Avtal mellan samebyar och exploatörer

• DOI: 10.7557/10.6421
• Publication Date: 2022-01-19T14:30:08Z
• Authors: Rasmus Kløcker La...; Jannie Staffansson; Inger-Anne Omma; Rebecca Lawrence

In Sweden, there is a growing trend for Sámi reindeer herding districts and developers to enter into negotiated agreements on projects that aim exploit land natural resources. These can be viewed as way the involved parties fill gap in state regulation of environmental licensing use planning; specifically inability address property rights (known rights). Research conducted other countries has demonstrated such private potentially play role integrating Indigenous perspectives resource governance. The research also demonstrates they carry considerable risks. Little known, however, about consequences homeland. This report offers, first time, an evaluation content selection between Sweden. was from perspective, applying scale set criteria focused how affect ability safeguard wellbeing. consisted five levels (+1 -4) were ranked according views gathered 12 people, who either experts negotiations or holders traditional knowledge. study collected 15 districts. concern following activities: wind power, tourism, car testing, hydropower, quarry mining, outdoor sporting. To protect integrity respect confidentiality all results are anonymised, which means none information disclosed this traced specific districts, companies, projects. demonstrate few contain clauses that, perspective preferrable wellbeing (levels +1, 0 -1). Instead, dominated by worst -3 -4). overall conclusion provide limited benefits herding, instead contribute especially clear contained high-risk combination open consent (allowing undefined projects), gag (wherein give up their right appeal government courts), (preventing publicly communicating experiences). support view cement unequal power relations, largely benefit companies. They indicate most often, if not always, reflect “manufactured consent” – is, because do see alternatives. A challenge commonly confronts groups, globally, know what legitimately claim agreements. It therefore critical highlight positive examples, even these so far few. study, examples where pause activities need wellbeing, well simple type revenue sharing. About half required implement significant measures minimize harm avoided harmful formulations pretence relinquishing rights. Yet meaningfully compensated loss pastures. Clauses cooperation sharing, without requirements placed companies consider herders. Moreover, exist unilateral renegotiate terminate agreement. place demands time knowledge financial compensation. means, effect, herders expected help promote economic interest free. central must widen included There no reason why issues compensation, case today. cases around world, instance Australia Canada, include extensive forms groups veto potential changes project, communities bring closure project conditions agreement fulfilled. typically interests delimit ambition agreements, with arguments as, “this cannot agreement”. However, opt ought claims, based self-determination, broaden scope should