Gollevarre Revisited – Reindeer, Domestication and Pastoral Transformation

The Gollevarre complex near the River Tana in Finnmark, Norway, consists of 2,685 pitfalls and a campsite with the remains of 16 turf dwellings, all dated to the period 1200–1650 CE. The enormous amount of reindeer bones at the campsite testifies to both largescale hunting and production of bone artefacts for a market. Why did this activity endand did its termination have any connection with pastoral development which took place at the same time? These questions were addressed through an expedition to Gollevarreby the archaeologists Sven Donald Hedman and Bjørnar Olsen, the biologist Knut Røed and the anthropologist Ivar Bjørklund. With the aid of 281 DNA samples from Gollevarreand other sites in Finnmark, we concluded that a) the emergence of pastoralism did not depend on the domestication of wild reindeer, since b) there were no genetic relationsbetween the old stock of wild reindeer and the current stock of domesticated reindeer. Thus, the emergence of pastoralism in the 17th century seemed to be the result of theimport of domesticated animals. Alternatively, but so far without DNA-proven facts, the current stock might reflect an old, but small, population of domesticated reindeer kept for transport purposes

A tragedy of errors? Institutional dynamics and land tenure in Finnmark, Norway

-Reindeer herding in Finnmark has been widely perceived during the last few decades as a perfect example of the tragedy of the commons. The present article claims that this discourse relies on flawed assumption regarding land tenure. Our historical analysis of the term ‘common’ in relation to resources in Finnmark shows the term to reflect a misunderstanding of local categories, practices, and concerns related to pastures, territories, and natural resources more generally. In this sense, it exposes a case of ‘mistaken identity’ between the formal legal conception of ‘commons’ and the customary rules and thinking of reindeer herders. We turn to different strands of critical institutionalism to analyse the processes of institutional change that have allowed these errors and misunderstandings to be formalised and naturalised in the current governance system. We show that a process of institutional bargaining between the Norwegian Parliament, the Sámi Parliament, and the International Labour Organisation has recently re-enforced an alien conception of a ‘commons’ to which ambiguous groups of people have equivocal rights. In parallel, a process of institutional layering of new regulatory actors and rules on top of existing ones has taken place. This regulatory ratcheting has resulted in the blurring of the authorities and jurisdictions intrinsic in the customary tenure system. Moreover, the new layers of regulations have actively overemphasized the Sámi customary obligation of sharing resources to legitimize the new, ambiguous, conception of commons. This process is explained as one of institutional bricolage based on naturalisation by analogy and authority processes that allow certain powerful actors to influence the production of institutional arrangements favourable to them. All three processes underline the negotiated, dynamic nature of institutional change. We propose this integrative analysis of institutional and general social dynamics is beneficial in studying commons as everyday practices affecting natural resource governance

Landsmøtet 1917 og samebevegelsen i nord

THE SÁMI NATIONAL ASSEMBLY IN 1917 AND THE SÁMI MOVEMENT IN THE NORTH The Sámi national assembly held in Trondhjem in 1917 is considered to be the very first organized political opposition from the Norwegian Sámi. However, among the 150 persons attending, only three Sámi were from Northern Norway – an area where 90% of the Sámi population lived. The participants were Sámi from the southern parts of Norway, all involved in reindeer herding, which was the main topic to be discussed at the meeting. The Norwegian authorities were about to make a new law on reindeer herding, and the southern Sámi organized the meeting to voice their interests – a meeting which was supported and partly financed by the government. At the same time, a strong Sámi political movement had been established in the north. Two large meetings were held in 1919 and 1920, but without any official attendance or financial support. They presented themselves as indigenous and stressed their «fight for survival». They insisted that the ongoing Norwegian assimilation policy had to end and the Sámi language should be accepted and taught in school. Thus, the northern Sámi saw fewer interests in the political agenda of their southern brethren, which were centred around reindeer herding legalities. The authorities, on their side, saw no interest at all in supporting the ethnopolitical claims from the nort

Industrial impacts and Indigenous representation: Some fallacies in the Sámi quest for autonomy

Les communautés autochtones des régions circumpolaires sont aujourd’hui soumises à une pression croissante des sociétés minières. Pourtant, l’influence que ces communautés peuvent exercer sur les processus décisionnels varie considérablement. En Norvège, de nouveaux projets sont lancés pour exploiter l’immense potentiel minier des zones de pâturage utilisées par les Sámi, des éleveurs de rennes. De surcroît, ces projets nécessitent en général la construction d’infrastructures telles que routes, lignes électriques, etc. La Norvège a une grande visibilité ainsi que des engagements concrets à l’égard des droits autochtones. De plus, les Sámi ont leur propre système parlementaire. Mais ce parlement n’a pas encore été en mesure de mettre un terme aux empiétements des compagnies minières à cause de la façon dont il est composé. En raison des règles électorales et de la position politique des éleveurs sámi, la majorité des membres sámi du parlement représentent des intérêts en partie contraires aux activités d’élevage de rennes. Alors que la participation politique des peuples autochtones est territorialement définie au Canada et au Groenland, ce n’est pas le cas en Norvège.While Indigenous communities in all circumpolar regions today face increasing pressure from mining companies, their influence in decision-making processes varies substantially. In Norway, the pasturelands of the reindeer-herding Sámi have huge mineral potential and new mining projects are in development. Such projects imply a domino effect, since they tend to generate infrastructures like roads, power lines, and so on. Norway enjoys a high profile as a country strongly committed to Indigenous rights; the Sámi also have their own parliamentary system. Yet to date the Sámi Parliament has been unable to halt these encroachments, a situation in part due to its composition. Because of the electoral rules and the general political position of the reindeer-herding Sámi in Norway, most of the Sámi members of parliament represent interests that run partially counter to the activities of the herders. While Indigenous political participation is territorially defined in Canada and Greenland, this is not the case in Norway

Hva gjør vi med reindriften?

Den samiske reindriften står i dag ved en skillevei – sammen med norske myndigheter. Veivalget handler om man fortsatt vil opprettholde den siste samiske kulturbærende næring eller om man vil handle på tvers av folkerettslige forpliktelser, lovfestede rettigheter og allmenn politisk anstendighet. Reindriftens skjebne er at den alltid har vært forvaltet og forstått gjennom de ideologiske oppfatninger som til enhver tid har hersket i det norske samfunn. Det startet med utenrikspolitiske hensyn på 1800-tallet, så ble landbrukets interesser styrende og de siste tiårene er det miljøpolitikk som har definert nordmenns og medias forståelse av hva samisk reindrift handler om. Politiske tiltak er nå sentrert rundt begreper som ”overbeiting og miljøkriminalitet”. Felles for alle tiltak gjennom tidene, er at ingen har tatt utgangspunkt i hvordan reindrift fremstår i et samisk kulturelt univers – det er norsk ideologi, moral og interesser som har definert hvordan reindrift skulle forståes

Dárbašit go mii Sámi boazodoalu?

Sámi boazodoallu lea dál boahtán luoddaerrui – fárrolaga norgalaš eiseválddiiguin. Geainnu válljen lea das lea go áigumuššan bisuhit dan maŋemus sámi kulturguoddi ealáhuslági vai rihkkut álbmotrievtti geatnegasvuođaid, láhkaduođaštuvvon vuoigatvuođaid ja dábálaš politihkalaš olmmošvieru. Boazodoalu vuorbi lea leamaš álo hálddašuvvot ja ipmirduvvot ideologalaš fáhtehusaid bokte mat guđege áiggi leat leamaš válddis dáčča servodagas. Álggos ledje olgoriikapolitihkalaš vuhtiiváldámušat 1800-loguin, dasto ledje eanandoalu beroštumit stivrejeaddjin ja maŋemus moattelogi jagis lea biraspolitihkka mii lea hábmen norgalaččaid ja media ipmárdusa das mii dat sámi boazodoalus oktiibuot dáhpáhuvvá. Politihkalaš bargamušaid guovddážis leat dárogielat doahpagat nugo “overbeiting” ja “miljøkriminalitet”. Seammahahkan áiggiid čađa bargamušain lea bisson dat ahte ii oktage váldde álggu das makkár boazodoallu lea sápmelažžii sin iežaset máilmmis – leat dáčča jurddavuogit, morála ja beroštumit mat leat mearridan movt boazodoallu galgá ipmirduvvot

A tragedy of errors? Institutional dynamics and land tenure in Finnmark, Norway

Reindeer herding in Finnmark has been widely perceived during the last few decades as a perfect example of the tragedy of the commons. The present article claims that this discourse relies on flawed assumption regarding land tenure. Our historical analysis of the term ‘common’ in relation to resources in Finnmark shows the term to reflect a misunderstanding of local categories, practices, and concerns related to pastures, territories, and natural resources more generally. In this sense, it exposes a case of ‘mistaken identity’ between the formal legal conception of ‘commons’ and the customary rules and thinking of reindeer herders. We turn to different strands of critical institutionalism to analyse the processes of institutional change that have allowed these errors and misunderstandings to be formalised and naturalised in the current governance system. We show that a process of institutional bargaining between the Norwegian Parliament, the Sámi Parliament, and the International Labour Organisation has recently re-enforced an alien conception of a ‘commons’ to which ambiguous groups of people have equivocal rights. In parallel, a process of institutional layering of new regulatory actors and rules on top of existing ones has taken place. This regulatory ratcheting has resulted in the blurring of the authorities and jurisdictions intrinsic in the customary tenure system. Moreover, the new layers of regulations have actively overemphasized the Sámi customary obligation of sharing resources to legitimize the new, ambiguous, conception of commons. This process is explained as one of institutional bricolage based on naturalisation by analogy and authority processes that allow certain powerful actors to influence the production of institutional arrangements favourable to them. All three processes underline the negotiated, dynamic nature of institutional change. We propose this integrative analysis of institutional and general social dynamics is beneficial in studying commons as everyday practices affecting natural resource governance.