How is Laponia to be Managed?

After its inclusion in the World Heritage list in 1996, a number of local actor-groups got together to discuss the alternatives for managing the site. Because Laponia consists of already well-established national parks and nature re-serves, there were regulations and directives on how to conduct the conserva-tion management in place. The regulaconserva-tions for the parks also included changes for the reindeer herders in the parks. But the safeguarding and protection of the cultural criteria in the area was something new, and a fact that had to be taken into account. Although all agreed that the importance of Sámi reindeer herding culture had to be recognized, opinions varied as to the extent and the manner in which Sami reindeer herding culture should be promoted. By that time the representatives from the samebys had recognized the potential of the World Heritage status in terms of increasing Sámi influence of the manage-ment of the area and of starting a process of decolonization of the bureau-cratic structures. After all, in other areas around the world, diffferent forms of joint management between state authorities and Indigenous Peoples were be-coming rather widespread.

60 Green, supra note 59, 103.

61 Green ‘The Laponian World Heritage area. Conflict and collaboration in Swedish Sápmi’

in S Disko H Tugendfeld (eds.), World Heritage and Indigenous Peoples’ rights, IWGIA, Co-penhagen (2014): 90.

In spite of genuine effforts among the local stakeholders to cooperate, it soon became clear that there were diffferences in opinions that were difffijicult to bridge. The Sámi representatives were fijirm in their belief that they had to be equal partners in the negotiations with the other stakeholders and that they were to have a strong say in the future management of Laponia. They stressed the importance of a change to the current conservation management regime, something that was not a priority of the other partners.62 It was not long before this fijirst attempt at negotiations broke down. From then onwards, the stakeholders that engaged in the future of Laponia formed into three ma-jor groups: the country Administration of Norrbotten, the two municipalities of Jokkmokk and Gällivare, and the local samebys. However, very little co-operation was possible at this stage due to the diffferences in goals and pri-oritizations. From the samebys side, it was then that they collectively started a more formal collaboration among themselves. They formed an association called “Mijá Ednam” that was to act as the platform for Laponia-related mat-ters and where they could develop an internal discussion on their aims and the objectives of the World Heritage site, and also produced a proposal for a management plan for the area.63 Many of the representatives of the samebys recognized that Laponia was an arena where many important issues related to self -determination and control of the management of the traditional lands came to the surface: they managed it for generations, and therefore also should be a part in the new management.

In the Mijá Ednam-proposal the samebys argued for indigenous control over the future management of Laponia. They asked for the majority of seats in a future management board. The other actors rejected this idea. The County Administration stated that they had a mandate from the Government to be responsible for the protection and management of these areas, and that they could not give that mandate away without a new governmental decree. How-ever, more unofffijicially, there were also other reasons behind the refusal to dis-cuss the Sámi claim for majority seats. In essence, the sentiments among many of the politicians and state offfijicials of the agencies were that the local Sámi were not ready for such a responsibility and that they would close offf large parts of the mountain areas for non- sameby members.64

But the samebys would not drop the claim of achieving majority seats on a future board of management. In fact, they decided not to enter into any

nego-62 Green supra note 59, 111fff.; Green, supra note 62, 91f.

63 Michael Teilus and Karin Lindahl, Mijá ednam – samebyarnas laponiaprogram (Sameb-yarnas Kansli 2000), Jokkmokk.

64 Green, supra note 59, 129.

tiations with the other actors before they approved this claim. A long period of non-communication between the samebys and the other actors followed. Dur-ing this time, the samebys turned to the international community for encour-agement. They were in contact with UNESCO to express their predicaments and they continued to look for good examples of progressive co-management projects in other areas and seek support in international conventions and guidelines. The Sámi representatives also articulated their position and iden-tity as an indigenous people in relation to the other actors.65

The samebys had a common strategy not to enter into negotiations before the demand for majority seats on a future board of management were met and to always “speak with one voice”.66 Disagreements and discussions were held within the group. They also were meticulous to put their propositions and written intentions within a framework that can only be described as “correct bureaucratically”. They would use a language and a format that would be eas-ily recognizable as being inside the dominant discourse. In this way, the state agencies could not dismiss the statements and suggestions. They were recog-nized as professional and correct, but spoke of a wish to take on more respon-sibility for the traditional lands and to work for a transformation of the current

“Swedish” conservation management practice.67 4.3 Agreeing on a Management Structure

Given the locked positions, it was something of a surprise to many when the table suddenly turned and the involved actors announced that they had agreed to start negotiations and go forward to create a new and progressive manage-ment plan for Laponia.68 In the fall of 2005, the representatives of the samebys were called to a meeting by the County Governor to discuss the future manage-ment of Laponia. Now there was commitmanage-ment from the state agencies’ side to fijind ways to implement the idea of Sámi majority on a management board.

The new round of discussions resulted in a proposal that was sent to the gov-ernment in 2006 on how to go forward with the organization structure, signed by all three-actor groups. In this proposal a management plan was outlined that relied on the importance of the reindeer herding practice of the area, and that allowed a strong Sámi responsibility and control.69 The government commissioned a delegation consisting of representatives from the local actor

65 Green, supra note 59, 152fff.

66 Green, supra note 59, 147fff.

67 Green, supra note 59, 164fff.

68 Green, supra note 59, 207fff.

69 Green, supra note 62, 95.

groups and from SEPA to set up a new management organization. In June 2011, the government gave its formal approval of the new management regime to be established.70

In hindsight it seems that the years of disagreement and polarized positions ended surprisingly suddenly. To many of the representatives involved in the process, this new turn of events was quite unanticipated, but also encouraging and positive. It is difffijicult to pinpoint one simple explanation for this develop-ment. Several circumstances contributed to break the dead-lock.71 Perhaps the most important factor was time. Many years had by now passed since the in-scription of Laponia and there was a general feeling, not least among the state agencies (both nationally and locally/regionally) that the management issue concerning Laponia had to be solved. The question was also frequently dis-cussed within World Heritage circles, even if not offfijicially so. Internationally, diffferent forms of co-management schemes were beginning to be increasingly common in regards to conservation on traditional indigenous lands, and this was also a fact that influenced the general attitude in society and among state offfijicials and politicians. Another important factor is that new people entered into the actor groups during these years. This meant that some of the personal conflicts that had been established early on in the process were now conse-quentially phased out. It is important here also to emphasise the importance of the Sámi strategy, their persistence and determination to push for a Sámi majority on a future management board and to stay unifijied. Needless to say, there had been many diffferent opinions and aspirations linked to the World Heritage appointment, but the Sámi representatives had a conscious strategy to “speak with one voice” before the other actors in order to be recognized as a convincing and legitimate counterpart in the negotiations.

4.4 Laponiatjuottjudus

Many of the claims that the representatives from the samebys fought for dur-ing the years of conflict and non-dialogue have in the end been included in the current management plan and organization.72 There is a clear emphasis on the protection of Sámi cultural values and on the importance of providing conditions for a thriving reindeer herding industry to continue. The protection of natural values is equally important, but not treated as something entirely separate from the protection of a living cultural landscape. The area is viewed

70 Ministry of Environment 2011, Ny Förvaltningsorganisation för världsarvet Laponia. Press Release, 16 June 2011. http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/8149/a/170963.

71 Green, supra note 59, 209; Green, supra note 62, 96.

72 Laponiatjuottjudus, Laponia,Tjuottjudusplána – Management plan 2012.

as an arena where sustainable development and change is welcome, as long as the cultural and environmental sustainability is not jeopardized. An important standpoint is to include the Sámi language(s) in all forms of written documen-tation and presendocumen-tation. Consequently, the new management organization also goes under a Sámi name: Laponiatjuottjudus.

The board is made up of nine permanent members, 5 of whom are appointed by the local samebys. The other 4 consists of two representatives from the local municipalities of Jokkmokk and Gällivare, 1 representative from the County Administration of Norrbotten and 1 from SEPA. The Sámi have the majority seats, they also hold the chair. Decisions are, however, to be taken according to the principle of consensus, something that has meant that the importance of majority seats have been reduced. To the Sámi representatives, it is still an important circumstance that signals the leading role of the Sámi community.73 At present, the chair of the board is held by one of the Sámi representatives.

In many ways the new management plan has many things in common with many other offfijicial documents of this sort, but in many ways it is unique. It difffers from other ‘conventional’ documents by partly using a form and lan-guage that includes Sámi views and ways of organizing and working. Laponi-atjuottjudus thus becomes a platform from where a Sámi inspired manage-ment based on traditional and local knowledge can be developed, but still very much within normative bureaucratic structures.74 An open dialogue with the surrounding local society is an outspoken aspiration for the new management organization. Local input is assured by the arrangement or public delibera-tions – rádedibme – held regularly.

The management plan focuses on applying a holistic perspective where the importance of ensuring the integrity of the World Heritage criteria needs to be combined with a sustainable development of the area. Both modern technolo-gies and traditional knowledge are imperative aspects to incorporate when practicing and developing the management of the site.75 The management plan also includes an emphasis on management as a process, which needs to be revised, improved and made flexible. Laponia is thus seen as an arena for learning (searvelatnja) for all involved actors.

One important factor in the management plan is the recognition to not only protect the material heritage of the area. In the Laponia World Heritage Area,

73 Green, supra note 62, 33.

74 Carina Green, and Jan Turtinen ‘Indigenous Peoples and world heritage sites: Normative heritage discourses and possibilities for change‘ Proceedings of the International indig-enous development research conference, Ngä Pae o te Mä ramatanga, 2014: 64.

75 Laponiatjuttjudus, ibid.

sacred sites where antlers and other items were placed as offferings, such as the Stá lojå hkå sacrifijicial site, reflect the importance of reindeer for the local Sámi people.76 Laponia also includes many graves and the names of mountains, lakes and marshes, that bear witness to the way local Sámi people understood the landscape, life and death. These immaterial (intellectual and spiritual) val-ues are equally important to consider. Stories, memories and knowledge are continuously being recorded and highlighted with the agreement of the lo-cal communities. Here, the reintegration of the Sámi language(s) is one vital component77 along with customary laws. Perhaps the most important change inherent in the new management organization is on an operative level. The current stafff deliberately work towards implementing local structures and ar-ticulating Sámi conservation perspectives and aspirations. This includes a ho-listic management perspective where both material and immaterial values are protected. There is a closer relationship between the rangers that work out in the fijield and local sameby members (and other locals) than was the case be-fore, which creates important possibilities for local participation and dialogue.

In short, Laponia has gone from being an arena where disagreement and lack of communication was prominent to being an area where collaboration and strengthened relationships between the indigenous people and the state agencies is evolving. For the Sámi representatives, being engaged in the de-velopment of the World Heritage site was all along linked to the idea of more influence and control in general.

Today, the local Sámi peple feel responsible for Laponia, they are involved and take ownership of Laponia management. When new steps are taken in the management process, local Sámi communities call the Management board to be informed. There is real participation in place, which leads to quicker deci-sion-making. Meetings between samebys and authorities now sometimes take place in the Laponia offfijices, which makes establishing contacts with authori-ties easier for local communiauthori-ties.

There are still tricky issues addressed on the board where the diffferent rep-resentatives voice diverse opinions. And there are still diffferences in perspec-tives on how to organise and structure conservation management and how to carry it out practically. At times, the involved Sámi have felt that Sámi initia-tives and ways of conducting things are not being acknowledged, or seen as a correct way, by some of the other actors. In other words, notwithstanding the

76 Swedish National Heritage Board, Swedish National Commission for UNESCO, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, World Heritage Sites in Sweden, 2014: 12.

77 Green, supra note 62, 97.

progress made, there is still a feeling that there is room for improvement as far as the de-colonization of current bureaucratic structures is concerned.78

A major future challenge ensuring that Sámi engagement in managing Laponia is in line with the right of self -determination lies in the recognition of Sámi toponymes: getting Sámi place names accepted on maps, on road signs and other signalization panels is still an unsolved issue. Another future task for strengthening Laponia management is to widen local participation beyond the nine Sámi communities, which use land within Laponia, and to involve local people from the town of Jokkmokk, a centre of Sámi culture in Lapland. And fijinally, there is a need for Laponiatjuottjudus, which is still a project, to become a real organisation. The funding accorded to Laponia however is small for the amount of work that lies ahead (i.e., priority list every year).

Nevertheless, one should not underestimate the importance of Laponia as a platform for Sámi revitalization and as a milestone in the process of regaining control over the management of their traditional lands. Neither should one underestimate its importance as a milestone for a new form of nature conser-vation management that has the possibility to inspire governance structures not only in indigenous circles, but beyond.

Conclusion

There is a growing consensus that Indigenous Peoples should be able to man-age or at least participate in the manman-agement of their cultural heritman-age. Yet, there is also a large gap between the rhetoric on the international level and the actual political practices on a national and regional level. The UNESCO World Heritage Convention is one model that can, in the best case, assist Indigenous Peoples to (re)-gain their self-determination over their cultural heritage. Al-though the UNESCO framework has met great difffijiculties in fully recognizing the unique features of Indigenous Peoples’ cultural heritage and their involve-ment in the nomination process of the heritage sites, our case study of Laponia has illustrated that if the skillful and active strategical planning of Indigenous Peoples is met with the willingness of the related State to advance Indigenous Peoples’ rights and participation, it is possible to create a satisfactory outcome.

Based on voluntary guidelines and arrangements, similar co-management

78 Carina Green, and Jan Turtinen ‘Indigenous peoples and World Heritage sites – contested management regimes in Australia, New Zealand and Sweden’ in L Elenius, C Allard, C Sandström (eds.), Sámi Customary Rights in Modern Landscapes, Ashgate, London. (forth-coming).

models have recently been successfully created in other places in the world (e.g., Canada).79

Without recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ self-determination, their cul-tural heritage cannot be protected in a satisfactory way. As long as Indigenous Peoples are seen as objects of protection, rather than legal subjects, their fun-damental views, philosophies and knowledge remains unacknowledged. The establishment of the Laponia World Heritage area, as shown in this chapter, led to a restructuring of the relations between the local Sámi community and the local authorities.

The unique co-management body put in place in Laponia, Laponiatjuot-tjudus, links to the profound shift that has occurred during the last decades in the way in which Indigenous Peoples’ rights are viewed, culminating in the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including its direct embrace of Indigenous Peoples’ right to self-determination. From the point of view of protection of Indigenous Peoples’ cultural heritage, their right to self-determination is a vital component. As stated by EMRIP, Indigenous Peoples’ cultural heritage should be considered as an expression of their self -determination and their spiritual and physical relationships with their lands, territories and resources.80 What Indigenous Peoples’ self-determination does or should mean in practice, is, however, far from clear and lacks any compre-hensive understanding within the international community. It is possible, any-how, to identify some areas that are indisputable, at least in the sense of “the best efffort.” Indigenous Peoples’ right to efffectively participate in the decision-making concerning matters that are directly related to their cultural core, such as traditional, nature-based livelihoods, is a widely accepted norm within the human rights framework. Although the right to efffective participation origi-nally became accepted as a part of Indigenous Peoples’ right to a distinct

cul-79 See for example: Thora Herrmann, Leena Heinämäki, Cindy Morin ‘Protecting Sacred Sites, Maintaining Cultural Heritage, and Sharing Power: Co-management of the SGang

cul-79 See for example: Thora Herrmann, Leena Heinämäki, Cindy Morin ‘Protecting Sacred Sites, Maintaining Cultural Heritage, and Sharing Power: Co-management of the SGang