Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic: Perspectives from the Barents Area

185

Chapter 7 · Indigenous peoples’ perspectives

or cascading effects of the project. In this sense, the question of a ‘tipping point’ beyond which it would no longer be possible to practice reindeer husbandry was not addressed. A participant at the GLOBIO3 GIS workshop in 2016 made a point of asking whether a future in reindeer husbandry could be guaranteed.Another participant asked why the question of how these developments would limit herders’ ability to grow their economy was left unasked and, even more pertinently, why the potential for growth in reindeer husbandry was not discussed either by the authorities or by the reindeer husbandry sector itself. Another participant raised the issue of calling for more self-governance for reindeer husbandry in order to increase the protection of remaining areas. However, there might be merit to a broader application for IAs, and more attention has recently been paid to how new approaches in planning and impact assessment could help communities engage in the processes in a more meaningful way. One emerging field is participatory scenario planning in which different groups of people use their local and scientific knowledge to develop sets of scenarios that provide multiple perspectives on real-world social-ecological problems (see Chapter 5). Scenario planning is not new, but little attention has been paid to how scenarios actually affect aspects such as social learning, innovation or empowerment (Oteros-Rozas et al., 2015). A social-ecological resilience assessment where the capacity of interdependent complex systems of people and nature persists, adapts and transforms in the face of change should be further developed. Assessments that include social- ecological resilience insights are rapidly developing and diversifying as they combine social dynamics (e.g. learning, multiple knowledge systems, social memory) with analysis of social structure (e.g. social networks, leadership, cross-scale institutional linkages) and practical social-ecological methods (e.g. participatory scenario planning, adaptive management, resilience assessment) (Resilience Alliance, 2010). Resilient indigenous peoples in the Barents area might then be better able to absorb disruptions in the form of abrupt disturbance events as well as more gradual drivers of change. Concrete examples of changes that need to be made to the IA process include: (1) legitimation of traditional knowledge (see Section 7.4), (2) the adversarial nature of the IA process, (3) the lack of capacity in indigenous communities (see Sections 7.4.2 and 7.4.3), (4) the lack of financial resources for participation and indigenous expertise, (5) short time frames, (6) the fact that many IAs seek input from indigenous peoples after the process has already begun, (7) a lack of ‘procedural fairness’, and (8) ignoring questions related to ethics and indigenous land rights (O’Faircheallaigh, 2009; Booth and Skelton 2011; Johnsen, 2016a). The Russian legal system has quite a lot of possibilities to protect the interests of indigenous peoples, but in law they are considered primarily as an object, not as a subject of regional and municipal policy (Kryazhkov, 2010; Popkov, 2011). In addition, mechanisms to ensure the active participation of indigenous peoples in decision-making on the management and control of environmental and natural resources, including resources for Arctic indigenous livelihoods have not been sufficiently developed.

practiced in the Barents area has flaws, particularly for indigenous peoples practicing traditional livelihoods. General failings include short time frames and budget constraints, a lack of local knowledge in the field, the adversarial nature of IAs, a poor understanding of broader societal issues, cutting and pasting material fromprevious reports, and rushed completion to meet deadlines set by legislators or to avoid project delays (Wright et al., 2013). Additional issues include an assumption that what can be‘counted’ is more important than what cannot, short-term perspectives (decades rather than centuries), and a lack of consideration for cumulative and cascading effects. IAs also lack a holistic approach, and do not include traditional knowledge from practitioners. As a result, the role that indigenous peoples should or could play in the process, their knowledge, economies, stewardship and/or perspectives, as well as the broader question of land rights are subsumed to meet the demands of the IA. O’Faircheallaigh (2009) reported that the exclusion of indigenous peoples from the IA process (the example given was fromAustralia, but is still relevant here) mirrors the broader exclusion of Aboriginal peoples from their ancestral lands initially, and from the benefits of mainstream society subsequently. Johnsen (2016a) has written about a plannedmine development – the Nussir project – in Kvalsund, Finnmark. Johnsen (2016a) noted that the IA process focused on the ‘square meters on the ground’ that would be affected by the development. But as a herder interviewed by Johnsen pointed out, disturbance from mining is far more extensive than the actual area of mineral extraction.The IA also gave no consideration to the cumulative impacts of the mining combined with other encroachments on the pastures and, as the same herder explained, if the spring pastures are impacted calves cannot make efficient use of summer pastures and are thereby at risk of not surviving the winter if conditions are bad. In addition, a cost benefit analysis of the planned mine was not constructed fairly; with mineral extraction coming at the expense of pastoralism and the herding communities carrying all the risk. A herder from the Fálá reindeer herding district (their summer pastures are near Hammerfest) who participated in the 2016 GLOBIO3 participatory mapping workshop pointed out what he saw as a fundamental flaw: that herders are included too late in the process (this is also reflected in the literature, see Herrmann et al., 2014) – after the Områderegulering (Area planning) stage. This sets out broad use plans for large-scale areas of land and does not require an IA. Herder input is only sought at the Reguleringsplan (zoning plan) stage, which is where decisions are taken at a smaller scale.By that stage,people are already envisioning the land in a different way and mental landscapes have already shifted. Johnsen (2016a) also noted how various arms of the state can play different and conflicting roles.The proposal for the Nussir copper mine was approved in 2014 by KMD (the Ministry of Local Government and Modernization which is responsible for the Planning and Building Act, and Sámi affairs among other things).KMD acknowledged that reindeer husbandry is a livelihood protected by international law and that a substantial violation of the material basis of Sami culture could not be allowed. However, the approval did not address what that might mean in practice, and did not look at the cumulative