the summer and autumn to obtain the energy required to survive the long winters. In addition, they also use vascular plants available (such as Vaccinium spp., Betula nana) and graminoids (Festuca ovina, Deschampsia flexuosa, Carex spp., etc).
The vascular plants that co-exist with lichens on the same oligotrophic soils (heathlands) have low growth rates. In the case of severe droughts, the lichens are favoured as the vascular plants die out. If, on the other hand, precipitations increase, the vascular plants might be promoted. Furthermore, if the rain is acid, containing NO3-, the growth of vascular plants increases and the mat-forming lichens are gradually reduced (Crittenden, 1999).
Regarding the impact of trampling and grazing on the lichen growth a few points have to be made, as they are important in defining the plant/ herbivore relationship. First, lichens beneath deep snow are protected against trampling of reindeer herds on the winter ranges (ibid.). In order to graze these lichens, the animals excavate craters in the snow, causing mechanical damage in the process (Virtala, 1992). In the summer, the lichen mats are dry and can easily be broken by trampling (Bayfield et al., 1981). This damage is differently distributed: for migratory herds it might be confined to the migratory routes (Crittenden, 1999). However, when artificial barriers prevent migratory movements or when the lichen ranges are grazed out of season, a severe degradation due to summer trampling and grazing might occur (ibid.). The recovery of these lichen mats may take from 9 to 16 years (Virtala, 1992).
2.2 Pastoralism in Finnmark
The patterns of resource exploitation and management of the pasture ecosystems in Finnmark have undergone significant changes within the last hundreds of years. The use of reindeer shifted from an initial hunting exploitation to a subsistence nomadic or semi-nomadic herding of semi-domesticated reindeer, and recently to the market oriented approach. These changes, combined with the system of cultural norms of the traditional reindeer pastoralism (Sara, 1993) and the evolving administrative constraints imposed by the State, result in the present patterns of resource exploitation.
In the following, I provide summarized highlights to these historical processes that had bearing on the way the ranges are used and perceived today in Finnmark. The presentation will concentrate on the period beginning with domestication and the emergence of central governance of the Reindeer Husbandry. In the early 1800, the entire Eurasian Arctic was undergoing what has been termed “a reindeer revolution” (Krupnic, 1993). During this period the favourable climate arguably increased the productivity of reindeer as a consequence of improved regeneration of the lichen mats. Moreover, stable winters, with normal snowfalls and without winter thaws improved food accessibility for the reindeer. The assumptions incidentally represent equilibrial changes; assuming that the reindeer cycles (Meldgaard, 1986) are linked to and in turn influence the cycles of lichen mat regenerations.
The increase in population and pressure from the outsiders (fur traders, Finnish and Norwegian immigrants) in the 18th century served as an incentive to increases in the size of the herds. The owners of larger herds gave up hunting (which had run parallel to herding until then) without the time or the need for it (Leem, 1767). With this practice came the need for larger grazing areas and well-defined, flexible territorial agreements (Beach, 1981), allowing herds to opportunistically use the most favourable ecological conditions. These territorial patterns were perpetuated up to the recent years within the traditional herding system. This system, called johtolat*, consists of migration routes and grazing areas within a delimited zone (called orohat: geasseorohat/ summer range, dálveorohat/ winter range) used by the groups of herds belonging to one zone (Sara, 2001). In Western Finnmark, there are three johtolat: Oar’jebealli (‘Western’), Nour’tabealli (‘Eastern’), Gow’dojotellit (‘Middle’) (ibid.):
* see Appendix 2 for explanation of the Saami words in text.
Figure 2: Western, Middle and Eastern reindeer ranges in Western Finnmark
The territorial system is further detailed as individual herds, belonging to each household (báiki), group and regroup during the year to form unions (siida) in order to meet the requirements of each season. The structure of a siida at any given moment is a consequence of both ecological requirements and configuration of social interactions: during summer, when the animals graze on islands and peninsula’s on the coast, the working units should be large enough to exploit the individual landscapes. By comparison, during winter, the food available is distributed in patches and the herd has to move more without trampling the snow and ‘locking’ the pasture on a too large area. In spring (the calving season) each family has to provide patches of good pastures for the does, preferably snow-free and nutritious (Paine, 1994).
The unions of herds acquired in time collective usufruct rights for pastures in a given area. Thus, whenever the composition of one siida changed, by adding a new herd or by losing one, its grazing rights remained connected to the same core-areas (orohat), but changed to match the size of the pasture allocated with the size of the herd. This leads to the overlapping of the borders of the neighbouring siida’s ranges and a reciprocal use of resources. For example if during a certain year one of the siidas does not have enough animals to use all of its rightful range, one of the neighbouring siida may use the grazing resources surplus without the need of formal agreement (ibid.). At the same time, the migration system (johtolat) traditionally provided detailed regulations to avoid mixing of herds and trampling
Oar’jebealli (Western) Nour’tabealli (Eastern)
Gow’dojotellit (Middle)
WESTERN FINNMARK
of pastures (Sara, 2001: 45). However, important transformations have occurred in terms of management, as a result of both technological and altered political environment and power relations in the Saami lands.
2.3 Policy rationalisation
In the early 1700’s, the northern part of Fennoscandia (Norway, Sweden including Finland and the Kola peninsula) was still a system of commonly held districts, the last area in Europe without clearly defined borders between nation-states (Sandvik, 1989:10). As a result of the Inter-Nordic war, Denmark/Norway and Sweden decided upon the establishment of a border. Yet, they recognised that the nomadic herding was essential for the existence of the Saami nation and agreed that at least in respect to the inland areas, the Saami should remain exclusive users (Bergstrøm, 2002). This recognition took the form of an agreement, commonly known as Lappekodisillen, in 1752, essentially allowing the free movement of the Saami over the newly established national border. It also gave judicial recognition to both the reindeer herding Saami and their nomadic practice as well as to the right to use the “land and water” and the rights to trade and fish. The agreement recognises and protects the relatively new, extensive herding practices, with their longer nomadic routes, establishing the right to almost unlimited movement between different ranges, from the forests of Sweden and Finland to the coasts of Norway. As a consequence, the extensive herding expanded even more in respect to area used and number of animals, restricting the practice of more intensive herding, with smaller herds, and limiting the group of actors involved.
In 1809, Finland came under Russian rule and this resulted in the aggravation of the conditions for the reindeer herding since Russia did not recognise Lappekodisillen. Thus, in 1810 the border between Sweden and Finland was established followed by the border between Norway and Russia in 1826. As the establishment of these borders did not make any statement about the free movement of the Saami, the old movement patterns continued. Not long after, in 1852, the border between Norway and Finland was closed, with disastrous consequences for the northernmost Saami, as Finland had been traditional winter grazing area for more than 50,000 reindeer from Norway (Aarseth, 1985:78).
The protests of the herders resulted in a special law for the northernmost area, called The Reindeer Law for Finnmark, enacted in 1854, delineating reindeer herding districts and separating summer and winter areas with the goal to control the number of animals pasturing
in specific areas at any given time, protecting the vegetation. The regulatory law resulted in a loss of access to Finnish pastures for the Norwegian herders, while the Swedish Saami benefited through coming into the southern areas of Finnmark with their extensive herds (Bergstrøm, 2002).
It was in this context that the Common Lapp Law of 1883 came into play, mainly to protect farmers against damages caused by reindeer, as both herders and farmers recognised that the old rules of use of the resources were no longer applicable (Bull, 1997, Storli & Sara, 1997:56). The law contained three basic principles, still included in today’s reindeer herding law: a) District divisions: established in areas where there was a right to herd; b) Reporting requirements: the herder moving into a new district (even if just seasonally) had to inform the local authority; c) Common responsibility: if a particular herder caused damage to the crops in one area, all of the herders in the respective area had to compensate for the losses (Berg, 1994a & b).
This law moved responsibility from the practitioners to the administrative system and to the government. Consequently, the Saami became relatively weak actors in the decision- making. The regulations concerning reindeer herding in Finnmark became more defined and by the end of the century, reindeer herding had come to be assumed as an inferior, transitory development stage towards sedentary farming (Bull, 1997; Berg, 1994b). Thus, the Government’s appointments of commissions composed mainly of representatives of government and landowners (but no Saami herder) with the goal to establish where the herders had traditional rights to herd and to introduce borders accordingly resulted in the establishment of reindeer district boundaries (Haarstad, 1992: 288).
In the context of an ideological conflict between farmers and herders a new Law was passed in 1933 reinforcing the previous principles used in grazing land divisions (i.e. district division, reporting requirements and common responsibility). It appeared to be more concerned with protecting agriculture. It gave more power to the central administration to decide the borders between the spring, summer, autumn and winter pastures, the schedule of movement between them. Moreover, it decided the number of animals a herder could own, and limited the number of reindeer in a given district and retained the power to ban herding in certain areas upon proof of it damaging the agriculture, livestock, forestry or fodder resources (Severinsen, 1979).
However, after World War II, the attitude of the Norwegian State and society at large towards the Saami improved, although the policy continued to try to change the conceptions of the Saami society about the reindeer herding to correspond more to the Norwegian view
and agricultural approach (Karlstad, 1997; Paine, 1992). At the same time, the State introduced the policy of subsidies in order to support the Saami and promote a more
‘efficient’ production (subsidies for fences, slaughter houses and purchase of live animals, snow scooters, subsidies for houses if they were built in or near a village, etc.) (Falkenberg, 1985).
The Reindeer Management Act of 1978 introduced three administrative levels: 1) the local District Boards (Distriktstyret) formed by active reindeer herders, that was responsible for coordinating daily activities, management, slaughter and report sanctions, 2) Regional Boards (Områdestyret) formed to regulate interactions between the districts, and 3) the Reindeer Herding Board at the national level (Reindriftstyet) to advise the government on policy and budget for the industry (Bull, 1997; Jentoft, 1998). While the Regional boards and the Reindeer Herding Board are appointed both by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Saami Parliament the herders are a minority in this apparatus that facilitates thus the reinforcement of the managerial provisions in practice.
The main aims of the 1978 Act included: increase meat production, maintain the Saami culture, help the herders have a stable economic situation, and maintain a settled presence in the northernmost areas of Norway. It also regulated who was allowed to own reindeer (only if one belonged to a registered/traditional herding family and an authorised Herding Unit). Thus, the Act created a decision-making system based on economic and ecological data but without many links to the cultural identity of the Saami pastoralists, enforcing the management way of the State and accepting that the Saami can be a part of it (Kalstad, 1997; Paine 1994).
Fundamentally, the Act was aimed at reducing the numbers of herders and herding units in the area assuming that a more equal distribution of the animals between a smaller number of herders could provide the desired economic and ecological stability of the industry.
To this end, the Administration introduced Herding Unit as the main administrative entity for the industry (Riseth, 2000). The stipulation is that all the reindeer in Norway should belong to individual herding units. In order to be a recognized reindeer herder, one has to prove they descend from a Saami family that had herding as main livelihood. Further more, if one wants to enter the industry, one has to join an existing herding unit or start a new one, in both cases the Administration decides upon the opportunity of the decision, yet the law does not provide the criteria to be used in this assessment, leaving it to the free interpretation of the local District Boards. I will show in the following chapters that these boards have both the incentives and the opportunity (as they are elected by and among the herders, the larger
unions get more votes and are thus better represented in decision making, having therefore more power) to hinder the acceptance of new herders. This situation has been in effect to the present day and is often considered an attempt at superimposing an agriculturalist management system upon the traditional one (Paine, 1994). The Saami own the herds, while their rangelands are Crown Lands, administered for reindeer herding purposes by the Ministry of Agriculture through the Reindeer Herding Administration (R.H.A) that plans and regulates distribution of herds and the grazing time schedule. Summer pastures access rights are distributed to specific groups of herders, while the autumn/spring and winter ranges serve as common pool resources.
At the end of the 1960’s, the snow scooters were introduced to Finnmark. This, together with the policy of subsidies embraced by the State, resulted in an intense mechanisation of herding, with profound implications. On the one hand, it allowed control over much larger herds, by using less workforce and time to herd. On the other hand, the bigger herds needed larger pasture areas. In order to have access to these pastures some of the bigger herds ignored the traditional borders of the ranges. While the summer ranges were clearly delimited by the administrative system, the autumn/spring and winter ranges were stipulated in the Act as ‘common’, that are to be managed according to traditional practices (NOU, 1978). The provisions fail to mention what regulations are to be followed for this purpose. This situation led to the exclusion of the customary tenure system and, in the absence of a functional alternative regime, created de facto a situation of open access to resources. This in turn lead to a differentiation of the access to resources: the inner summer districts (i.e. the herds that have ascertained ranges on the main land, as opposed to the one on the islands and peninsula’s) have access to the common autumn/spring ranges. They are able to use these ranges intermittently during summer against the schedules imposed by the administrative system and thus expand dramatically compared to the outer summer districts (Riseth, 2000).
From 1979 to 1989 the official number of reindeer owned in Norway increased from 124,000 to 247,200 heads (ibid.). In West Finnmark, between 1800 and 1970 the stocking levels fluctuated between 40-60,000. The size of the herds constantly increased during the 1980’s, culminating around 1990 with at least 100,000 animals. While part of the increase can be explained by inaccuracy in reports (initially the Saami paid taxes according to the number of animals owned so they had an incentive in reporting lower stocks), the increase is evident.
However, by the 1990s, the numbers of animals began to decrease, giving the State the opportunity to link degradation of the lichen mats (documented by satellite pictures and field
studies) to the increased reindeer population (Ims& Kosmo, 2001) and legitimising stock reductions as a solution to the degradation of the lichen ranges.
In the Herding Agreements of 1999/ 2000 and 2000/ 2001, the parties tried to achieve an agreement that would lead to stock reduction. The State established ceilings on the numbers of animals allowed for each summer district in Finnmark. As a result, the Reindeer Herding Board limits the highest number of reindeer on the ranges in West Finnmark to 64, 000 heads, a reduction by about 30% compared to the earlier limit of 90, 000 heads. This is the first step in a process that would include regulation of grazing schedules of the siida borders on the winter and spring/ autumn ranges where the highest stocks usually are found (NOU, 35: 2001).
In 1998, a committee appointed to revise the law and propose changes in order to achieve the sustainability goal pointed out the need for stronger decision power among the reindeer herders under supervision of the Authorities. They suggested changing the Management Unit-based system with one based on the siida units (ibid.). At the same time, a geographical division of today’s commons (the autumn/spring and winter ranges) between siidas was proposed, after agreements were made on rules for migration between seasonal grazing lands and their use as well as a system of economic sanctions against siidas that fail to abide the rules (ibid).
While the proposal appears to provide the traditional system with more autonomy, it is still based on the old management models: assuming a univocally determined capacity of the ranges and the need for individualized property rights to the ranges. These views are seemingly at greater divergence with those of the Saami reindeer herders relying on a system based on flexibility and opportunism, where patterns of resource use are governed by variable productivity and accessibility of vegetation as a result of geology, topography, and fluctuating climatic parameters such as snow depth and rainfall. Moreover, semi-domestic reindeer management is an institutional landscape governed by social relations that produce flexible tenure and appropriation regimes.
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
My choice of research area in West Finnmark was motivated by the long-standing traditional herding here, the central point it holds within the Saami traditions and both formal and informal administration. The region is also a complex centre of migration routes and reflects the dramatic changes in animal numbers and regulation strategies employed by the State. I focused on the circumstances regarding the management of winter lichen ranges, as they appear to be the limiting resource and a controversial area for reindeer herding management today. I interviewed leaders of the groups of herds (siida’s*) in West Finnmark.
In Saami tradition, the leader of a siida (siida-iseđ) merely mediates between the herders and his influence is a rather moral one, based on knowledge, as all the herders involved in a siida at a given time have equal decision powers regarding the herding strategy of the group (Paine, 1994; Sara, 2001).
There are 58-61 winter siida’s in West Finnmark. Out of these I selected 6 belonging to 6 different districts during the summer and interviewed them in the winter of 2001/2002.
These units were evenly distributed on the winter range representing the western, middle and eastern zones of West Finnmark’s winter range (District 31A, B and C). I chose this distribution in order to cover a larger array of local environmental and administrative variation. (table 1):
Table 1: Herders interviewed in Western Finnmark
HERDER (siida-iseđ)
LOCATION No. of herding units
No. of persons involved
No. of animals Herder 1 East zone 5 29 1143
Herder 2 West zone 6 15 152
Herder 3 West zone 5 19 1337
Herder 4 Middle zone 3 19 396
Herder 5 East zone 11 63 3036
Herder 6 Middle zone 1 8 525
* As previously shown, they define both the composition of the herd at any given time and the social structure of the management unit (band), with flexible composition in time, usually based on kinship
An additional source of primary data were informal discussions with four key- informants: two of them highly esteemed former practitioners now retired from the industry, one involved in the educational system for reindeer herding and owner of reindeer himself and one representative of the Norwegian Reindeer Herding Administration in Kautokeino.
The key-informants provided me with a detailed holistic perspective on the herding of the old days, their interpretation of the present situation and solutions to it. For later discussions the informants were identified as N.L (highly esteemed herder, with a reputation of being a
‘tough bone’ and having large herd; retired from herding recently after being active for 50 years), N.B (his siida was established around 1900, retired now but still present at winter roun-ups and important events; esteemed as most knowledgeable on West Finnmark); B.N.H (teacher of ‘reindeer herding’ at the local high-school, not an active herder anymore but owner of reindeer and experienced practitioner, has an important social status and insight);
K.J.I ( reindeer agronomist, works for the Reindeer Administration, position allowing him detailed insight into the local community and the State policy).
I used the flexibility provided by semi-structured interviews of a rather lengthy format, concentrating on few major issues. This instrumentation allowed greater freedom in sequencing of questions, in their wording and the amount of time and attention given to different topics. I taped all the interviews and some of the informal discussions. I did not notice any reluctance among my interviewees towards taping the discussions. At the same time, I allowed for an introductory part before starting with the questions; during this, I presented myself and the general direction of studies I was following, as well as the intended scope of the information I was about to receive. In some cases, the discussion continued after I had finished asking my questions, returning to issues of particular interest or import to my interviewees, allowing them to add comments, develop their points with things they didn’t remember previously. These explanations proved very useful for building confidence and detailing the information needed.
The design of the interviews and the informal discussions was based on two aspects of the management system and its decision-making: the opportunities and the constraints a herder has in his choice of action. In this approach, I relied on the theoretical framework proposed by Blaikie and Brookfield in their key text Land Degradation and Society (1987) arguing that the focus of the enquiry should be on the land manager and on their opportunities and constraints within a social, economic and political arena. This perspective tries to integrate questions of access and control over resources and relations of production as realms of possibility and constraint, within human ecology (Peet& Watts, 1998).
For the part concerning the resource base the questions were centred on the distribution of the pasture units, their ecological features (resilience, quality, etc.) and their availability (access) in during the winter. Describing the social setting, the key concepts looked upon were social capital, interdependence, reciprocity and their importance. Regarding the management strategies, the important concepts used were micro and macro scale mobility, relations with the neighbours as safety nets, effects of losses upon management goals and opportunities.
Limitations of the study:
In sampling the siida leaders, an important bias could have been introduced by the fact that in recent past, very often, such leaders were elected solely based on their skills of Norwegian language, enabling them to communicate easier with the representatives of the central administration, rather than for their detailed insight into the management system.
Nevertheless, this situation is not so wide spread anymore as most of the herders speak Norwegian and have a good insight into the administrative system.
Furthermore, some of the siida’s I wanted to look into proved off-limits in the end, both because of their tight schedule (at some points in time) and because of their attitudes and perceptions towards me. Being a student at the Agricultural University of Norway seems to have influenced the context of my research. On the one hand, this seemed to uncover some resentment towards the agriculturalist visions of Reindeer Herding Administration, very much contested by the herders. On the other hand, not being Norwegian was perceived both as a badge of genuine interest and lack of bias but at times placed me in the standing of a complete outsider, a daža (non-saami male; see Appendix 2) with no insight into the problem I was looking at.
Finally, the communication between me and the interviewees being based on Norwegian, which is neither my nor their mother-tongue might have had an influence on the way we all perceived each-other’s words, even if I tried to limit the concepts used in my questions to everyday language, avoiding scientific terms and using Saami concepts to define detailed issues.
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this chapter, I shall present the most important of the meta-narratives, and the narratives supporting them as they appear from the interviews I conducted in the winter of 2001/2002 with the reindeer herders in Finnmark. I structured the presentation of the arguments into four sections concerning ecology, economy, social relations and institutional arrangements. This division is morphological rather than conceptual. The issues touched upon in each of the sections reflect and are connected with arguments in the others, forming a conceptual framework of premises and interpretations. The discussion sections were integrated here in order to clarify the narratives of the herders and contrast them with the managerial discourse of the State. The aim is to ‘tell a better story’ and analyse the status quo of reindeer herding in Finnmark as being defined by the interests and perceptions of different actors, with different decision-power and goals. The first section addresses the perceptions and arguments concerning the ecological realities on the ranges and the influence of density- independent factors upon the relation between animals and pastures. It compares the narratives of the herders with the equilibrium meta-narrative advocated by the Administration.
A. ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES
1. The status of the winter ranges
The general position of the interviewed herders is that their winter ranges today are usually very good but defined by yearly variability:
“ The pastures are different from year to year: if it’s more snow and lots of wind, it’s more čearga*- and then it’s less pasture. It freezes on the peaks. So in the end it’s Nature who decides this. That’s the way it is. But when it freezes on the peaks, it changes towards the spring, March-April, and then you have again pasture there, so that is saved naturally.” (Herder 4)
The herders define the quality of their ranges as a result of both abundance and accessibility of lichen cover. Furthermore, regarding the species composition of the pastures,
* wind-packed snow, see Appendix 2.
the opinion was unanimous that lichens are the important winter food but not the exclusive source in the winter reindeer diet:
“ Here it’s very good lichen, even if (...) most of, or let’s say half of the middle zone uses this area when they move (from autumn to winter ranges), so it’s used quite a lot, but when there are good pasture like this year and last year it doesn’t matter.
(Q:” How important is the lichen cover?”) I don’t know- it’s different to what one uses the area for: in autumn/early winter, I don’t think reindeer is so dependent on lichen.
Then they go down to the marshes and eat grasses and everything else they find in the forest areas. And I have experienced that reindeer doesn’t need that much lichen in autumn/early winter; they just need to graze in peace. And then there are very good pastures by Christmas and New Year’s when you come closer to the winter, and then I think they need more lichen. But it’s not so important that it’s big lichen, just as long as they manage to come through the snow to the lichen. I don’t think it’s so important to have big lichen.” (Herder 4)
As showed earlier, the question regarding the quality of the pastures (defined in terms of vegetation cover and species composition) is one of the main arguments the State uses in defining its environmental crisis narrative, justifying the reduction of the number of animals and formalisation of access rights. To this end, the statements of the herders as having very good pastures could be interpreted as formative, trying to counteract the arguments of the State of a constant degradation of the pastures. That this is not the case is demonstrated by the fact that herders agree that lichen-beds diminished in size. While the majority admits to a change, two of the herders (one from the western zone and one from the eastern zone) state that the changes are very significant. In all the cases, explanations and arguments are given for the causes and the context of wear-down but show different perceptions. One iseđ (siida leader) from the eastern zone argues:
“ There’s much less lichen now than before, say 20 years ago. It diminished very much; I don’t know to say in percent. And that’s because there have been too many reindeer over a too long time. It’s one of the reasons, but it can also be other reasons: it can be a change in climate, which makes that the lichen doesn’t succeed in competition with other species, or it can also be the pollution along the (migration) routes. You know, the lichen is not a plant but a symbiosis of an alga and a mushroom so the air is important, if the air is polluted the lichen is weaker, weaker than it has
been before. These are three of the factors that might have played a lot in that the lichen is so much diminished.” (Herder 1)
A view of moderate change is maintained by two herders from the middle zone, and related to the patterns of use and the pressure exerted on vegetation:
“ Indeed, there’s a change, but it’s so that one can see that it depends a lot on how one area is used. If one has the herd often in one place, then you can see that this
‘breaks’* more, but if you change a bit and use smaller areas (at a time), then it can come again (regenerate). You know, before we had a different way of herding, and then the flock was very close to us, and in the autumn, you know, we fenced the reindeer around the tent and took the milk from the does and we did that everyday. It was almost like a clock, the reindeers were there everyday in the afternoon and then we milked the does. And then you could notice the wearing early around the tenting place. And there were many places like that, but today you can see they recovered and they have the best lichen, grass and lichen. One can see where there’re a lot of fences especially in the first 2-3 years, within 200 m from the fence it’s worn down, but after a while it begins to recover (...).” (Herder 4)
The views of the herders can be summarised in two meta-narratives. First, that a pasture’s quality is determined by access to the forage (regulated by climate and utilisation patterns) and the lichen cover. Second, the lichen cover is diminished now compared to
‘before’ but the extent of the change and causes that brought it about are varied. One circumstance that influences the quality of the lichen beds is its accessibility. Rangelands covered with hard-packed or frozen snow require more energy expended in digging the craters. This reduces the energy gained through intake even though the yearlings have the advantage of using the craters dug by their mothers (it is mostly the pregnant females that retain their antlers during the winter) (Paine, 1994). Moreover, the mechanical damage upon the lichen mats due to digging is much higher than the consumption itself (up to 10 times higher- Virtala, 1992). Thus, even if the lichens beds are in good condition, a ‘bad year’, with circumstances that require lots of craters to be dug, can have a severe impact on the ranges, turning a range with high primary production into a degraded one in a matter of months. As the recovery of broken lichen-thalluses is measured in decades in the absence of disturbance
* Term used to describe the effect of trampling on lichen, especially when the lichen is dry, in summer or in autumn, with a considerably destructive consequence- see below.
(Crittenden, 1999: 133) the degradation is more important. Furthermore, a range can be
‘locked’ under packed snow that has been trampled upon by a big herd (and snow-scooters), resulting in bigger pressure (mechanical damage) from the animals and diminished availability of food.
We see herein some arguments for considering the quality of the winter ranges being first and foremost a product of climate and exploitation patterns even if lichens are the essential food source during winter. This is a more detailed vision upon productivity than the one employed by the management authorities arguing for a stocking rate based on the carrying capacity of the whole winter range, which is considered both uniform and defined by a predictable primary production (see below).
Regarding the second meta-narrative, asserting that the lichen mats have diminished in time due to various influences, we notice a detailed scenario of possible influences. The statement that ‘there have been too many animals, over a too long time’, implies that the bad condition of the lichen ranges is induced not by pressure alone (large stocking rates) but by a constant high pressure, that doesn’t respond to fluctuations in range quality as defined above.
The number of reindeers in West Finnmark during the last 20 years shows a significant increase when compared to previous periods. This high level, even if not constant, maintained throughout the 1980’s and to the present day, with a peak in 1989/1990 (Fig.5.1). Even though between 1960-1975 the stocking levels were constantly high, the difference during the last 20 years, is that the pattern of variation shifted upwards. Thus, what before was a temporary peak now became average or low level. In this respect, the empirical data support the argument of the narrative, that the numbers have been constantly high (I shall return to this point later).
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
1835 1865 1895 1925 1953 1985
Figure 3: Evolution of the number of semi-domesticated reindeer in West Finnmark between 1835- 1999 (after Ims& Kosmo, 2001)