Nature Conservation, Collaboration and Claims: A Discourse Analysis of the Vålådalen-Sylarna-Helags National Park Process

(1)

Master’s thesis in Political Science 30 hp

Nature Conservation, Collaboration and Claims

A Discourse Analysis of the Vålådalen- Sylarna-Helags National Park Process

Linn Flodén

(2)

Abstract

As a policy field, nature conservation has a problematic history. Setting aside nature for protection has often entailed the marginalization of Indigenous peoples, their claims, and their traditional lands. Some argue that a shift is occurring in Swedish nature protection policies, from top-down governing modes to collaborative forms. The thesis critically examines the national park process in Vålådalen-Sylarna-Helags, a project unique for nature conservation in Saepmie. No national park was established despite the process’ collaborative form and the inclusion of local actors, among those three reindeer herding communities. The thesis studies discursive constructions of the local Saemie actors’ inclusion and how that affects their possible influence. Moreover, it analyzes central constructions and considers their effects on the project and change over time. The results show that inclusion is articulated differently by state actors and reindeer herding communities, limiting and making possible varying forms of influence.

The landscape and natural state are central constructions affecting the process, and the project’s aim transforms with significant consequences for the process and possibly its result.

Key words: Nature conservation, nature protection policies, Indigenous peoples, discourse analysis, postcolonial

(3)

Introduction

The multiple and complex consequences of climate change are constantly and exponentially growing, and the future’s prognoses are turning grimmer. Some of the effects, stemming from exploitation of natural resources for fuel, energy, and mass-consumption, increasing urbanism, and large scale agricultural industries, will be (or already are) irreversible. The world’s biological diversity is declining, and natural landscapes, geological types, species of animals, and growing plants are transforming, and some are under severe threats. Human societies need biological diversity and healthy ecological systems to live; for example, for clean air and water, food and nutrition, and to build homes and shelters. Due to the various and increasing threats toward natural environments and ecological systems, policies and strategies to protect, secure, and enhance natural landscapes, biological diversity and ecological resources are becoming increasingly urgent (The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services [IPBES] 2019; Zachrisson 2009, 1-2).

Nature conservation policies have been and continue to be a significant part of environmental protection globally. Nature conservation policies vary in form, but we are often familiar with them as national parks or nature reserves. Policies that set aside ecological landscapes to protect nature are linked to problematic and complex histories: Many sites designated for nature conservation have been, and still are, inhabited by Indigenous peoples. In recent decades, Indigenous rights have been increasingly acknowledged within the international community and among international bodies due to Indigenous peoples’ political struggles and mobilizations. However, the central right to access and manage traditional land and water is still fiercely debated on global and national levels (Reimerson 2016, 808-810).

A strict view of environmental protection has historically influenced the implementation and management of national parks. Landscapes constructed as pristine and wild have been protected from human activities perceived as damaging to those values (Zachrisson 2009, 10). Nature conservation policies has rarely considered local people, even though most lands were inhabited and used for subsistence purposes, fishing, hunting, and spiritual reasons by Indigenous peoples and local communities (Adams 2003, 33-34; Holmgren, Sandström & Zachrisson 2017, 22).

The marginalization of Indigenous peoples through and within nature conservation has led to displacements, and restrictions of their lands, often without compensation for the loss of livelihoods or traumas still experienced by many communities (Zachrisson 2009, 10).

(6)

The Saemie are an Indigenous people whose traditional land Saepmie¹ stretches across northern Sweden, Finland, Norway, and the Russian Kola Peninsula (Sami Parliament 2020b). Like other Indigenous peoples, the relationship between the state and the Saemie has been characterized by unequal power, control, and oppression - beginning with the occupation of land in Saepmie (Drugge 2016, 265; Mörkenstam 1999). Most nature conservation policies have been implemented and governed top-down by central authorities, overlooking the Saemie’s use, knowledge of, and relation to land. The Saemie’s possibilities for legitimate political influence has been severely limited by the legal system in place and dominant assumptions on Saemie identity and culture (Lantto & Mörkenstam 2008, 29-34) permeated by racist and colonial ideas (Reimerson 2016, 810). However, a shift may be occurring in the field of Swedish nature protection policies, from traditional centralized management and expert knowledge towards more collaborative forms of implementing and managing nature conservation sites, emphasizing the influence, participation, and knowledge of local populations (Holmgren, Sandström & Zachrisson 2017, 23). Sustainability and protection of biological diversity are held forward as national parks’ central purposes (Zachrisson 2009, 30- 37). Indigenous peoples’ knowledge is increasingly seen as an asset for the organization and management of conservation sites (Reimerson 2013, 810).

Some recent examples in Sweden diverge from the traditional top-down government style, stressing local influence, participation, and knowledge (Holmgren, Sandström & Zachrisson 2017; Reimerson 2016; Zachrisson 2009). However, how collaborative forms of nature protection processes should be designed and managed is unclear, as there are yet no steady guidelines or definitions to apply (Zachrisson 2009, 37). Meanwhile, International bodies continue to criticize the Swedish state for not securing and promoting Indigenous rights, especially concerning the right to land and natural resources (Kløcker Larsen & Raitio 2019, 7). Discourses on nature conservation policies and Indigenous rights intertwine in complex ways, and nature conservation policies risk to reproduce colonial and racist notions that limit the possible inclusion and influence of the Saemie people (Reimerson 2016, 810). This calls for a thorough and critical examination of national park processes that aspire to be open to the

1 The communities and regions in focus in this thesis are situated in the south of Sápmi, where South Sami language (åarjelsaemien gïele) is spoken, whereby the South Sami translations Saepmie and Saemie are used instead of the Northern Sámi (davvisámegiella) Sápmi and Sámi (or the anglicized Sami or Saami).

(7)

influence and knowledge of Indigenous peoples, to understand how Saemie participation and influence is affected by power relations and dominant assumptions in specific contexts.

The region of Vålådalen-Sylarna-Helags is situated in the Southern part of the mountain range in Jämtland and Härjedalen counties and was designated for a national park in the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency’s (SEPA) National Park Plan of 2008. The regions’ national park process began in 2015 with an explicit intention to include local actors. A Drafting Committee was founded, comprising several local actors and three Saemie reindeer herding communities² (RHCs). The specific mountain region is subject to multiple and varying interests. It is an important and well-visited outdoor attraction, a site for hunting, fishing, and ecological preservation. It is also the traditional land of the Saemie, used for reindeer herding by the local RHCs. Despite the national park process’ collaborative intention and form, focusing on information, dialogue, and local participation, the process ended in 2019 as the parties within the Drafting Committee could not agree on the purpose, goal, and general orientation of the national park (Jämtland County Administrative Board [Jämtland CAB] 2020). Although many factors may have contributed, the demands, claims, and opposition of the RHCs stand out as central to that result. The situation unfolding in the Vålådalen-Sylarna-Helags national park process represents something new in the history of nature conservation policies on the Saemie’s traditional land: the opposition of Saemie people may have contributed to a national park process being shut down. The uniqueness of the situation makes the national park process in Vålådalen-Sylarna-Helags an interesting and important case to investigate.

Purpose

With the background of colonial heritage and power relations permeating nature conservation discourses, and Indigenous peoples’ various claims, use, and relations to their traditional land, the thesis aims to critically examine the Vålådalen-Sylarna-Helags national park process focusing on the inclusion and influence of local Saemie actors. Moreover, the thesis aims to investigate dominant discursive constructions, their consequences for the process, and potential transformation over time.

2 A reindeer herding community (RHC) is an economical and administrative organization and a specific geographical area where reindeer herding is allowed. The Reindeer Husbandry Act states the right to reindeer herding only belongs to the Saemie people, but to exercise that right, the individual Saemie must be a member of an RHC (The Sami Parliament 2020a).

(8)

To pursue this aim, the thesis addresses the following research questions:

❖ How was the inclusion of local Saemie actors discursively constructed in the Vålådalen- Sylarna-Helags national park process? How did that affect local Saemie actors’ possible influence within the national park process?

❖ What discourses affected central constructions in the national park process? How did central constructions affect the national park process?

❖ Did central constructions change over time?

The thesis aims to contribute to an enhanced understanding of how collaborative nature conservation projects function in regards to Indigenous peoples’ various realities, political claims, and traditional lands. Although the thesis aspires for contextual knowledge, and despite that “Indigenous peoples” refers to a tremendously diverse and complex social group (Johansson 2008, 4), the results can add to descriptions of the social world’s complexity.

Moreover, serve as a base for further contextual studies of nature conservation on Indigenous peoples’ traditional lands. My aspiration is to deconstruct dominant notions of Indigenous peoples, nature and culture, and forms of nature conservation, which may affect nature conservation as a policy field. Deconstructing studies increase the space for voices, experiences, and knowledge marginalized within nature conservation discourses. The thesis can contribute to the large work of developing socially just nature protection policies that do not reproduce or benefit from power inequalities (Adams & Mulligan 2003, 10) and enables solidarity in environmental politics across perceived social differences (Kaijser & Kronsell 2014, 419).

Outline

The first chapter introduces the topic, purpose, and research questions. The second chapter presents discourse theory, and the third chapter background and research on Indigenous peoples, Saemie and Saepmie, and nature conservation. The fourth chapter presents the postcolonial theory and perspectives on Indigenous peoples and nature conservation. Chapter five introduces the case, and chapter six method, analytical tools and discusses the delimitations and ethical considerations at length due to the discriminatory history of academic research on issues related to Indigenous peoples. Chapter seven presents the analysis based on the research questions, followed by the thesis’s final discussion in chapter eight.

Discourse Theory

There are several forms of discourse theories and methodologies (Winther Jørgensen & Phillips 2000, 7). Generally, discourse analysis aims to identify processes through which meanings and

(9)

understandings of the social world are constructed. Discourse analysis examines how power structures relations, identities, and knowledge in cultural and historical contexts and asks what social and political consequences that may entail (Boréus & Bergström 2018, 25- 26).

I use discourse theory to critically examine discursive constructions of local Saemie actors’

inclusion and how that effects their influence within the national park process. Moreover, to study central constructions and their consequences for the process and potential transformation over time. The development of discourse theory is often contributed by Laclau and Mouffe (1985). I apply discourse theory as interpreted by Winther Jørgensen and Phillips (2000; 2002) who offer more concrete methodological guidelines for the approach. Discourse theory focuses on non-personal, broad, and abstract discourses constructing knowledge and political, social, and cultural spheres. Abstract discourses are constructed, reconstructed, and challenged through the myriad of concrete social and linguistic practices of the everyday (Winther Jørgensen & Phillips 2000, 27). As a starting point, discourses are understood as “a particular way of talking about and understanding the world (or an aspect of the world)” (Winther Jørgensen & Phillips 2002, 1). The thesis’ discursive approach can be placed in a broader poststructuralist aim to question tendencies that depoliticize environmental issues and strategies, displaying that they are social problems embedded in complex power relations and structures (Methmann & Oels 2015, 63).

The Social Reality

Discourse theory is a “package deal,” as theory and method are tightly bound together. To use discourse theory, Winther Jørgensen and Phillips (2002, 4) argue that one must accept its ontological (question what is real) and epistemological (how knowledge can be produced) assumptions (Boréus & Bergström 2018, 26-28). Poststructuralist ideas influence discourse theory markedly. Thus, language is understood as constitutive of the social world, rather than a neutral mean for communication (Bergström & Ekström 2018, 255). Language always entails perspectives and interpretations and can never represent the world in an objective or true way.

Instead, linguistic representations of the social world are what construct it by giving it meaning.

There are no objective meanings that exist independently “out there” in reality that can be revealed through social analysis. Discourse theory does not reject the material world’s existence altogether, but argues that it lacks meaning outside discourses (Winther Jørgensen & Phillips 2002, 35). Discourses can never be entirely fixed, unified, or finished. Multiple discourses exist within the same context and continuously struggle to get their specific understanding to become

(10)

set to a social phenomenon and perceived as “given.” Struggles between discourses to fix meaning explain how they, the social world, relations, and identities change. Therefore, it is central for analysis to study how change occurs and what social phenomena and meanings are subjected to discursive battles (Winther Jørgensen & Phillips 2000, 16).

The understanding of language is based on Saussure’s (1960) structuralism, where the relation between the signifier (language) and the signified (the physical world) is assumed to be arbitrary. There are no natural connections between the physical world’s objects and the meanings we attach to them through linguistic practices. Instead, a sign’s meaning is determined by its relations to other signs, through the separation from what it stands in opposition to and is not. Relations between signs make up an underlying structure (language), which for structuralism is fixed and comprehensive, but which discourse theory argues never is entirely fixed as discourses are momentary fixations of meanings (Winther Jørgensen &

Phillips 2000, 16-17). Discourse theory does not separate language from other social practices - all practices are discursive. Like signs, meanings of social practices are determined by their relation to other social practices within discourses, and social practices that reconstruct or challenge meanings are articulations (Winther Jørgensen & Phillips 2002, 35-36).

Articulations are practices that combine and position signs in new ways, thereby giving them new meaning. Because social practices draw upon but never are the exact repetitions of existing structures, all discursive practices are considered articulations (Winther Jørgensen & Phillips 2002, 140). Although discourses cannot be fixed, we act as if the social world had set and final structures, and as if the societies, objects, and identities surrounding us were naturally given (Winther Jørgensen & Phillips 2002, 33). There is not merely one, but multiple discourses in a social context with different meanings of individual signs, relations, and identities, which are intertwined in various ways (Winther Jørgensen & Phillips 2000, 16-18).

Within the national park process, discursive structures are combined with material and social conditions, economic and political institutions, and physical places (Winther Jørgensen &

Phillips 2002, 35-36; Reimerson 2015, 30). Discourse theory treats institutions, like the Sami Parliament, as part of broader discourses on Saemie people and culture. The structures of meanings (discourses) are continuously produced, reproduced, and altered by social practices.

Therefore, we can never look at objects and subjects beyond the meanings that discourses ascribe them. Our knowledge of the world is only available through discourses and thus bound to historical and cultural contexts. Knowledge is contingent – possible but not necessary, and

(11)

an understanding is merely one of many possible. Therefore, discourse analysis does not aspire to make claims about the world’s “true” nature, as true and objective knowledge is deemed impossible (Winther Jørgensen & Phillips 2000, 11).

When a discourse becomes temporarily dominant, and its meanings are perceived as “given” in a specific context, alternative meanings, identities, and worldviews of other discourses are excluded. As discourses entail guidelines for what actions are possible and relevant, discourses have consequences for social life (Winther Jørgensen & Phillips 2000, 16). Politics refers to struggles between discourses, which result in one specific way of structuring the social world, excluding other possible ways. Struggles between discourses are thus political struggles over power (Bergström & Ekström 2018, 255; Winther Jørgensen & Phillips 2002, 36). At times, discursive struggles can become visible, and it may be apparent that some actors promote the worldview aligned with their interests. Other times, discourses can be so dominant that they appear as “natural,” and alternative meanings and structures are almost impossible to imagine.

Those discourses are hegemonic and are unchallenged even though they benefit one part of society at the expense of others (Bergström & Ekström 2018, 262). Hegemony is crucial for producing and reproducing power structures and captures how power and politics can become naturalized in social contexts (Winther Jørgensen & Phillips 2000, 32).

Rather than regarded as something that some actors possess and exercise over passive subjects, power is understood in a Foucauldian sense as decentralized, everywhere, and constantly evolving (Winther Jørgensen & Phillips 2002, 371). Power exists between people and through self-discipline (Boréus & Bergström 2018, 18-19). It is limiting and productive:

Productive as it constructs the social world, relations, identities, and knowledge, limiting as it constitutes the world in a way that excludes alternatives. Power and politics are closely linked together. Power describes how social entities like “identity” are produced, while politics point to the social entities’ contingency (Winther Jørgensen & Phillips 2002, 37-38).

Subjects and Social Groups

Central for the thesis’s purpose is processes that construct, reconstruct, and alter local Saemie actors’ collective identities within the national park process. Discourse theory rejects that material conditions determine identities or that identities are expressions of “inner-selves”

existing independently of discourses (Bergström & Ekström 2018, 256). Identities are unfixed, changeable, and decentered, and identity is identification with subject positions offered by discourses in a particular context. Subject positions are culturally, historically and politically

(12)

specific and contingent, and come with guidelines for how subjects can act, what they can say, certain relations and positions (Winther Jørgensen & Phillips 2002, 42-43)

Individual and collective identities are constructed in relation to what they stand in opposition to and are not. Subject positions are political as they result from discursive struggles and are formed by momentary fixation of meanings that excludes other possibilities. Constructions of collective identities overlook differences within social groups, and representation is critical as the social group is constituted when spoken to, in favor of, or about. As collective identities are created relationally to other groups, they are accompanied by understandings of the larger society. Explained the other way around, different worldviews comprise different interpretations on how people can be categorized into groups (Winther Jørgensen & Phillips 2002,41-47). Mörkenstam (1999, 32) describes that what makes the representation of a social group possible is notions of shared experiences, history, knowledge, and emotional connection, which separates them from other groups. Social groups’ relations may be asymmetrical and determine their respective power, status, inclusion, or exclusion (Mörkenstam 1999, 32-35).

Subjects are offered multiple positions by competing discourses in the same context. While some subject positions are compatible with each other, others may have conflicting demands on the subject’s actions. The subject is then an arena of social antagonism, as different discourses clash when trying to get their subject position to become dominant. As discourses and subject positions are contingent and unfixed, they can always be challenged by what is excluded to the field of discursivity, the space existing outside discourses. Social antagonism can be dissolved by hegemonic interventions that, through force, articulate and dissolve subject positions’ ambiguity (Winther Jørgensen & Phillips 2002, 47-48). The concepts of hegemony and discourse have similarities as both refer to temporary and contingent fixation of meaning. A hegemonic intervention works across colliding discourses and is successful if one discourse dominates where there once was a conflict between many. The result is the construction of discourse – the temporary stability of meanings. Deconstruction can dissolve hegemonic discourses, which is the primary goal of discourse theory and the thesis, to critically examine and question the taken for granted in a specific cultural and historical context. The concept of hegemony can be used in the analysis to demonstrate the contingency of the hegemonic constructions and demonstrate that these are results from political struggles and power relations (Winther Jørgensen & Phillips 2002, 48).

(13)

Indigenous Peoples, Conservation and Change

For discourse analysis to be used in meaningful ways, like to say something about dominant assumptions and power relations, it must be related to one or several historical backgrounds.

That means that it is useful to have an idea of what structures discursive constructions should be analyzed in relation to (Winther Jørgensen & Phillips 2002, 140). The thesis uses broader and more abstract discourses on nature conservation, Indigenous peoples, Saemie politics, and postcolonialism to situate and examine discursive constructions within the Vålådalen-Sylarna- Helags national park process.

Indigenous Peoples and Traditional Lands

Indigenous peoples have lived on and used their traditional lands for long periods, in some cases since time immemorial. Indigenous peoples’ traditional lands have often been invaded by dominant states, which have later come to control Indigenous peoples politically, culturally, and economically (Drugge 2016, 265). Discourses on Indigenous peoples recognize that many still live under conditions that (in various ways) resembles colonialism. Indigenous peoples were not part of earlier decolonization processes seen on the African and Asian continents, where many colonized peoples struggled for and reached independence. Social, cultural, and economic aspects, as well as experiences, identities, and realities, vary immensely between and within Indigenous communities, and the term “Indigenous peoples” does not refer to a homogenous group (Johansson 2008, 4-5). From the thesis poststructuralist perspective, social groups like “Indigenous peoples” and “Saemie” are not fixed entities in the reality “out there.”

Social groups are socially constructed phenomena produced and reproduced through discursive practices and by their relations to other groups (Winther Jørgensen & Phillips 2002, 41-47).

Johansson (2008, 4) states that Indigenous peoples’ lives, experiences, and desires are tremendously varied and complex. However, some of their political mobilization features are shared. Indigenous peoples must relate to the existing state-systems they live in and those states’

dominant populations when claiming the right to self-determination. Moreover, their political mobilization must recognize the international system of states, which states’ existence, perceived legitimacy, and sovereignty rest upon (Johansson 2008, 60-61). Indigenous peoples are rarely subjects of external colonial powers but rather subjects of colonial domination by the states they live in, a situation referred to as “settler colonialism” (Kuokkanen 2020, 512-513) and “internal colonialism” (Reimerson 2015, 20). Perhaps because of these factors, Indigenous peoples’ political mobilizations rarely aspire to establish independent states, as earlier

(14)

decolonization processes did. Instead, they tend to stress differences between the dominant societies’ and Indigenous peoples’ identities, histories, and cultures, and differences between Indigenous peoples and national minorities (Johansson 2008, 60-61).

Indigenous peoples’ political mobilization has been strong in the last decades, especially within the international community (Lantto & Mörkenstam 2008, 27). Some regard their political mobilization as the third phase of global decolonization (Johansson 2008, 60- 61) and place within in broader discourses where groups like LGTBI-communities, women, and religious minorities question dominant societies’ homogenizing policies, which reflect that there is “one correct, true or normal way to structure one’s life” (Lantto & Mörkenstam 2008, 27).

Indigenous peoples’ engagement at international levels can make the international community pressure states to enhance Indigenous peoples’ living conditions (Johansson 2008, 60). Results include the ILO Convention No. 169 and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) adopted in 2007 (Lantto & Mörkenstam 2008, 27). Many Indigenous Peoples advocate for the use of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC). A principle acknowledged by the UNDRIP giving Indigenous peoples instruments and forums to consent, or object to, and influence how projects are established, managed, and assessed on their traditional lands (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO]).

Saemie and Saepmie

The Saemie’s traditional land Saepmie spans over the northern parts of Sweden, Norway, Finland, and the Russian Kola Peninsula (Sami Parliament 2020b). The Saemie people have lived on, by, and in relation to Saepmie since time immemorial and is a disparate people with large variations in culture, economy, and language. In general, livelihoods have been various combinations of fishing, hunting, farming, reindeer-hunting, and trapping (Reimerson 2015, 21; Ledman 2012, 75). Even though only a minority of the Saemie have been reindeer-herders and lived nomadically, reindeer herding has been central to the construction of Saemie culture and identity among the general Swedish society and Saemie communities. Assumptions about an “authentic” Saemie identity as being a nomadic reindeer-herder, and ideas on what constitutes “good reindeer herding” has been essential to the political marginalization of the Saemie people and the development of Saemie politics and legal frameworks (Lantto &

Mörkenstam 2008, 29-30; Mörkenstam 1999, 93-106; Reimerson 2015; 21).

Like many other Indigenous peoples, the relationship between the Swedish state and the Saemie has been characterized by unequal power relations, oppression, and control, which began with

(15)

the occupation of lands in Saepmie in the seventeenth century (Drugge 2016, 265). Colonial and racist notions have permeated dominant discourses on Saemie people, constructing the group as a subordinate race, incompatible with modern civilization and development, and unfit for political influence, owning land, and managing their livelihoods (Mörkenstam 1999, 103- 107; Reimerson 2015, 22). Historically, the Swedish Saemie politics had dual aspirations of assimilating and segregating the Saemie people at the same time. Saemie culture, mostly understood as a nomadic lifestyle, has been portrayed as primitive, subordinate, and incompatible with the general Swedish society and its modern civilization. Many policies and regulations thus served to separate the “authentic” Saemie culture from the Swedish culture, based on the assumption that Saemie culture would decay in its meeting with civilization.

Moreover, it was primarily reindeer-herding (as the Saemie culture) that legitimized Saemie’s use of the northern Crown lands. The special rights or “Saemie privileges” were connected to reindeer herding, contributing to the separation of reindeer-herders and non-reindeer herders within Saemie political discourses. This meant that the state did not acknowledge rights to other activities and livelihoods pursued by non-reindeer herding Saemie which were dependent on traditional lands (Lantto & Mörkenstam 2008, 29-30; Mörkenstam 1999, 88-90). These notions became institutionalized in the Reindeer Grazing Act of 1886 and 1898 with the principal goal to regulate relations between reindeer herding and farming. The Saemie people lost ownership of their traditional land. Individuals herders no longer possessed the right pasture on their own, as reindeer herding became a collective right practiced by RHCs. Throughout history, debates have been on “Saemie privileges” rather than rights (Lantto & Mörkenstam 2008, 29-32).

In Sweden, the right to pursue reindeer herding belongs exclusively to the Saemie people, stated in the Reindeer Husbandry Act (1971:437) (Brännström 2017, 147). Persons of Saemie heritage can use land and water for sustaining themselves and their reindeer. However, to practice that right, the individual must be a member of an RHC and practice in that RHC’s pasture area. The Saemie people’s right to pursue reindeer husbandry is based on the prescription from time immemorial: that someone has used land, continuously and with sufficient intensity, for a long time without others questioning (Brännström 2017, 142-144;153).

The Supreme Court stated in 1981 that the right to reindeer husbandry is based on the prescription from time immemorial and constitutes a property right, now inscribed in the Reindeer Husbandry Act (1971:437). The right to reindeer husbandry is a civil right that hinders the state’s from restricting the right holders’ use of land. It also underlines that the right is not

(16)

merely about a certain industry’s right, which has often been assumed in legal system developments (Brännström 2017, 143-146). The right is effective independently of who owns the land and has no time limit (it is valid as long it is practiced). Landowners cannot terminate or modify the right’s content to benefit their own needs (Brännström 2017, 168-169), and right holders cannot grant their rights to others (The Sami Parliament 2018).

The legal system regarding reindeer husbandry (and the Saemie people at large) is criticized on numerous accounts. For one, it still builds on the first Reindeer Grazing Act from 1886, separating the reindeer herding Saemie from non-reindeer herders, the latter lacking the possibility to exercise the right to land and water (Mörkenstam & Lantto 2008, 27). Only a minority of the Saemie people in Sweden are members of an RHC or pursue reindeer herding actively (Sami Parliament 2020a). In addition to this, the Saemie legal scholar Brännström (2017, 144) argues that the conditions for the prescription from time immemorial are vague and adjustable to interpretations. On what exact areas that the reindeer husbandry right is applicable is sometimes unclear, which contributes to placing the task of proving where the right is effective on the RHCs (Brännström 2017, 160).

National Parks

As the effects of climate changes are becoming more severe and disastrous with time, the urgency to develop effective and sustainable strategies to secure natural landscapes and resources are increasing rapidly (IPBES 2019). Nature conservation policies, such as national parks and nature reserves, are an essential part of global environmental protection (Reimerson 2016, 808-810) and an important means to secure biodiversity and ecosystems that the sustainability and survival of our world depend on (IPBES 2019; Zachrisson 2009, 1-2).

The idea of national parks as a nature protection scheme originates from the United States, where the first parks were inaugurated in Yosemite 1872 and Yellowstone 1890 (Zachrisson 2009, 10; SEPA 2008, 9). The form of nature protection established in the Yellowstone National Park became a standard model (the “Yellowstone-model”) for nature conservation globally and has been crucial for the field’s development (Zachrisson 2009, 10). The model was based on a strict view on nature protection, where national parks were to be implemented by centralized authorities to protect “pristine” and “wild” natural landscapes from the perceived threats of human activities. Heavy regulations were imposed to restrict or prohibit settlement, access to land, and use of natural resources (Reimerson 2015, 1-2). “Wild” landscapes became

(17)

depopulated (sometimes by force) and only accessible to tourists, as tourism was central to national parks’ purposes (Adams 2003, 35; Zachrisson 2009, 10).

Due to Indigenous peoples’ political mobilization, international bodies and global discourses on nature conservation increasingly acknowledge their claims and the marginalization of Indigenous peoples which has characterized the policy field (IPBES 2019, 37-46; Reimerson 2016, 808). This development is parallel and intertwined with a growing belief that the traditional top-down modes of implementing and managing nature protection risks the support and perceived legitimacy among local populations. This calls for more collaborative forms of nature conservation policies that are sensitive to Indigenous peoples’ claims and experiences (Zachrisson 2009, 23). Indigenous peoples’ traditional knowledge and practices is receiving significantly increased attention, and is now often seen as an asset that can improve the sustainability of nature protection policies (Reimerson 2016, 808; Zachrisson 2009, 46).

Collaborative Processes and Management

Nature protection policies (NPPs) in Sweden has, in general, been implemented and managed top-down by central authorities to protect “wild” and “pristine” landscapes from damaging human activities. Consequently, local people, their knowledge, and their various relations to nature have often been marginalized (Holmgren, Sandström & Zachrisson 2017, 23).

The initial planning phase of the Fulufjället National Park in Dalarna County met fierce resistance from local populations. Zachrisson (2009, 22) suggests the resistance was a side effect of the state actors’ strict interpretation of nature protection and top-down governing form, which collided with the interests of local groups such as agricultural farmers, reindeer herders, and fishermen. Co-management, broadly defined as collaboration between the state and relevant local actors, is often used to solve conflicts between stakeholders by creating formal processes for discussions, negotiations, and agreements (Zachrisson 2009, 12). Following the resistance, the process became open to the participation and influence of local actors. However, Zachrisson (2009, 41) questions the sincerity of the transition towards a more collaborative national park project. The process was not open to local actors until their opposition seriously threatened the park’s future, suggesting that the initial intention was to exclude local actors.

Moreover, local actors had consultative roles, but these were removed or rearranged once the park was established. Although a local advisory organization was created, it was never properly formalized and limited to tourism issues (Zachrisson 2009, 41-42). Zachrisson (2009, 41-42)

(18)

states that the national park process resulted in “recentralization” rather than genuine decentralization. The inclusion of local actors was mostly to overcome resistance and the actual influence they gained was limited.

Holmgren, Sandström, and Zachrisson (2017, 22-23) suggest that a shift may be occurring within Swedish NPPs. The growing recognition of social justice issues, Indigenous peoples’

mobilizations, and the rapid decline in biodiversity have contributed to the traditional top-down approach becoming criticized for failing to reach legitimacy and support from local populations.

The traditional form of nature conservation needs to be replaced by more collaborative governance models – a new paradigm - where power is shared, interactions promoted, and accountability is directed to lower levels (Holmgren, Sandström & Zachrisson 2017, 22-23).

Holmgren, Sandström, and Zachrisson (2017) study the Koster National Park, Fulufjället National Park, and the Laponia World Heritage Site to examine if the proposed shift has been substantial. The two latter cases are especially relevant for this thesis, as national parks in the northern mountain region with some similarities to the Vålådalen-Sylarna-Helags project.

In the Fulufjället national park process, the Dalarna CAB and the SEPA initially interpreted nature conservation traditionally, suggesting centralized management with strict regulations on access and land-use, threatening common activities like fishing, hunting, and snowmobiling.

After meeting fierce resistance from local populations, the national park process became open to stakeholders’ negotiations. Later, the national park was approved, mainly due to the belief that it would strengthen local development through increased tourism. Concerning management, local actors were included in consultative roles limited to tourism issues. The CAB was the strongest body in management and development with veto power on important decisions (Holmgren, Sandström & Zachrisson 2017, 25-28). Holmgren, Sandström, and Zachrisson (2017, 34) conclude that the process indicates a substantial shift to more collaborative implementation and management modes.

Holmgren, Sandström, and Zachrisson (2017, 30) describe the Laponia World Heritage Site process as “going from conflict to consensus”. The process was haltered by negotiations between stakeholders for about 15 years but ended with establishing the local management organization Laponiatjuottjudus with representatives from affected municipalities, the SEPA, and nine local RHCs. The Saemie have a majority of seats on the board, implying that local Saemie communities strongly influence the site’s management. Management plans and

(19)

regulations are based on Saemie knowledge and practices (Reimerson 2016, 809) and combine nature conservation objectives with securing reindeer husbandry rights and values of the World Heritage Site. Power is delegated downwards, from central authorities to the management organization, which makes decisions through consensus. The process and management organization of the Laponia World Heritage Site is unique and extraordinary in the Swedish field of nature conservation and part of the new collaborative paradigm of NPPs (Holmgren, Sandström and Zachrisson 2017, 23; 29). However, collaborative forms are inserted in sectors strongly influenced by legal context, international commitments, and agreements, which can affect local influence in different contexts (Holmgren, Sandström, and Zachrisson 2017, 34).

The Laponia project’s results are described as victories for the Saemie people’s struggle for political influence, control over their traditional land, and as a step in their decolonization (Reimerson 2016, 809). However, Reimerson (2016, 808) states that discursive constructions of the management arrangement, and understandings of the management organization’s challenges, affect Saemie actors’ space for agency in relation to the Laponia World Heritage Site. Reimerson (2016, 808) identifies a problematic tension: On one hand, the Saemie is recognized as an Indigenous people, and their inclusion in the management arrangement, therefore, has intrinsic value. On the other hand, there is a more instrumental perspective on inclusion, based on the view that the RHCs’ presence and practices are essential for the World Heritage site’s cultural and natural values. The view on Saemie as “value-bearers” makes their inclusion, and the management organization, sensitive to changes in funding and political priorities. It also indicates that Saemie actors are not included based on rights as an Indigenous people, limiting the space for agency and what rights can be claimed. The emphasis on the uniqueness of the management organization risks to make Laponia into an “exception” in nature conservation and Saemie discourses, and progress made in the context may not be transferred to other contexts or wider discourses on Saemie’ rights (Reimerson 2016, 822).

Furthermore, Reimerson (2013) study Indigenous peoples’ roles in nature conservation by analyzing subject positions in discourses on the UN Convention on Biological Diversity.

Discourses on nature conservation and Indigenous rights determine conservation policies’ form and views on Indigenous peoples, their rights, political agency, culture and knowledge, and how claims to traditional lands relate to larger societies’ interests (Reimerson 2013, 997).

Reimerson (2013, 992) displays how discourses limit Indigenous peoples’ space for agency.

Colonial assumptions on Indigenous peoples as “closer to nature” affect views on their roles in

(20)

nature conservation. Generally, the inclusion of Indigenous peoples who are “closer to nature”

is expected to automatically enhance sustainability and biological diversity, which Reimerson (2013, 1003) connects to the colonial “othering” of Indigenous peoples and their traditional lands. Discourses stress the “traditionality” of Indigenous peoples’ lifestyles, practices, and knowledge. Those notions are linked to colonialism’s binary constructions of “modern”

Western civilizations and “traditional” colonialized societies that served as justification for paternalistic control. The inclusion of Indigenous peoples is primarily based on their assumed contribution to sustainability and biological diversity, rather than a recognition of Indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination and traditional lands. Nature conservation is prioritized over Indigenous rights, and states’ sovereignty is taken for granted, affecting views on Indigenous peoples’ rights (Reimerson 2013, 1004).

Earlier research suggests a transformation of nature protection discourses in the Swedish context towards more collaborative processes and management arrangements that aim to include local people, knowledge, and practices (Holmgren, Sandström & Zachrisson 2017). As there are no steady models for how that form of nature conservation policies should be conducted (Zachrisson 2009, 37), the thesis can contribute to contextual knowledge about collaborative national park processes. Zachrisson (2009) demonstrates that collaborative processes may not lead to substantial influence for local actors and can be a way to overcome local resistance. Reimerson (2013) demonstrates that colonial assumptions on Indigenous peoples as “traditional” or “closer to nature” risks to influence projects in complex ways, and that discursive construction of Saemie actors’ inclusion can limit their space for agency (Reimerson 2016). This calls for critical examination of nature conservation policies aspiring to include Indigenous people, their knowledge, and political claims. Research should explore collaborative forms of nature conservation and their possibilities and limitations to enhancing local populations and actors’ influence, to gain further understandings of how power relations affect nature conservation projects, dominant assumptions within them, and the participation of Indigenous peoples in different cultural and historical contexts.

Postcolonial Perspectives

Postcolonial theory is a broad and diverse field of studies (Loomba 2015, 3; Hall 1996, 242).

In the thesis, the postcolonial is understood in two ways. First, as an understanding that despite the colonial era’s end, colonial power relations, ideas, and exploitative systems continue to shape the modern world’s societies, relations, and structures – in economic, social, and cultural

(21)

spheres (Eriksson, Eriksson Baaz & Thörn 1999, 14-16; Reimerson 2015, 25). Second, I view the postcolonial as a theoretical project that focuses on racism, imperialism, and the “othering”

of non-Western identities, cultures, and knowledge. Interpreted the second way, the postcolonial can be used for critical analysis to identify, question, and deconstruct dominant assumptions and relations stemming from colonial discourses - to analyze beyond the frames set by colonialism (Eriksson, Eriksson Baaz & Thörn 1999, 16-46; Hall 1996, 253-256). The conceptualization makes it possible to link historical anti-colonial struggles with resistance and criticism of Western culture’s dominant position today and acknowledge peoples who are not colonized by external powers but live within dominant and oppressive colonial cultures (Loomba 2006, 26). Colonialism has worked and been manifested in numerous ways across the world. However, in all places, it has exposed Indigenous peoples to one of the most traumatic and complex relationships in history (Loomba 2006, 17-18).

Postcolonial Theory – Central Features

Like discourse theory, postcolonial theory is highly influenced by poststructuralism, and studies tend to focus on processes constructing meaning and relations between power and knowledge (Loomba 2015, 55-60; Reimerson 2015, 25). Postcolonial theory shares poststructuralism’s view on language as constitutive of the social world, understandings, identities, and relations.

Social practices’ and phenomena’s meanings are understood as derived from their relation to other signs, primarily through binary relationships. Their meanings are determined by the relations to what they stand in opposition to and are not. The postcolonial theory adds to the thesis’ discursive framework by stating that relations between binary concepts are unequal and justify power dominance, oppression, and exploitation (Loomba 2006, 66-67).

Relationships between binary concepts, identities, experiences, and cultures are asymmetrical.

Some are regarded as norms, while others are deemed deviant. Identities viewed as societal norms are perceived as “neutral” and “universal,” implying that those identifying with a norm rarely are aware that they belong to a social group or category. Meanwhile, people who somehow differ from societal norms are continuously reminded of their socially constituted identity or categorization in everyday relations (Mörkenstam 1999, 32-35). These processes are often referred to as “othering,” first articulated by Said in Orientalism (1978). Dominant culture, knowledge, and academia shape binary representations such as the colonizing “Self”

and the colonized “Other,” which has legitimized colonial control and domination. Binary representations only exist in relation to each other and are continuously produced by discursive

(22)

practices (Loomba 2006, 66). Loomba (2006, 67) argues a stereotype’s role is to form an understanding of “the Self” as different from “the Other.” Mörkenstam (1999) demonstrates that discourses on Saemie politics constructed notions of Saemie identity in opposition to the Swedish “Self.” This implied that a person or group could not be Saemie and Swedish simultaneously and that a Saemie was not a Swede. Mörkenstam (1999, 32-35) points to the asymmetry of power relations and identity is and formed in relation to what it excludes, and that dominant identity is contingent like the one deemed deviant.

Loomba (2015, 12) states that colonialism, in earlier centuries, was based on a biological understanding of racial differences. That view has gradually shifted into a perception of differences as consequences and productions of differences in culture. Some argue that cultural- based understandings of difference may be just as difficult to challenge as biological views.

Others argue that understandings of differences have never fitted into cultural or biological categories, and inclusion and exclusion methods have always been mutually enforced.

Stereotypical representations of Non-Western Non-White subjects have served and continue to serve as bases for political assimilation and segregation policies. Some cultures, traditions, and groups are understood as incompatible with dominant Western and “modern” cultures, while others are regarded as possible to assimilate into those dominant cultures through paternalistic control and “learning” (Loomba 2015, 12-13; 129).

Critical studies can demonstrate the socially constructed and contingent nature of binary concepts, representations, and categorizations. Examinations of presumed deviant identities, cultures, and assumptions (“Others”) can display that those are produced in relation to what they stand in opposition to and exclude. Thereby, deconstructing analysis can question the perceived neutrality and universality of dominant norms and concepts, increasing the space for marginalized understandings, experiences, identities, and cultures. Loomba (2006, 61) rejects that postcolonial discourse is a trendy synonym for colonialism. The concept implies a new way of thinking about how spheres like cultural, economic, political, or academic continue to produce, reproduce, or challenge colonial discourses and power. By studying how power produces stereotypical representations and knowledge of colonized subjects, analysis can consider how those connect to economic, political, legal institutions (Loomba 2006, 56-61).

(23)

Postcolonial Challenges

Some question the concept of postcolonial and postcolonial studies as a field (Loomba 2015, 28). Hall’s question “when was the post-colonial? What should be included and excluded from its frame?” (Hall 1996, 242) refers to criticism of the prefix “post,” which suggests that the postcolonial is what follows the end of colonialism. But if colonialism continues to influence social relations and structures, it is perhaps premature to declare that colonialism belongs to the past (Hall 1996, 248; Loomba 2006, 22). Because of colonialism’s global reach, postcolonial studies deal with disparate geographies, times, experiences, and claims, making theoretical generalizations difficult and problematic (Loomba 2015, 5). The postcolonial risks to be universalizing when trying to capture vastly different and complex histories, experiences, and relations. Studies are criticized for rarely focusing on sources of domination, which limits colonized subjects’ possibilities for resistance (Hall 1996, 243). Loomba (2015, 5) argues that the risk of universalization does not mean that studies must only focus on contextual cases without situating these into larger social structures, power relations, and historical processes.

We do not have to know everything about the complexity and diversity of colonial processes and experiences, but we “must build our theories with an awareness that such diversity exists” (Loomba 2015, 5). Hall (1996, 245-246) argues that societies are not postcolonial in the same way. However, that does not imply that societies are not postcolonial in any way.

Loomba defines colonialism “as the conquest and control of other people’s land and goods” (Loomba 2015, 21). However, the thesis draws upon Hall’s (1996, 246-247) view of colonialism as processes that produce and reproduce power structures and relations that colonize and oppress non-white and non-western lives, cultures, and histories. The postcolonial is used as a theoretical concept to analyze beyond colonial frames and notions (Eriksson, Eriksson Baaz & Thörn 1999, 16; Hall 1996, 246-247) that can enhance our understanding about how power relations are upheld and how new emerge. Power relations manifest as normative assumptions, material injustices, space for political agency, and are embedded and produced in institutional practices and everyday actions (Kaijser & Kronsell 2014, 419).

Postcolonial Perspectives on Indigenous Peoples

Colonial domination of Indigenous peoples has often begun with dominant states removing Indigenous peoples’ right to traditional lands, sometimes by force (Reimerson 2015, 19). Some of the original ideas that formed nature conservation as a field and were built into institutional arrangements were inherited from colonial discourses stating that it was possible and legitimate

(24)

to restructure nature to serve human needs (Adams 2003, 17- 23). Concepts and relations within nature conservation, like between central authorities and local peoples, technology and nature, civilization, and wilderness, are not merely material but also discursive (Adams & Mulligan 2003, 5). Discourses on nature conservation are intertwined with discourses on Indigenous peoples’ political claims, identities, and lands in complex ways (Reimerson 2015, 1).

The idea to protect “wild” and “untouched” natural landscapes from damaging human activities through centrally determined regulations stem from a particular view on the concept of “nature”

(Zachrisson 2009, 10). In the 18th century, when the first national parks were established,

“nature” was primarily understood as the “absence of human impact, specifically European human impact” (Adams 2003, 33). Nature was conceptualized in opposition to European culture, technology, and modernity, and as something existing outside society unaffected by humans’ presence (Adams 2003, 33; Reimerson 2013, 995-996). The binary relation between the concepts of modern “culture” and wild “nature” became central to nature conservation discourses. Consequently, policies aimed to protect nature from industrialization, urbanization, and civilization (Reimerson 2015, 50). A pressing problem with the binary separation of the nature and culture concepts within nature conservation was that nature set aside for protection was already inhabited by people (Adams 2003, 33-34), many territories were claimed and used by Indigenous peoples since time immemorial (Holmgren, Sandström & Zachrisson 2017, 22;

Zachrisson 2009, 10). Indigenous peoples had their own forms of farming, fishing, manufacturing, managing pastoral activities, ways of using ecological resources, and living with the nature surrounding them (Adams 2003, 33-34).

Stereotypical representations of colonized subjects, constructed as opposed to dominant societies’ cultures and identities, are central to colonial discourses and power. By constructing the inferior and primitive “Other” in relation to the modern and civilized “Self,” paternalistic control has been legitimized (Loomba 2015, 112). Plumwood (2003, 52-55) argues that colonial

“othering” included Indigenous peoples and their traditional lands. While Indigenous peoples were portrayed as “primitive,” “backwards,” and “closer to nature,” the landscapes they lived on were constructed as “empty,” “undisciplined,” and “unused.” The concept of nature was ascribed to remote “wild” places and peoples living on them, who were assumed to represent earlier development stages of humanity (Plumwood 2003, 52-55). The nature/culture dichotomy is connected to colonial conceptualizations of “modernity” and “tradition,” and

“othering,” legitimizing oppression and domination (Loomba 2015, 129; Reimerson 2015, 51).

(25)

Due to the dominant nature/culture dichotomy, national parks (influenced by the Yellowstone- model) tend to strictly regulate human activities and marginalize Indigenous peoples’ various dependencies on, knowledge of, and relations to their traditional lands (Reimerson 2013, 995- 996). Colonial constructions of Indigenous peoples as “backwards” or “closer to nature”

contribute to views on Indigenous peoples, their knowledge and practices as incompatible or inferior to Western “modern” knowledge and practices (Reimerson 2015, 51; Loomba 2015, 112). In nature conservation, these aspects have contributed to Indigenous peoples’ presence, relationships, and effects on natural land being overlooked or made invisible while limiting Indigenous peoples from being seriously acknowledged as legitimate political actors.

Moreover, Indigenous peoples have been marginalized based on views on their practices and knowledge as unmodern (traditional) and thus irrelevant or threatening to nature conservation policies. Conservation is assumed to be better handled by central governments’ “expertise” and control (Reimerson 2015, 2). Discourses on the nature/culture dichotomy are entwined with the hegemonic position of the nation state’s sovereignty over territories and Indigenous peoples’

traditional lands, which constructs the state as the given authority and expert on nature protection and conservation (Reimerson 2015, 50).

External restrictions on access to nature that Indigenous peoples need for their survival, livelihood, and culture have led to traumatic displacements, often without compensation for loss of livelihood or income (Zachrisson 2009, 10). Adams and Mulligan (2003, 9) compare nature conservation policies to colonial expansions, as external and arbitrary rules enforced on remote places and people, marginalizing contextual knowledge and practices. Although there are many forms of nature conservation, and the experiences and traumas these policies have led to are numerous, complex, and subjective - the fact stands that Indigenous peoples have been excluded from traditional lands in the name of nature conservation (Adams & Mulligan 2003, 6). The colonial legacies that permeate nature conservation as a field have led to claims that new modes of implementation and management must be developed, sensitive to Indigenous culture, knowledge, and rights (Zachrisson 2009, 11). The view of nature as “wild” and opposed to culture is criticized from several perspectives. Values that nature conservation aims to preserve may stem from human activities, such as Indigenous peoples. Thus, it is more meaningful to consider policies as a means to protect nature from some human activities (Zachrisson 2009, 11). If we recognize that nature cannot be preserved simply by being put aside from human activities, we must develop more socially just strategies for how nature and biological diversity can be protected (Adams & Mulligan 2003, 10).

(26)

The Swedish parliament officially recognized the Saemie as an Indigenous people in 1977. The formal recognition of the Saemie as Indigenous rather than a national minority, and as a people rather than a population implies that the Saemie have a certain position towards the Swedish state and under international legal frameworks. The recognition separates the Saemie from other national minorities regarding political claims, rights, and policy (Johansson 2008, 2). Indigenous peoples have the right to decide over their traditional land and natural recourses, possess political autonomy, develop cultural heritage, and use their languages (Mörkenstam 1999, 74). Mörkenstam (1999, 74) describes that the status as Indigenous refers to a people that was the first population living on and of a particular geographical territory, whose right to traditional land and natural resources have been taken from them by dominant states.

Despite the parliament’s official recognition, Johansson (2008) demonstrates how Swedish political discourses articulate the Saemie as a minority group, rather than an Indigenous people, with significant consequences for the Saemie’s possible political agency, claims, and legal position. The Swedish state has been reluctant to call the traumatic and racist treatment of the Saemie people colonialism, arguing that colonialism is when an external colonizer dominates remote territories and peoples. Thus, colonial relations between the state and the Saemie, which some refer to as internal colonialism or settler colonialism, have been overlooked (Johansson 2008, 154-155; Reimerson 2015, 23). Meanwhile, International bodies have repeatedly criticized Sweden for not realizing and securing Indigenous rights and not ratifying the ILO convention no.169 (Kløcker Larsen & Raitio 2019, 7). Lantto and Mörkenstam (2008, 27) argue that Sweden’s positive rhetoric on cultural diversity and Indigenous rights has not been followed by legal system transformations. The state opposes Saemie ownership of their traditional land, and reindeer herding is still the main foundation for Saemie rights, excluding most communities and individuals (Reimerson 2015, 23; Mörkenstam 1999, 115-150).

The Case

In the National Park Plan (2008), the SEPA states that national parks are an essential part of Sweden’s strategies and policies for protecting natural landscapes and ecological resources.

The first national parks were established in northern Sweden in 1909. The SEPA presented the National Park Plan in 2008, replacing its precursor from 1989. The plan suggested 13 new national park sites and that seven existing parks should be expanded (SEPA 2008, 6). One area designated for a national park was Vålådalen-Sylarna-Helags (SEPA 2008).

(27)

The SEPA designates sites for national parks based on the Swedish Environmental Code and international frameworks. In summary, sites must be extraordinary, representative of the country’s natural landscapes, and preserved in “original states” with high levels of natural values. Sites should be on over 1 0000 hectares, attractive for visitors, and possible to use for recreation, outdoor activities, and to preserve efficiently. National parks are established on land owned by the Swedish state, and formal purposes are often to preserve the nation’s natural and cultural heritage for future generations (SEPA 2008, 13-15). A National park can only be established after the parliament’s approval, and the SEPA oversees management, regulations and is responsible for implementation (Zachrisson 2009, 36; SEPA 2008, 13-14).

Vålådalen-Sylarna-Helags

Vålådalen-Sylarna-Helags is situated in the counties of Jämtland and Härjedalen, in the southern part of the mountain range. The landscape is characterized by mountains with rounder and softer shapes than those further north, separated by broad valleys, high table-lands, and coniferous forest. The highest mountain peaks are Bealjehkh (Sylspetsarna) and Maajåelkie (Helags), which has the southernmost glaciers in Sweden (SEPA 2008, 33).

The landscape is considered a sanctuary for rare and endangered species such as lynx, wolverine, and kestrels. The region is a hugely popular destination for outdoor activities such as hiking, tour skiing, fishing, and hunting, and has an encompassing network of state-managed trails. The trails between Storulvån, Sylarna, and Blåhammaren (Jämtlandstriangeln) are one of the most well-visited trails in the Swedish mountains (SEPA 2008, 35-37).

There are three national parks in the southern part of the Swedish mountain range: Fulufjället national park, Sonfjället National Park, and Töfsingsdalen National Park. However, none of these are situated in the middle of the Jämtland and Härjedalen region, making the Vålådalen- Sylarna-Helags complementary to the existing parks (SEPA 2008, 35). There have been earlier attempts to establish a national park in the area, the latest one in the 1990s (Larsson 2019, 1).

Parts of the region are protected by the Vålådalen Nature Reserve (SEPA 2008, 37). The Swedish state owns most of the land through The National Property Board, while private actors own small parts. The entire suggested park area is used for reindeer herding, fishing, and hunting by the RHCs Handölsdalen, Tåssåsen, and Mittådalen. Handölsdalen’s whole year- round-area would have been inside the national park’s boundaries.

(28)

The Process Summarized

The SEPA gave the Jämtland CAB the assignment to conduct a pilot study that examined the potential for establishing a national park in the Vålådalen-Sylarna-Helags region. The results led to the initiation of the national park project in 2015. The SEPA decided on the project’s directives and declared the SEPA and the Jämtland CAB project owners. A Drafting Committee (Beredningsgrupp) was formed, comprising representatives from the SEPA, Jämtland CAB, Åre and Berg municipalities, Jämtland Härjedalen Tourism, the Sami Parliament, and the three reindeer herding communities. In 2016, the representatives from the RHCs presented a letter to the SEPA and the CAB with demands and questions regarding the national park. If the questions were not answered and the demands unfulfilled, the RHCs would oppose the project and the establishment of a national park. The SEPA and the CAB responded with a letter, but the answer was deemed unsatisfactory by the RHCs. An additional response was made by the Director- General of the SEPA and the County General of Jämtland County, after which the RHCs declared support for the continued national park project. Following these events, the process was restarted and re-organized in 2017: new project leaders were hired, the project plan revised, and a coordinator for Saemie issues was appointed. The process ended in 2019. By then, the Drafting Committee had agreed on a final draft on the purpose, goals, and general orientation.

However, after discussions and internal meetings, the Handölsdalen RHC declared that they could no longer support that agreement (Larsson 2019, 1-8).

Figure 1. Timeline of the national park process in Vålådalen-Sylarna-Helags

Method and Analytical Tools

To examine and deconstruct subject positions and central discursive constructions, potential changes, and consider their consequences for the national park process, selected key concepts from discourse theory are used as analytical tools (Winther Jørgensen & Phillips 2002, 24). The presented postcolonial framework and research on nature conservation, Indigenous peoples, and Saemie identity, culture, and politics serve as broader and more abstract discourses that identified constructions are analyzed and discussed in relation to (Winther Jørgensen & Phillips 2002, 140). The postcolonial gives the study the orientation to analyze beyond assumptions, relations, and structures inherited or influenced by colonialism (Loomba 2006, 61).

the early phase

start

2015 letter correspondance 2016

the late phase

the project's restart

2017 Agreement in Drafting

Committe 2018 end 2019

Nature Conservation, Collaboration and Claims: A Discourse Analysis of the Vålådalen-Sylarna-Helags National Park Process