FIGHTING FOR EXISTENCE : Exposing, questioning and moving beyond colonial practices within the Swedishplanning framework for mining establishments.

(1)

Örebro Universitet HumUS-institutionen Kulturgeografi

FIGHTING FOR EXISTENCE

Exposing, questioning and moving beyond colonial practices within the Swedish planning framework for mining establishments.

Emma Rasmusson Master thesis in Public Planning

for Sustainable Development, Human Geography Spring, 2017 Tutor: Mats Lundmark

(2)

ABSTRACT

The aim of this thesis is to centre three people’s stories, their experiences and understandings of the Swedish planning framework for mining establishments. The stories centred are from Sami people whom in different ways analyses, questions, challenges and changes the diverse expressions of colonialism, racism and capitalism within this framework. Through centring indigenous and decolonial planning this thesis tries to expose colonial planning practices and how indigenous knowledges, worldviews and perspectives are made marginalised. But at the same time it reformu- lates, reconstruct and reimagines planning where non-hierarchical and relational thinking is centred. This thesis is made through guidance of (mainly) indigenous and decolonial theories, methodologies and methods.

Keywords: decolonial, indigenous, planning, Sami, colonialism, capitalism, resistance.

(3)

THANKS

Without Sarakka, Matti and Hanna Sofie it would not have been a thesis. I am extremely grateful and I feel very honoured to have been given the opportunity to listen to their stories, to be able to discuss and think with them. I hope that this thesis re- spectfully reflects your stories and experiences, and that we will continue to discuss these issues at several occasions. As your ally, I will continue to expose colonial, racist and capitalist systems in the Swedish society.

(4)

INTRODUCTION

This thesis centres the stories of three people, their experiences and understandings of Swedish planning frameworks for mining establishments. The stories are told by Sami people who in different ways have been challenging, discussing and critiquing mining establishments in Sápmi. The Sami peoples are the indigenous peoples whose land has been divided by four countries: Norway, Sweden, Finland and Rus- sia1 (Lantto, 2010;; Lundmark, 2008). Sápmi is the traditional and/or homeland of the Sami peoples, and it is here the great majority of mines and minerals are located (e.g. Haikola & Anshelm, 2016;; Lawrence & Åhrén, 2017;; Müller, 2013;; Ojala & Nor- din, 2015;; Sehlin MacNeil & Lawrence, 2017). The exploitation through mining is to be understood as one of the greatest challenges of Sami cultural survival of today (Gärdebo, Öhman & Mayuryama, 2014;; Liliequist & Cocq, 2014). There is a historical and on-going ignorance in Sweden when it comes to colonisation of Sápmi (e.g. Larsson, 2014;; Liliequist & Cocq, 2017;; Ojala & Nordin, 2015;; Omma 2013;; Sehlin MacNeil & Lawrence, 2017;; Sköld, 2005). In the foreword to Reclaiming Indigenous Planning (Aubin, 2013) we can read:

Today, Indigenous communities have to fight to remain relevant on the en- vironmental, social, political, and economic local, national, and internation- al agendas or they will find themselves planned out of existence (p. xvi).

Thus when I asked one of the participants if it was anything else she wanted to add in the end of our conversation, it was no surprise that she answered “we can’t choose not to engage, not to fight. Because then it's over”. Even if it was no surprise it defi- nitely puts the finger on why there is a need, a must, to discuss these issues. Indige- nous and decolonial planning is a practice that continuously evolves and differs depending on “cultural, temporal, and spatial contexts” (Matunga, 2013, pp. 3-4). In a very simplified manner Indigenous planning can be described as centring indigenous worldviews through decolonial practices;; expose colonial planning traditions, pro- cesses and practices. Centring indigenous knowledges, experiences and worldviews. Decolonisation could be defined as a critique against colonialism based on an idea of overturning colonial structures and “realize indigenous liberation” (Waziyatawin and Yellow Bird, 2012, p. 3). The context for the planning framework for mining establishment is to be seen from a perspective where issues concerning land and water should be understood as a struggle to have the right and the possibility to define and determine one’s own life and one’s own relationship to land (Matunga, 2013). To talk in broad generalisations indigenous relations to land is many times described in relational terms where you live in reciprocal relationships with the land including its resources (e.g. Fur, 2006;; Gaski, 2008;; Kovach, 2009;; Kuokkanen 2000;; Lundmark 2008;; Rydberg 2011;; Sandström, 2017;; Stammler & Ivanova, 2016;; Tuhiwai Smith, 1999). This is in opposition to where humans own and control land and resources. There is an imbalance of these different ways of relating and defining land due to colonialism, capitalism and neoliberalism (e.g. Kovach, 2009;; Kuokkanen 2000;; Sandström, 2017) and this needs to be exposed when talking about planning frameworks for mining establishments.

(6)

As a non-indigenous person, it has been important to me to use indigenous and decolonial research and knowledges. I acknowledge my position as a Swedish person where I am privileged due to colonial histories. In this position, I see myself as having a responsibility to try to be an ally in continuous exposing, analysing, discussing and centring stories relating to Sweden’s on-going colonial history (Mutua & Swadener 2004;; Noxolo, Raghuram & Madge, 2009). I went to see CO2lonialNATION, by Giron Sámi Teáhter, a documentary form of play that works as a truth commission2 and that deals with the relations between the Sami and its colonizing states (Finland, Sweden, Norway and Russia). They told us non-indigenous people in the audience that we cannot share their stories because we have not experienced them, but we could serve as witnesses. We could testify about the stories that were about to un- fold. We as Swedes needed to do something about our culture, because it is not healthy in how it has treated and still treats Sápmi and the Sami. This thesis can hopefully be understood as a way of testifying. I am going to use my position to be guided by research that analyses and problematize power relations and highlight experiences, ideas and stories that challenge these power relations (Baer, 2008).

Purpose and questions

The purpose is then to centre stories, experiences and understandings of Swedish planning frameworks for mining establishments. Exposing colonial planning practices is one part of indigenous and decolonial planning frameworks;; how indigenous knowledges, worldviews and perspectives are marginalised. To expose how these asymmetrical relations are exploitative and requires a never-ending increase of land consumption (Matunga, 2013). At the same time, it is about ”reformulation, recon- struction, reimagination” of planning in relation to indigenous worldviews (Jojola, Walker & Natcher, 2013;; see also Jojola, 2008). Departing from these ideas I have formulated three main questions:

How is the planning framework for mining establishments experienced and exposed? How is indigenous and decolonial planning described, experienced and practiced? How is planning “reformulated, reconstructed and reimagined”?

2_”_{CO2lonialNATION”}_{is a production by Giron Sámi Teáhter, the theatre of the Sami people.} A truth commission’s task is to discover and reveal past offenses by, for instance, a government with the aim to resolve conflict leftovers from the past (that still affects today’s socities). During 2015 the work for the establishment of a truth commission was started. The Discrimination Ombudsman (dis- krimingsombudsmannen) and the Sami parliament is working together in order to make visible all the injustices and assaults that the state has done towards the Sami people. Parallel to this and a step towards reconciliation between the Sami and the Swedish church the white paper De historiska rela-

tionerna mellan Svenska kyrkan och samerna (Lindmark & Sundström, 2016) deals with how the

church has been treating the Sami people and their historic support for race biology (Liliequist & Cocq, 2017).

(7)

Outline of thesis

Introduction and contextualisation

I will firstly outline the context needed for the thesis;; the colonial history of Sápmi. I focus on those parts of Sápmi that is within the borders of Sweden. I will briefly mention research concerning indigenous and decolonial planning in general on an international level. I will then move on to connect the historical perspective of colonisation of Sápmi to today’s planning framework for mining establishments, I highlight research that can be related to indigenous and decolonial planning. Then I will under- line a few specific rights concerning the Sami people that are good to know of in relation mining.

Theoretical framework

The focus is on indigenous and decolonial research but I will also use ideas from critical theory in general like post-colonialism and black feminism (Brown & Strega, 2005). I will discuss colonial ideas versus indigenous and decolonial ideas where knowledge production, power and ideas of “truth” and “objectivity” will be highlighted. I then will describe western ideas of planning to continue on to indigenous and decolonial planning where I will emphasise ideas of relational thinking, understanding of place, knowledge production and stories.

Methodologies and methods

I have centred indigenous and decolonial methodologies, through these I will for instance locate myself (self-reflexion) and talk about respectful research. I will further highlight the importance of stories and listening to stories (e.g. Kovach, 2005). I de- scribe and discuss the interview process where I was inspired by Yarning, that can briefly be described as a semi-structured interview method that is like a more relaxed and informal conversation (Bessarab and Ng’andu, 2010). I would like to point out that in my conversation I have used Kovach (2005) ideas of an indigenous way of constructing knowledge ”fluid, non-linear, and relational” (p. 27). With the ideas of informal conversation and “fluid” and “non-linear” I have tried to be led, and to follow and to listen to the movements of the stories and see where they take us. Therefore, this thesis might be understood as pointing in too many directions at the same time. But I see it as some sort of mapping of experiences where different dots are not connected to each other in a linear fashion in accordance with western views of knowledge production. I admit that it has been a little bit of a challenge to do it this way in relation to what is demanded of me when it comes to finding appropriate previous research for instance. I have tried my best.

Then I will focus on the stories and experiences of Sarakka, Matti and Hanna Sofie whom I will present later. Through indigenous and decolonial methodologies I have quite good tools for being navigated through their stories.

Conclusion and some final thoughts.

I will end this thesis with a conclusion where I also share a few final thoughts.

(8)

Limitations

I have chosen to limit my thesis to planning frameworks for mining establishments concerning those parts of Sápmi that is within the borders of Sweden. I am not going to dig deep into laws, regulations and policies. Neither will I give a detailed description of all the steps in the mining establishment system. Instead I have focused on the participants experiences where you of course relate to laws, regulations, policies and the mining establishment system. But I will centre Sarakka, Matti and Hanna So- fie’s experiences and understandings rather than a never-ending description of the complexities of these legal systems and/or mining establishments systems.3

I have chosen not to include research relating to activism and social movements even though they also touch upon issues discussed in this thesis, instead I have chosen to use indigenous and decolonial planning framework since it has a “strong tradition of resistance” with a focus on rights and self-determination (Matunga, 2013, p. 5).

One part of many stories – what this thesis can contribute

with

This thesis, like all stories, is not in any way complete. It should be seen as one part of many stories that are exposing colonial planning practices and centring indigenous and decolonial planning. What I hope to contribute with is creating more space for stories, experiences and practices relating to indigenous planning and decolonial planning. Kuokkanen (2009, 2011) talks about the importance of an intersectional perspective on colonialism. When reading research both regarding planning of Sápmi and other indigenous land I missed some aspects such as gender identity and sexuality. “Too often these issues have been seen as peripheral to the larger struggles against colonialism, too often cis-heteropatriarchal normativity has been justified in the name of decolonization” (Unsettlingamerica, 2015, see also Driskill et al., 2011). I have tried to include these aspects as a way to centre the relational and holistic perspectives.

Contextualisation

Colonisation of Sápmi

This contextualisation of the colonisation of Sápmi is not an all-inclusive historic summary, rather it can be seen as a part of (hi)stories that are heterogeneous, diverse and where there is not one single “truth” (e.g. Chilisa, 2012;; hooks, 1992;; Kuokkanen, 2000;; Said, 1978;; Tuhiwai Smith, 1999).

3_{There is a short description of the mining establishment system in the appendix. If wanting to know} even more about the system of regulations when it comes to mining visit the webpage of The Geologi- cal Survey of Sweden, SGU (the expert agency for issues relating to bedrock, soil and groundwater in Sweden). If wanting to read more about mining legislation in relation to Sápmi and Sami rights in all countries Sápmi stretches over read Koivuroa (2015).

(9)

The different impacts of Sweden’s (on-going) colonisation of Sápmi and the Sami have been written about and been exposed in several studies (e.g. Allard 2006;; Brännlund 2015;; Fur, 2006;; Lantto 2010, 2014;; Lantto and Mörkenstam 2008, 2015;; Lawrence, 2014;; Lundmark, 2008;; Mörkenstam, 2005;; Ojala & Nordin 2015;; Sköld & Lantto 2000;; Utsi, 2007;; Össbo 2014). They expose colonisation of Sápmi through different exploitive industries, displacements and enforced relocations, language as- similations, race biology “investigations” and enforced Christianity, just to mention a few aspects.

The Swedish state’s interests in Sápmi’s natural resources in the form of minerals grew around roughly the 1600’s. But the Sami people’s way of using the land they lived on and their rights to it were generally acknowledged and also quite respected (e.g. Lundmark, 2008;; Sehlin MacNeil, 2017). This respect might have been due to the depiction of Sápmi “as worthless no-man’s land” (Baer, 1982, p. 14). During the 1800’s the intensification of the state’s interest in Sápmi’s natural resources in- creased. Through industrial developments and securing and legitimizing the boarders of the nation state, colonisation of Sápmi was a fact (e.g. Baer,1982;; Korpijaakko- Labba 2005;; Lantto, 2010;; Lawrence, 2014;; Lawrence & Åhrén, 2017;; Lundmark, 1998;; Päiviö, 2011).4 Sápmi went from being seen as a “worthless no-man’s land” to “Sweden’s depot of raw materials, the equivalent of Africa and India for England” (Baer, 1982, p. 14). In order to use this “depot of raw materials” the earlier respect for Sami land rights became an obstacle and was down played, even if not totally extin- guished it was made less and less acknowledged. Instead the Sami was “given” the right to use the land that was now claimed by the state that can be put in relation to how settlers were given ownership rights to farmlands (e.g. Baer, 1982;; Korpijaakko- Labba, 2005;; Lawrence & Åhrén, 2017;; Lundmark, 1998, 2008;; Mörkenstam, 1999;; Päiviö, 2012;; Össbo, 2014). Colonial and racist images of the Sami was built into policies, laws and regulations where the Sami people was understood as an inferior race;; incapable of development, unsuitable for land ownership and too dumb to manage their own affairs (e.g. Baer, 1982;; Lundmark, 2006, 2008;; Mörkenstam, 1999;; Päiviö, 2012;; Össbo, 2014). The Sami did not use their land in accordance with Swedish (and western) understandings of a “civilised” way of using land such as cul- tivation (e.g. Lawrence & Åhrén, 2017;; Lundmark, 2008). Össbo (2014) describes re- writing of history as a colonial technique to claim land. The Sami did not have a “real” history;; there were no archives due to oral (hi)story tradition (Lundmark, 2008;; Öh- man & Wyld, 2014). Hence, the state needed to take care of business through their rational, policy-based bureaucratic systems (Össbo, 2014).

One policy area that is specifically discussed in previous research is the “Lapp shall be Lapp” 5 (“Lapp ska vara lapp”) and the ideas of “the Real Sami” (e.g. Lantto 2012;; Lundmark, 2008). The nomadic reindeer herding6 Sami was to be understood as “the real Sami” and was portrayed to be unfit to be exposed to “civilisation” and could only live as a nomad, this understanding was supported by racist “science” (Lantto 2000;; Lundmark, 2008;; Mörkenstam 1999, 2005). Non-reindeer herding Sami were to be

4_{If you want to know more about colonial and racist histories regarding Norway, Finland and Russia} read for example: Jernsletten 1993;; Mörkenstam 1999;; Brännlund, 2015.

5_{“Lapp” is a racist term used for the Sami, this word is still in use and there is a province in Sweden} (landscape) that is called “Lappland” for instance.

6_{Reindeer herding is not only a way to make an income;; it is}_{intimately linked with the Sami culture} and has traditions very far back in time (Sametinget, 2017a).

(10)

assimilated into the Swedish society, this was a way to keep the Sami people in the mountain regions where the land could not really be used for anything else than reindeer herding anyways (e.g. Lundmark, 2008). This had devastating consequences regarding for instance housing, schools and livelihoods in general (Lantto 2012;; Lundmark, 2008;; Sehlin MacNeil, 2017). Sami rights to use the land they lived on was then gradually transformed into specific rights in relation to reindeer herding (e.g. Lantto, 2012;; Sehlin MacNeil, 2017) through for instance the first Reindeer Grazing Act in 1886 and the following changes and updates of that act in 1898, 1928 and in the Reindeer Husbandry Act of 1971 (Lantto, 2012;; Sehlin MacNeil, 2017). These acts have created a segregation of the Sami people that still exist today where Sami land rights according to the Swedish state is connected to reindeer herding even though a majority is no-reindeer herding Sami (e.g. Allard 2006;; Lundmark, 2008;; Mörkenstam 1999). The Sami people do have specific rights to land due to their position as indigenous people. I will get back to this later.

Through these acts the organisation of reindeer herding was to be managed within, what today is called, Sameby (Samebyar in plural) (Cocq, 2014). The Sameby is an economic organisation consisting of reindeer herding companies that manage a specific geographic area. To practice reindeer herding you have to be a member of a Sameby (e.g. Löf, 2014;; Sehlin MacNeil 2017). These laws, regulations and control of Sami land usage lead to displacements and forced relocations whose effects are still present today (e.g. Lantto 2012;; Lawrence & Åhrén, 2017). Kuokkanen (2009;; 2011) discusses how the Sameby-system did not pay attention to the already existing Siida-system. The Siida-system was the Sami’s own way of planning and organising land usage. An extended family system and a smaller community where self- governance and collective decision-making was practiced (Kuokkanen, 2009;; 2011). It was dismantled and incorporated into colonial and capitalist economy systems which has led to many gendered consequences like divisions of labour just to mention one. It is pointed out that the state’s laws, regulations and policies tried to weak- en Sami women’s’ positions, but they were unofficially still strong in Sami communities (Kuokkanen, 2009;; 2011, see also Amft, 2000;; Fur, 2006;; Knobblock & Kuok- kanen, 2015;; Liliequist, 2017;; Ryd, 2013 for further discussions of gendered effects of colonial laws, regulation and policies).

It is discussed how policies and rationalisation processes continued during for instance the 1950’s and 1960’s to re-produce colonial ideas in Swedish Sami policies (Lantto & Mörkenstam, 2008). The state was portrayed as modern and intellectual with a focus on technical advancements and democratic consciousness, and in terms of these rationalisation ideas reindeer herding (again) were seen as ”underdevel- oped” (Lantto & Mörkenstam, 2008).

It is important to highlight previous research that discusses how organisation, resistance, mobilization and fighting for rights have always been parallel stories to oppression. Since roughly the 1900s, Sami organisation have worked at local, national and international levels to highlight and strengthen rights to land, to identities, languages, cultures, world-views and self-determination (e.g. Lantto & Mörkerstam, 2008;; 2015;; see also Liliequist (2017) who writes specifically about women within Sami rights movements).

Finally, I want to highlight discussions of how the Swedish state does not admit and acknowledge its position as a colonial state. The official position is that Sápmi was

(11)

never subject to colonialism (e.g. Fur 2013;; Johansson 2008;; Össbo 2014). The dis- cussion of the reason why is partly based on the “salt water” doctrine;; colonising only happens when the colonized territory (and its people) is geographically separated from the colonising state/power (Lawrence & Åhrén, 2017;; Össbo, 2014).7_{The state}

ignores the stories, the experiences, the documentations and the testimonies of colonisation (e.g. Brännlund 2015;; Kuokkanen, 2006;; Lawrence 2014: Össbo, 2014). It is also discussed how many different consequences of colonisation of Sápmi that is still present in today’s society such as experiences of racism, discrimination and psy- chological health problems (DO, 2008;; Lönn, 2014;; Omma, 2013;; Simma et al, 2017;; Stoor, 2016). 8

Planning frameworks (for mining establishments)

There has not been particularly much written about indigenous and decolonial planning on an international level (e.g., Berke et al. 2002;; Hibbard and Lane 2004;; Jojola, 2008;; Lane and Corbett 2005;; Lane and Cowell 2001;; Lane and Hibbard 2005;; Walker, Jojola & Natcher (eds.), 2013). It seems reasonable to point out that it has not been so much written in English, the other language that I read and speak. And the language that is hegemonic within western academia. When narrowing down to concerning mining establishment in Sápmi I found even less (e.g. Lawrence & Klock- er Larsen, 2017;; Lawrence & Åhrén, 2017;; Sehlin MacNeil, 2017). If I had used only literature written by people with indigenous experiences then it would be much more limited. I want to point out that it does not mean at all that these kinds of research or these kinds of knowledges do not exist, rather it can be seen as a sign of what planning is thought to be and who writes about it within academia (e.g. Kovach, 2009;; Kuokkanen, 2000;; Tuhiwai Smith, 1999).

International research on indigenous and decolonial planning

Anyhow, we get to understand how planning for wind power development has had devastating interferences on indigenous land in Canada in the name of “greater good” (Booth & Muir, 2011;; Windsor & McVey, 2005). The effects of mining are also discussed where indigenous lands are viewed from an economic profitable perspective (Booth & Muir, 2011). Coombs, Johnson & Howitt (2012) are discussing planning frameworks and rights to land from an Australian, American and New Zealand perspective. Indigenous knowledges and communities tend to be excluded from mainstream western planning frameworks in spite of ideas of “co-management”, deliberative-and dialogue oriented ideals (e.g. Hibbard, Lane, and Rasmussen, 2000;; Jojola, 2008;; Jojola, Walker & Natcher, 2013;; Lane and Corbett 2005;; O’Faircheallaigh and Corbett 2005;; Porter, 2006;; 2010;; Ugarte, 2014). There is a critique and exposing of how (the top-down) planning approaches in United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand is a continuation of colonial, capitalist and discriminatory practices where planning already performed by affected indigenous communities is ignored (Hibbard, Lane, and Rasmussen, 2008;; see also Matunga, 2013). Booth & Muir (2011) problematize how, in Canada, planning with/for indigenous people still to a

7_{I also want to point out that Sweden colonized areas that were separated geographically as well, like} in Saint Barthélemy (Thomasson, 2013).

8_{See for instance Sami radio’s series of programs and their hash tags #vardagsrasismmotmig-} somsame #árgarasismamuvuostásápmelažžan #aarkerasismamovvööstesaemine (everyday racism towards me as Sámi) (Sveriges Radio, 2017)

(12)

great extent is performed by non-indigenous, white and middle-class people (see also Berke et. Al, 2002;; Ugarte, 2014). Except from the critique of planning framework we can also find texts where indigenous peoples take the matter in own hands where they resist decisions made concerning intrusions and exploitation of land (e.g. Jojola, Walker & Natcher, 2013).9

Planning framework for mining establishments in Sápmi.

The colonial and racist history of the exploitation of Sápmi should be understood as a back-drop to the current situation regarding mining. 10 I will discuss previous research through three headlines: Mining Paradise, Environmental Assessment Impacts and “the possibilities” to participation, National interests and ideas of “the common good” and Rights and definitions.

Mining Paradise

As a reminder, the majority of existing and planned mines are to be found in Sápmi. Sweden has through laws, policies and regulations established some kind of neolib- eral capitalist mining paradise where growth and profit are keys to success (e.g. Hai- kola & Anshelm, 2016;; Müller, 2013;; Lawrence & Åhrén, 2017). A liberal environmental regulation, minimal political risks, pretty much non-existent royalty fees11 and an investment security have downplayed Sami national, regional and local rights in fa- vour of growth (Alarik;; 2014;; Beland Lindahl et al, 2016;; Haikola & Anshelm, 2016;; Lawrence & Åhrén, 2017;; Müller, 2013;; Ojala & Nordin, 2015;; Sehlin MacNeil, 2015). The Sami Parliament (2014) states for instance that the Mineral Act is nothing more than an exploitation act, with the intention to increase the knowledge about the mineral assets in order to supply the nation and the world’s “needs” for minerals. Coloni- al rationalities are re-used, re-shaped and re-produced through market relations where an economized valuation of natural resources is the main way to understand nature and its resources (Nyström, 2014). The Mineral Strategy has been critically examined in a few studies (e.g. Haikola & Anshelm, 2016) where the state is more or less a facilitator of industrial expansion with the aim to attract multinational companies (e.g. Haikola & Anshelm, 2016;; Sametinget, 2014). The mineral strategy is also said to use an imagery of Sápmi as “un-touched” nature and reproduce the colonial idea of how Sámi land usage has been constructed as “non-civilized” (Andersson & Cocq, 2016;; Haikola & Anshelm, 2016).

9_{In relation to this the resistance against Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) could be seen as indigenous} and decolonial planning (Stand with standing rock, 2017). I did not find any research done yet on this. 10_{It also serves as a back-drop to hydropower, wind power and similar developments. If you want to} read more about how colonialism in different ways affect planning processes relating wind power, hydropower and other aspects of land usage: Allard (2006), Össbo (2014), Öhman (2009) Reimerson (2015, 2016), Lönn (2014), Grahn (2011).

11_{Royalties are paid by the owner or the operator of a mine to compensate for natural resources that} are extracted. Lawrence & Åhrén (2017) estimated the mining royalties because the wanted to prove a point and their estimation shoed how Sweden deprives the Sámi of roughly 100 million euro annually, simply by not applying the same standard as other comparable countries.

(13)

Environmental impact assessments and “possibilities” to participation

Svonni’s report “Samisk markanvändning och MKB” (2010) was a part of a bigger project initiated by the Sami Parliament and Swedish Sami Association (SSR) concerning land usage and planning. The report focuses on the process with the environmental impact assessments (EIA). The EIA is understood as the main opportunity for the Sameby to explain to concerned parties, such as authorities granting mining permits and mining companies, their perspective on land usage in relation to reindeer herding for instance (Svonni, 2010). While Svonni (2010) focus on EIA as an opportunity to influence there is critique against the preconditions regarding the EIA process. Even though mining companies are by law forced to do an EIA it is more of a one-way communication (Lawrence & Klocker Larsen, 2017). The Mineral Act is also “recommending” mining companies to consult with affected actors where a Sameby could be such an actor, but it is more to give a heads up regarding already decided plans (Alarik, 2014;; see also Sehlin MacNeil;; 2015;; Spiliopoulou Åkermark & Talah, 2007). According to the Reindeer Husbandry Act there is support to view that the reindeer herders through the Sameby is a concerned party (Svonni, 2010).

A few studies show how the EIA does not fully take into consideration Sami knowledges and worldviews (Andersson & Cocq, 2016;; Grahn, 2011;; Haikola & Anshelm, 2016;; Lawrence & Klocker Larsen, 2017;; Sehlin MacNeil, 2017;; Svonni, 2010). Svonni (2010) describes Sami worldviews where humans are only one part of a whole system that constitutes the living environment;; a holistic worldview. The living environment consists of the surrounding land, nature, histories, languages, natural resources and your relation in this wholeness (e.g. Kuokkanen 2000;; Rydberg, 2011;; Sandström, 2017;; Utsi, 2007;; Åhrén, 2014;; Öhman & Wyld, 2014). Several scholars have discussed how the experience and understanding of place is more than the ge- ographical location. Rather it is about visibility of a people, a history and understandings of nature (Cocq, 2014;; Liliequist & Cocq, 2017, 2014;; Rydberg 2011;; Utsi 2007). Therefore, the environmental effects of an exploitation have a strong connection to social, historical and cultural effects in the local Sami community (Andersson & Cocq, 2016;; Grahn, 2011;; Haikola & Anshelm, 2016;; Lawrence & Klocker Larsen, 2017;; Sehlin MacNeil, 2017;; Svonni, 2010). Svonni (2010) also describes how this differs from the predominant Swedish planning frameworks where nature and man, nature and culture are seen as separate entities (see also Lawrence & Klocker Larsen, 2017). Sami perspectives of what are to be considered as important impacts to take into consideration when making the EIA are made invisible (Lawrence & Klocker Larsen 2017;; see also Tarras-Walberg, 2014). It is then quite difficult for Sami people to recognize oneself in it due a focus on mainly technicalities performed by “special- ists” like engineers and consultants (Lawrence & Klocker Larsen, 2017;; Svonni, 2010). It is also noted that EIA enters at a very late stage in the process that makes the chances of influence extremely limited (Grahn, 2011;; Haikola & Anshelm, 2016;; Lawrence & Åhrén, 2017;; Lawrence & Klocker Larsen, 2017;; Sehlin MacNeil, 2017). These different “possibilities” to influence is presented as a privileged given by the state and the mining companies – and not as a right (Sehlin MacNeil, 2015). The linkage between the historic phases of colonialism when the state constructed the Sami as unfit to take care of their own matters and the contemporary “possibilities” to influence is shown by several studies (e.g. Lantto, 2012;; Lantto & Mörkenstam, 2008;; Lawrence & Åhrén, 2017;; Lawrence & Klocker Larsen, 2017;; Mörkenstam, 1999). There have been deliberative democratic ideals during the last two decades, still colonial ideas are reproduced. Sami knowledges and ways of planning are excluded from existing planning frameworks (Beland Lindahl et. al, 2016;; Lawrence & Åhrén,

(14)

2017;; Lawrence & Klocker Larsen, 2017).

In “The politics of planning: assessing the impacts of mining on Sami lands” (Law- rence & Klocker Larsen, 2017) community-based impact assessment (CBIA) as a planning tool is tried out. The Sameby in question used the CBIA to construct own stories regarding the impacts based on own perspectives. The Sameby’s resistance towards the permitting process for mining in Sápmi “feeds into a much longer trajec- tory of Sami resistance” (Lawrence & Klocker Larsen, 2017, p. 6). Åhrén (2014) shows in her text ”En Samebys strategi för överlevnad” a Sameby’s stance when fighting mining exploitation (and other ectractivism on their land). Their fight is based on “conscious strategies based on theories of decolonization” where they do not see consultation as spaces for being listened to (Åhrén, 2014, p. 40). Resistance and the importance of place is discussed by Cocq (2014). During the resistance and protests against the mining in Gállok/Kallak, Coq shows how Sami communities understood Gállok/Kallak as a container of stories, an archive of stories (2014). 12

National interest and ideas of “the common good”13

Ideas of “national interests” and “the common good” are also discussed when it comes to “possibilities” to influence. The history of mining has gone hand in hand with utilitarian perspectives (Andersson & Cocq, 2016). “The common good” in relation to natural resources has influenced laws, regulations and policies and has had (and still has) important consequences for decision-making (Andersson & Cocq, 2016). The Environmental Code describes different “national interests” where reindeer herding is one and minerals are another. Reindeer herding tends to be down played in relation to minerals due to economical profits and how mining is seen to be beneficial for the “common good” (e.g. Lawrence & Åhrén, 2017;; Löf, 2014;; Spili- opoulou Åkermark & Talah, 2007). The Mineral Strategy and the Mineral Act construct an idea of how these “interests” can coexist peacefully (e.g. Haikola & An- shelm, 2016;; Lawrence & Åhrén, 2017;; Müller, 2013;; Ojala & Nordin, 2015). This idea of co-existence is problematized with the argumentation of false assumptions based on the idea of the vastness of Sápmi. Every new mining development is understood to take place in isolation from other exploitations (such as wind power and hydropower) and the cumulative effects are ignored (Lawrence & Åhrén, 2017, p. 159;; see also Larsen et al, 2016). It is also pointed the lack of understanding of reindeer herding cycles.14_{An existing or new mine always entails adjustments to the new}

conditions for reindeer husbandry where change never be can seen as beneficial. It can rather be described as a conflict than a co-existence, and this conflict cannot be solved through the existing systems of dialogue (Länsstyrelsen i Norrbottens län och Sweco, 2015). Löf (2014) argues that there is also a die-hard myth that the Sami

12_{Gállok is the Sami place name for what in Swedish is called Kallak.}_{During the summer of 2013} there were big protests against a planned mine in Gállok/Kallak, outside of Jokkmokk. The protest took place on site with the help of different forms of resistance: road blockades, barricades, art and an activist camp. It became creative meeting place. The protesters were both Sami and no-Sami people. These protests were interfered by the police and people were arrested, it gained a lot of media attention. Want to learn more about Sámi fighting for justice read the book Samisk Kamp - Kulturförmedling

och rättviserörelse (Liliequist & Cocq (eds.), 2017).

13_{If you want to read more about ideas of ”common good” and ”interests” regarding planning frame-} work within wind power check out (Össbo, 2014;; Lantz 2014, Näsman, 2014)

14_{Moving between different pasture areas is done via ancient trails. It is almost impossible to change} a trail since the reindeers are creatures of habit who are easily startled (Sametinget, 2017b). You can read more about reindeer herding via “Reindeer Herding – A virtual guide to reindeer and the people who herd them” (2017).

(15)

reindeer herding communities will be able to adapt to almost anything, since they always have been forced to do so. Other relevant aspects of “national interest” are the formulation of what is seen as being worthy to preserve regarding nature- and cultural values. Larsson (2014) discusses how Sámi presence in the landscape is not visible since they do not “use” the land in accordance to western ideas of land usage. She discusses how the oral (hi)story tradition does not conform to western ideals of proof about presence. When natural and cultural values are to be investigated within existing planning framework, Sami natural and cultural values can be made invisible (Larsson, 2014). It is discussed that since there are no institutional agreements that makes sure that the Sami ”interests” are seen as equivalent to other ”interests” this imbalance will continue (Lantto & Mörkenstam, 2008;; see also Länsstyrelsen i Norrbottens län and Sweco, 2015). This marginalisation of Sami rights has resulted in recurrent critique against Sweden both from the UN and the EU (Anaya, 2011). The legal system is poorly adjusted to Sami customary land use, social and cultural practices (Allard 2006;; Åhrén, 2004).

Rights and definitions

Rights to land and water is a very complex, debated and heated issue. It has not been dealt with or given any fair solution to which results in Sweden receiving regular criticism from for instance the United Nations (UN), Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD) and the Council of Europe (e.g. Anaya, 2011;; Sametinget, 2016a;; Össbo, 2014). The rights to practice reindeer herding is built on immemorial rights;; an understanding of who has used the land since forever (Svonni, 2010). The Sami has not been “given” this by the state (Svonni, 2010). What parts of Sápmi that are actually owned by the state and to what extent the state can prove their ownership is another question (Sametinget, 2016a).

Svonni (2010) also points out that there is quite low knowledge about the international laws and conventions that concerns the Sami. She mentions a few conventions and definitions that should be highlighted. In 1977, the Swedish parliament acknowledged the Sami as an indigenous people. From 2011 it is in Sweden's constitution that the Sami are recognized as a people. Becoming recognized as a people also means a right to self-determination (Sametinget, 2016b). As an indigenous people, you have a specific position in relation to rights to land and water (Svonni, 2010). It should be pointed out that there is no single definition of an indigenous group since their experiences differs quite a lot depending on historical, political and social contexts. Svonni (2010) uses the follow definitions: An indigenous people descent from people who lived in the land or in a geographic area, that the land belongs to, during the time of conquest or colonisation or when nowadays nation-state’s boarders were determined and who has kept a part or all of their own social, economic and political institutions (Svonni, 2010;; see also Anaya, 2004;; 2011;; Sametinget, 2016c).

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007) also states the indigenous people’s right to participation and possibility to influence in issues concerning their traditional lands (Svonni, 2010). Svonni (2010) also highlights how the UN’s Committee on the Elimination of Racial discrimination (CERD) has the toughest demands when it comes to participation concerning indigenous peoples;; demand of prior and informed consent regarding activities on their land (Svonni, 2010, p. 13;; Sametinget 2014;; Sametinget, 2016b). Another convention that must be mentioned that Sweden has not ratified is The International Labour Organization (ILO) Conven- tion ILO 169. It does not create any new land rights, but strengthen those that al-

(16)

ready exist and demands that they should be recognized and respected (Sametinget, 2016c;; Svonni, 2010). The convention does not grant the Sameby the right to veto, however the right to consultation (Sametinget, 2016c).

(17)

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK - DECOLONIAL

THINKING.

The theoretical framework, methodologies and methods focus on indigenous and decolonial research (e.g. Kovach 2009, 2010;; Kuokkanen, 2000;; 2007;; Tuhiwai Smith, 1999). Indigenous and decolonial research deals with theoretical perspectives as well as methodology and methods. I have chosen to divide my discussions in two parts: Theoretical framework –decolonial thinking and Methodologies and respectful research. This is to improve the readability. Before talking specifically about the theo- retical framework, I will say something about indigenous and decolonial research in general. The clear objective is to centre indigenous perspectives and worldviews where the research is to be relevant to indigenous peoples, and also to challenge the way indigenous peoples and their knowledges have been understood and represent- ed (e.g. Canella & Manuelito;; Kovach 2010, Moreton-Robinson. 2016;; 2008;; Rigney 1999;; Tuhiwai Smith, 1999;;). It highlights and question what is seen as established knowledge and have as aspiration to change people’s understandings of the world and also their actions (e.g. Kovach;; 2009;; Tuhiwai Smith, 1999). I have let indigenous and decolonial research guide me, but as Tuhiwai Smith (1999) points out, I cannot myself carry it out because of my position as non-indigenous (I will get back to my location and self-reflexion later). I will also use ideas from critical theory in general like post-colonialism and black feminism to further expose and question power relations and ideas of “objectivity” and “neutrality” when it comes to knowledge production where certain people and certain knowledges gets marginalized (Brown & Strega, 2005).

I will firstly discuss planning in general where I will go through colonial thinking and the concept decolonisation. Then I will focus on indigenous and decolonial planning where I highlight important ideas concerning relational thinking, understanding of place, knowledge production and stories.

I want to point out that I am aware about the potential dangers of categorization and generalization when it comes to talking about “western” and “indigenous” for instance. In accordance with Kuokkanen (2000) I will use categories as a tool to highlight and discuss what consequences they (still) have. “Western”, “colonial” and “indigenous” has to be understood in relation to political, social, economic and contex- tual situations (Kuokkanen, 2000;; Moreton-Robinson, 2016). If we, as Sandström (2017) says, boil down the differences between indigenous and western ways of understanding the world to their most fundamental aspects we have a set of not so cor- responding ideas. Holistic, relational perspectives in relation to dualistic, fragmented perspectives. Western and colonial thinking divides everything up into oppositional categories with an inbuilt power imbalance;; man/nature, man/woman, civilised/savage (e.g. Kuokkanen, 2000;; Said, 1978;; Sandström, 2017). Indigenous thinking emphasises the relationships between these categories, or rather emphasise how everything is interrelated and a part of a wholeness that cannot be divided into oppositional categories (e.g. Alfred, 2009;; Chilisa, 2012;; Kovach, 2009;; Kuokkanen, 2000;; Sandström, 2017).

(18)

Contextualising western planning

First, we will look at common definitions of planning within traditional wester planning theory. Then we will look into how colonial thinking has been built into western planning. I will also describe colonialism and decolonialism as concepts (and a practices).

Fainstein and DeFilippis (2016) describe planning as an ”intervention with an intention to alter the existing course of events” (p. 12). There is an inbuilt assumption of continuous advancements and developments (Mukthar-Landgren, 2012). These advancements and developments should serve the “interests of the public” and create a better society in accordance with ”the public good” (Fainstein & DeFilippis, 2016;; Mukthar-Landgren, 2012). When making these ”interventions” for ”the public good” in relation to how land and natural resources should be used we need to ask us some questions. What kind of interventions? Who decides on these interventions? Who is “public” and what is “good” for them? Critique in relation to these questions has been done by feminist, queer, critical race, crip, post-colonial experiences and knowledges (e.g. Beard, 2003;; Beebeejaun 2004;; Burayidi, 2003;; Healey 1997;; Huning, 2014;; Irazabal & Huerta, 2015;; Manning Thomas, 2016;; Miraftab 2016;; Roy 2006;; Sander- cock, 1998). By creating space and centring voices that has traditionally been marginalised or not understood as “the public”, practicing planning can be transformative (e.g. Beard, 2003;; Beebeejaun 2004;; Burayidi, 2003;; Healey 1997;; Huning, 2014;; Irazabal & Huerta, 2015;; Manning Thomas, 2016;; Miraftab 2016;; Roy 2006;; Sander- cock, 1998).

Centring voices and experiences of indigenous people, and critiquing colonial aspects of planning has not been done to the same extent. There is not so much literature on indigenous and decolonial planning (e.g. Berke et al. 2002;; Hibbard, Lane & Rasmussen, 2008;; Jojola, 2008;; Lane and Corbett 2005;; Lane and Cowell 2001;; Walker, Jojola & Natcher, 2013).15 Western mainstream planning’s role in the Euro- pean colonial project has started to gain attention in academia. Land acquisition and social, cultural and political control unveil how planning roots are linked to colonialism (e.g. Matunga, 2013;; Porter 2006, 2010). It is discussed how rational and top-down approaches to land and resources has been a tool for dispossession, oppression, and marginalization of indigenous peoples. In order to serve “the public good” it has been seen (and still is seen) as reasonable for indigenous peoples to, for instance, give up their land (e.g. Hibbard, Lane, and Rasmussen 2008;; Mukhtar-Landgren, 2012;; see also Jojola, 2008;; Matunga, 2013). Therefor there is a need to highlight in what way planning has been (and still is) a part of colonisation? How are colonial ideas, worldviews and knowledges sill persistent in planning frameworks (e.g. Jojola, 2008;; Matunga, 2013;; Roy, 2006).

Planning should be understood as a practice constructed in relation to historical, so- cial, cultural and economic aspects (e.g. Porter, 2010). It is a practice of spatial or- dering that defines, shapes and represents how land should be used. It is a practice that (re)produce (non)space for which ideas, knowledges and people that should be integrated within planning frameworks. These practices should be analysed properly since they many times can be a continuation of hierarchisation where indigenous knowledges, experiences and practices is seen as ”the other” and where western

(19)

planning framework becomes “neutral”. Even the participation, collaborative, deliberative turn in planning can be a new form of colonial oppression (e.g. Hibbard, Lane & Rasmussen, 2008;; Jojola, Walker & Natcher, 2013;; Porter, 2010;; Ugarte, 2014;; Walker & Matunga, 2013). When questioning colonial thinking and exposing ideas of how indigenous knowledge becomes “the other” we need to look into what colonial thinking is all about.

Colonial thinking

The ideas of colonialism are based on binary and hierarchical systems that runs through ways of thinking, through languages and through metaphysics (e.g. Hall, 1992;; Kovach, 2009;; Kuokkanen, 2000;; Loomba, 2015;; Said, 1978;; Tuhiwai Smith, 1999). The binarisation and hierarchisation became quite popular during the enlightenment and has (and still have) great influence on western ways of thinking and understanding the world. As mentioned, you divide everything into oppositional categories;; man/nature, culture/nature, man/woman, us/them, body/mind, civilised/savage, modern/unmodern, rational/emotional, heterosexual/homosexual and this can go on forever and ever (e.g. Kuokkonen, 2000;; Said, 1978;; Sandström, 2017). These oppositional categories then become valued through a hierarchical understanding, which is in itself oppressive because it requires domination and submission (Said, 1978;; Sandström, 2017;; Spivak, 2006). This model of systematisation made it (makes it) quite easy to legitimise and rationalise claiming of land and people (Hall, 1992;; Said, 1978;; Sandström, 2017). If we use Said’s (1978) ideas of “the other”;; the west was (is) connected to ideas of “modernity”, “civilisation” and “enlightenment” where “they” are connected to “unmodern”, “savage” and “stupid” – “they” became “the other”. Through language, through stories, through images the world receives meanings in how they are made to relate to each other (Loomba, 2015;; Spivak, 2006). In this system of understandings nature becomes “the other”, a resource where man can use it as they wish and capitalize from it (e.g. Anaya, 2004;; Sand- ström, 2017;; Tuhiwai Smith, 1999). Colonialism should be understood as intertwined with racism and capitalism (Anaya 2004;; Butler & Athanasio, 2013;; Kuokkanen, 2011;; Loomba, 2015;; Tuhiwai Smith 1999). This system is very much connected to ideas of who/what is seen to have agency or not, who/what is seen as a subject or an object (Loomba, 2015).

It is also pointed out by indigenous feminists and/or indigenous queer thinkers how colonialism also came with ideas regarding sexuality, gender and gender identities such as nuclear family systems, two-binary gender systems and how work was sup- posed to be divided according to ideas of gender et cetera (e.g., Driskill et al., 2011;; see also Knobblock & Kuokkanen, 2015). 16

Decolonial thinking

What does decolonisation mean then? As most concepts, it does not have a single definition, it is complex, versatile and debated (Sandström, 2017;; Ugarte, 2014). The most concise (and simplified) definition: a critique against colonialism. Waziyatawin and Yellow Bird (2012) defines decolonisation as:

16_{I want to point out that I did not find any specific research about gender identities and sexual identi-} ties regarding the historical colonial processes of Sápmi. These kinds of studies have mostly been performed in the US and Canada.

FIGHTING FOR EXISTENCE : Exposing, questioning and moving beyond colonial practices within the Swedishplanning framework for mining establishments.