Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-bp2c4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-20T14:09:54.729Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Claims-Based Co-management in Norway's Arctic? Examining Sami Land Governance as a Case of Treaty Federalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2019

Aaron John Spitzer  and
Per Selle
Aaron John Spitzer*
Affiliation:
Department of Comparative Politics, University of Bergen, 15 Christiesgate, Bergen, Norway, 5007
Per Selle
Affiliation:
Department of Comparative Politics, University of Bergen, 15 Christiesgate, Bergen, Norway, 5007
*
*Corresponding author. Email: aaron.spitzer@uib.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Around the world, Indigenous peoples seek increased control of traditional lands. In northern Canada, such control may be afforded by claims-based co-management regimes. Such regimes are a common, and sometimes celebrated, component of treaty federalism. In Norway, Europe's only Indigenous people, the Sami, now participate in a land-management regime: the Finnmark Estate (FeFo). We explore whether FeFo is, in effect, claims-based co-management and whether Sami thus enjoy the sort of guaranteed shared rule envisioned in treaty federalism. We compare FeFo to Canadian co-management in three dimensions: novelty, independence and Indigenous influence. We conclude FeFo is indeed claims-based co-management. But FeFo falls short of the treaty-federal ideal, for reasons possibly including bureaucratic capture, fragile legitimacy, conflicting interpretations of the Sami interest and conflicting views on the merits of shared rule.

Résumé

Partout dans le monde, les peuples autochtones aspirent à exercer un contrôle accru sur les terres ancestrales. Dans le Nord du Canada, ce contrôle peut être assuré par des régimes de cogestion « fondés sur les revendications ». De tels régimes sont une composante courante, et parfois célébrée, du « fédéralisme des traités ». En Norvège, le seul peuple autochtone d'Europe, les Sami participe maintenant à un régime de gestion des terres, le Finnmark Estate (FeFo). Nous examinons si le FeFo est en fait une cogestion « fondée sur les revendications » et si les Samis jouissent ainsi de la sorte de règle partagée garantie envisagée dans le « fédéralisme des traités ». Nous comparons le FeFo à la cogestion canadienne en trois dimensions : nouveauté, indépendance et influence autochtone. Nous concluons que le FeFo est en effet une co-gestion « fondée sur les revendications ». Mais, pour des raisons telles que la capture bureaucratique, une légitimité fragile, les interprétations contradictoires des intérêts des Samis et les opinions contradictoires sur les mérites d'une règle partagée, le FeFo n'atteint pas l'idéal fédéral du traité.

Keywords

Co-managementSamiFinnmark Estatetreaty federalismland claims

Information

Type
Research Article/Étude originale
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 52 , Issue 4 , December 2019 , pp. 723 - 741
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abele, Frances and Prince, Michael J.. 2006. “Four Pathways to Aboriginal Self-Government in Canada.” American Review of Canadian Studies 36 (4): 568–95.10.1080/02722010609481408Google Scholar
Bjørklund, Ivar. 2013. “Industrial Impacts and Indigenous Representation.” Études/Inuit/Studies 37 (2): 145–60.10.7202/1025714arGoogle Scholar
Broderstad, Else Grete, Josefsen, Eva and Søreng, Siri. 2015. Finnmarkslandskap i endring. Alta, Norway: Norut.Google Scholar
Campbell, Tracy. 1996. “Co-management of Aboriginal Resources.” Information North 22 (1): 1–6.Google Scholar
Christensen, Julia and Grant, Miriam. 2007. “How Political Change Paved the Way for Indigenous Knowledge.” Arctic 60 (2): 115–23.Google Scholar
Clark, Douglas and Joe-Strack, Jocelyn. 2017. “Keeping the ‘Co’ in the Co-management of Northern Resources.” Northern Public Affairs 5 (1): 71–74.Google Scholar
Eira, Stine. 2013. “‘Herrer i eget hus’—Finnmarksloven i media.” Norsk medietidsskrift 20 (4): 330–46.Google Scholar
Elazar, Daniel. 1987. Exploring Federalism. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Falch, Torvald, Selle, Per and Strømsnes, Kristin. 2016. “The Sámi: 25 Years of Indigenous Authority in Norway.” Ethnopolitics 15 (1): 125–43.Google Scholar
Falch, Torvald and Selle, Per. 2018. Sametinget—institusjonalisering av en ny samepolitikk. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Malgosia. 2009. “New Developments regarding the Saami Peoples of the North.” International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 16 (1): 67–156.10.1163/157181109X394380Google Scholar
Galbraith, Lindsay, Bradshaw, Ben and Rutherford, Murray. 2007. “Towards a New Supraregulatory Approach to Environmental Assessment in Northern Canada.” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 25 (1): 27–41.Google Scholar
Hernes, Hans-Kristian and Oskal, Nils. 2008. Finnmarksloven. Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk.Google Scholar
International Labour Organization (ILO), Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, C169, 27 June 1989, C169, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ddb6d514.html [accessed 2 July 2019].Google Scholar
Josefsen, Eva, Søreng, Siri and Selle, Per. 2016. “Regional Governance and Indigenous Rights in Norway.” In Indigenous Peoples’ Governance of Land and Protected Territories in the Arctic, ed. Herrmann, Thora and Martin, Thibault. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
Kuokkanen, Rauna. 2018. “At the Intersection of Arctic Indigenous Governance and Extractive Industries.” Extractive Industries and Society 6 (1): 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2018.08.011.Google Scholar
Ladner, Kiera. 2003. “Treaty Federalism.” In New Trends in Canadian Federalism, 2nd ed., ed. Rocher, Francois and Smith, Miriam. Peterborough: Broadview.Google Scholar
Larsen, Rasmus. 2018. “Impact Assessment and Indigenous Self-Determination.” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 36 (3): 208–19.10.1080/14615517.2017.1390874Google Scholar
Larsson, Carl-Gøran. 2017. “Sjøsamisk organisasjon mener FeFo-direktøren må gå.” NRK Sami, September 13. https://www.nrk.no/sapmi/sjosamisk-organisasjon-mener-fefo-direktoren-ma-ga-1.13688003 (January 11, 2019).Google Scholar
Lipset, Seymor and Rokkan, Stein. 1967. Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Natcher, David. 2013. “Gender and Resource Co-Management in Northern Canada.” Arctic 66 (2): 218–21.Google Scholar
Natcher, David, Davis, Susan and Hickey, Clifford. 2005. “Co-Management: Managing Relationships, Not Resources.” Human Organization 64 (3): 240–50.10.17730/humo.64.3.23yfnkrl2ylapjxwGoogle Scholar
Nygaard, Vigdis. 2016. “Do Indigenous Interests Have a Say in Planning of New Mining Projects?” Extractive Industries and Society 3 (1): 17–24.10.1016/j.exis.2015.11.009Google Scholar
Parlee, Brenda. 2012. “Finding Voice in a Changing Ecological and Political Landscape.” Aboriginal Policy Studies 2 (1): 56–87.Google Scholar
Ravna, Øyvind. 2013. “The First Investigation Report of the Norwegian Finnmark Commission.” International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 20 (3): 443–57.10.1163/15718115-02003005Google Scholar
Ravna, Øyvind. 2015. “Sami Rights to Natural Resources and Lands in Norway.” In Polar Law and Resources, ed. Loukacheva, Natalia. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.Google Scholar
Selle, Per. 2016. “Finnmarkseiendommen (FEFO) mellom rett, politick og utvikling.” In Nordområdene i endring, ed. Angell, Elisabeth, Eikeland, Sveinung and Selle, Per. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.Google Scholar
Semb, Anne Julie. 2012. “From ‘Norwegian Citizens’ via ‘Citizens Plus’ to ‘Dual Political Membership’?” Ethnic and Racial Studies 35 (9): 1654–72.Google Scholar
Skogvang, Susann. 2013. “Legal Questions regarding Mineral Exploration and Exploitation in Indigenous Areas.” Michigan State International Law Review 22 (1): 321–45.Google Scholar
Stokke, Hugo. 2014. “Rethinking Social Citizenship: The Case of the Finnmark Act.” In Juridification and Social Citizenship in the Welfare State, ed. Aasen, Henriette, Gloppen, Siri, Magnussen, Anne-Mette and Nilssen, Even. Northampton: Elgar.Google Scholar
Supreme Court of Canada. First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun v. Yukon, (2017) S.C.C. 58.Google Scholar
Supreme Court of Norway. Nesseby Case (2018) HR-2018-456-P (case no. 2017/860).Google Scholar
United Nations. Human Rights Council. 2016. “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on the Human Rights Situation of the Sami People in the Sápmi Region of Norway, Sweden and Finland.” https://www.refworld.org/docid/57cd77714.html (January 11, 2019).Google Scholar
Ween, Gro and Lien, Marianne. 2012. “Decolonialisation in the Arctic?” Journal of Rural and Community Development 7 (1): 93–109.Google Scholar
White, Graham. 2002. “Treaty Federalism in Northern Canada.” Publius 32 (3): 89–114.Google Scholar
White, Graham. 2006. “Cultures in Collision.” Arctic 59 (4): 401–14.Google Scholar
White, Graham. 2008. “Not the Almighty: Evaluating Aboriginal Influence in Northern Land-Claim Boards.” Arctic 61 (1): 71–85.Google Scholar
White, Graham. 2009. “Aboriginal People and Environmental Regulation.” In Canadian Environmental Policy and Politics, ed. VanNijnatten, Debora L.. Toronto: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
White, Graham. 2018. “Issues of Independence in Northern Aboriginal–State Co-management Boards.” Canadian Public Administration 61 (4): 550–71.Google Scholar
Wilson, Gary and Selle, Per. 2019. Indigenous Self-Determination in Northern Canada and Norway. IRPP Study 69. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy.Google Scholar
Youngblood Henderson, James. 1994. “Empowering Treaty Federalism.” Saskatchewan Law Review 58 (2): 241–329.Google Scholar