Reindeer herding co-operative of Hammastunturi
Nellim sub-unit of the reindeer herding co-operative of Ivalo
Reindeer herding co-operative of Muddusjärvi
Reindeer herding co-operative of Muotkatunturi
Reindeer herding co-operative of Paatsjoki

March 20-21, 2002

To the Ministry of Forestry and Agriculture, Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Environment:

About the impacts of state forestry towards our reindeer herding and proposals for correcting the situation

Reindeer herding relies on natural pastures

Reindeer herding is a source of livelihood adjusted to the extreme conditions of the north. It is based on the reindeer’s abilility to utilize meagre pastures. Although feeding of the reindeer has increased since the 1960s especially in the southern parts of the reindeer herding region, natural pastures still form the basis of reindeer herding. In the northern reindeer herding co-operatives – especially in the region reserved for reindeer herding (appendix 1) - feeding is in winter time mainly used to control the reindeer and as a supplementary nourishment during the hardest times.

Also the Finnish legislation assumes that reindeer herding should be based on natural pastures. Especially the winter pastures are a critical factor in both the survival of reindeer and in the legislation: the Ministry of Forestry and Agriculture defines the largest allowed number of reindeer for each reindeer herding co-operative for ten years at a time on the grounds of the condition of winter pastures. If the winter pastures (especially the lichen pastures) are found to have degraded, it usually leads to lowering the number of reindeer, i.e. declining income to reindeer herders. This last happened in 2000.

Other forms of land use degrade pastures

As noted in a recent doctoral thesis research, the condition of pastures is influenced essentially also by other forms of land use than reindeer (Kumpula 2002). Since the 1960s, the pressure on land use in Northern Lapland has increased substantially and the possibilities to practise reindeer herding have altered strongly (e.g. Massa 1994). There already exists research data on the disadvantages of other forms of land use towards reindeer herding conserning, in addition to forestry, e.g. artificial lakes and tourist attractions (previous and e.g. Report of a committee 1973, Saastamoinen 1982, Helle & Särkelä 1993, Haapalehto 2001). Even individual changes that seem to be minor can cause, when accumulated, substantial difficulties for the reindeer herding (Nellemann 2001). These accumulated interactions for the reindeer herding have not been thoroughly researched, but the ongoing research programmes funded by e.g. the EU and the Academy of Finland reveal that the existence of the problem is widely accepted.

The form of land use most hampering reindeer herding in the region of the undersigned co-operatives is forestry. As stated in the memorandum of the Working group for reindeer herding (1999) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry: "forestry is the main factor influencing reindeer pastures. The existence of the most important winter food plants for the reindeer – horsetail lichen and reindeer lichen - is connected with the age of the forest stand and forest management."

Horsetail lichen is a vital source of nourishment for the reindeer in the latter part of winter when the conditions prevent digging of the ground lichen (Helle 1975). Horsetail lichen exists in old-growth forests, which are on the average over 150 years old (Mattila 1979). Logging of the forest decrease the existence of horsetail lichen in many ways (Mattila 1979, Saastamoinen 1982, Sipilä et al. 2000): felling of the trees destroys the substrate of the lichen and additionally, the logging affects the microclimate of the remaining tree stand, such as windiness and light. The regeneration of a logged horsetail lichen pasture to a new horsetail lichen pasture takes according to different researches about hundred years (Eriksson et al. 1987, Saastamoinen 1982, Sipilä et al. 2000). Already in 1975 both Helle and Saastamoinen have stated that saving the horsetail lichen pastures is essential. In 1982 Saastamoinen stated that logging of forests have strongly decreased the amount of horsetail lichen forests in Lapland. After that, more final logging have been executed in Inari (Sandström et al. 2000).

Also the amount of reindeer lichen is influenced by the age of the forest (Saastamoinen 1982). Logging hampers the growth and the availability of the lichen, e.g. because the logging residue covers the lichen and makes it more difficult for the reindeer to dig. The soil cultivation and ditching destroy the lichen and make it difficult for the reindeer to move around. Also logging hardens the snow cover more and thus hampers the availability of lichen (Erikson 1975). Too much openness also decreases the growth of the lichen (Erikson et al. 1987, Gustavsson 1989). According to Erikson (1975) there is no essential difference between clearcutting and seed-tree-logging from the reindeer herding point of view when it comes to snow and growing. Estimates about durations of before mentioned obstacles vary in different researches. In the statement by the The Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute, the duration of disadvantages caused by final logging in the region of the Reindeer herding co-operative of Lapland is estimated to be 40-50 years, which equals to our opinion based on experience in Inari better than e.g. estimates of 15-30 years made by the FPS (Veijola 2001). When the lichen starts to show recovery from the final logging, it usually is already the time for the next stage of forest management. Although thinning can promote the growth of the lichen due to increased amount of light, it on the other hand causes logging residue that covers the lichen. Thus, thinning equals to final logging when it comes to the disadvantages caused by the logging residue. Furthermore, as Erikson et al (1987), Näsi (1992) and Helle (1995) state, a young forest stand does not compare to an old-growth forest as a lichen pasture as the reindeer digs rather in old than young forests.

The before mentioned effects are not only researched but also commonly accepted ideas, as stated e.g. in a memorandum by the so-called Pokka committee (2001) appointed by the Ministry of Justice. About the Upper Lapland, the Committee has stated that "When deciding about the intensity of forestry, the Forest and Park Service simultaneously makes a remarkable statement regarding the position of reindeer herding and other means of natural livelihood in people’s sources of living, culture and way of living." Also in materials by FPS the fact that different forest management practises cause problems for reindeer pastures is accepted (Sandström et al. 2000, Helsinki Consulting Group 2000). Difficulties caused by other forms of land use, especially forestry, have been recognised also in preparation of the reindeer herding law. According to 2§ of the law in an area reserved especially for reindeer herding "the state owned land cannot be used so that the use causes remarkable harm for reindeer herding". Such a paragraph would not be needed if only the reindeer would affect the pastures and the utilization of pastures. Thus, in the proposal by the government concerning the law, specifically forestry is mentioned.

Considering the effects to both ground lichen and horsetail lichen, it can be stated that stages of forest management follow each other so that, in practice, when forestry practices are once started in a certain area, it will never return to similar condition for herding as it was in its natural state. Therefore it is vital for reindeer herding that there are enough old-growth forests outside forestry left to serve as winter pastures in regions crucial for the winter pasture use.

Despite the effects of other forms of land use towards reindeer herding which are commonly accepted and even recognised in the law, they are not in any way taken into account when deciding the amounts of reindeer. Instead, it is solely reindeer herding that answers for degradation of pastures as declining numbers of reindeer and thus declining income. We reindeer herders consider this as an unbearable situation.

For the Upper Lapland, FPS has stated that the protection rate of forests higher than elsewhere in the country (about half of the productive forest land) secures sufficient pastures for reindeer herding. However, protection areas have not been established due to the needs of reindeer herding, and thus for instance all the winter pastures of Muddusjärvi co-operative have been defined as forestry area. 2/3 of the winter pastures of Muotkatunturi co-operative are been included in the Lemmenjoki national park, but the forests that remain in forestry use are key areas in terms of reindeer’s grazing circulation, and the protected forests cannot replace the importance of these forests. We also regard, that Upper Lapland cannot be compared with the rest of the country, as the relative importance of reindeer herding, natural conditions and the legislation require stronger position for reindeer herding in Upper Lapland than in southern reindeer herding region.

The winter pasture situation in all the undersigned co-operatives has deteriorated during decades when logging operations by FPS have expanded to new areas (Appendix 2). Due to the unusableness (or reduced use) of logged pastures, there is additional pressure towards the remaining proper pastures, and thus, the disadvantage caused by logging extends further than the logged area itself. Deterioration of pastures causes not only declined income to reindeer herding but also increased expenses in two ways. First, the lack of pastures has to be replaced by additional feeding. Both additional nourisment and its transportation to the reindeer costs money and causes additional work. Secondly, conversion of pastures affects also the routes of reindeer and thus causes need for additional tending, i.e. causes, as well as feeding, additional work and increases fuel costs. A certain forest area can be – because of its location - of great importance to reindeer herding, if logging it would essentially affect the routes of reindeer. This is the case with e.g. Pekantupavaara case in Muddusjärvi co-operative and with all the planned logging in the region of Muotkatunturi co-operative. (Appendix 2). All the increased expenses end up being paid by the reindeer owners themselves because in reality, they cannot be transferred to the price of reindeer meat. The producer prize of reindeer meat has not risen together with other prizes since the end of 1980s.

The legal status of reindeer herding strong in theory

Most of the area of our co-operatives is state-owned land. In theory, according to the legislation, reindeer herding has a relatively strong position in decisions concerning usage of state land.

According to the reindeer herding law (2 §), in an area reserved especially for reindeer herding "the state owned land cannot be used so that the use causes remarkable harm for reindeer herding". The liquidator Pekka Vihervuori proposes the wording altered so that is not allowed to cause reindeer herding "harm greater than minor". In the statute of FPS (11 §), it is presumed that "in the traditional region of the Saami, the management, use and protection of natural resources held by FPS are arranged so that the preconditions of traditional means of living and the Saami culture are secured". In the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (article 27) that is part of the internal legislation of Finland, it is agreed that persons belonging to national minorities "shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture", as reindeer herding is considered to be. Even in the constitution of Finland (14 §), reindeer herding is regarded as a mean of livelihood the preconditions of which have to be secured as an integral part of Saami culture.

Furthermore, the criterion 36 of the FFCS-forest certification practised in FPS lands requires securing of the preconditions of reindeer herding. FPS has itself set combining of reindeer herding and forestry as one of its most important objectives in Upper Lapland. In the Natural resources plan for Upper Lapland (2000) securing the preconditions of traditional means of livelihood and of the Saami culture has been set as crucial objective in defining of actions.

The position of reindeer herding in the decision-making in land use is crucial in securing the preconditions of reindeer herding. Reindeer herding does not possess formal authority but the law of reindeer herding (53 §) obliges FPS to negotiate actions influencing reindeer herding with co-operatives. FPS has set itself the same obligation in its participatory planning.

In reality reindeer herding has always until now had to step aside

In reality, neither obligation to negotiate nor securing the preconditions of reindeer herding have been carried out in the region of our co-operatives.

Forest management practises have been discussed in circumstances where it has not been possible to affect the fundamental decisions of land use. Decisions about implementation of logging and road construction have already in advance been set as the starting point of the "negotiations" between reindeer herding and FPS, so that leaving the areas vital for reindeer herding outside logging for long time or permanently cannot even be discussed. The space to negotiate has been limited to the timing of the logging.

Furthermore, FPS has nominated such representatives to the "negotiations" that do not – by their own announcement – possess the authorization to negotiate about fundamental decisions of land use, even though it is just that what is the point in securing the preconditions to practise reindeer herding.

In practise this has lead to the continuous deteriorating of our winter pastures. Many of the best lichen areas were logged already decades ago. We have been forced to use a lot of time and fuel in order to get the reindeer to adapt to the changes in their grazing circulation. Every new logging has meant re-organisating of reindeer herding, increased working hours and fuel expenses and additional feeding. The number of our reindeer has been lowered twice due to the deteriorated situation with winter pasture, first in 1997 and again in 2000. This has not halted the logging of winter pastures in state-owned land, instead the pastures still decline. We are now in a situation where the last remaining natural forests are vital to us.

We have tried to find a solution to the situation in local meetings with FPS, but these have not lead to resolution despite years of trying. E.g. Pekantupavaara, which is at the moment under logging threat, was already in 1994 proposed to be saved by the Muddusjärvi co-operative and by the Saami parliament in 1995. Muotkatunturi co-operative appealed to the district court in 1993 about the planned logging in the Pyhäjärvi-Kirkko-outa region, and took the case to the UN Commission on Human Rights. The logging was carried out before 2000. According to the decision by the Commission on Human Rights, the planned logging did not yet endanger reindeer herding, but if the logging continued or the damage caused by the logging already made were greater than estimated at the time of the decision-making, the case could be investigated again. The next planned logging in new areas, Kippalvaara, have been discussed, and the plans have been taken to be searched by the Commission on Human Rights.

FPS has been aware of the problems for years and it has admitted it own incapability to make such big decisions as would be required for the solutions. Despite this, FPS has not taken the question to those levels of decision-making where it belongs, i.e. ministries, but has persistently pushed logging in disputed areas.

The problems of FPS participatory planning and "negotiations" and the weak position of reindeer herding have been identified in master’s thesis analysing the situation (Raitio 2000), in evaluation of landscape ecological planning ordered by FPS itself (Niemelä 2001) (the part concerning reindeer husbandry attached, appendix 3), and in a research about influences of FPS actions towards traditional means of livelihood in Upper Lapland, that is connected with the natural resources planning by FPS (Heikkilä 2000). Also the negative public opinion about reindeer herding created by the media weakens the negotiating positions of reindeer herding.

Conclusions

We understand that forestry has to be carried out in the region of our co-operatives to some extent. In areas already within forest management, it is probably possible to develop forestry practises towards direction less harmful for reindeer herding (e.g. collecting of logging residue), so that the areas can be used both in wood production and e.g. pastures during autumn/early winter. However, nothing replaces natural forests as crucial pastures of late winter. Due to forestry, such grazing areas have become so scarce, that all logging and roads in remaining old-growth and other forests important for reindeer herding have to be considered a great disadvantage towards reindeer herding and thus they should not anymore be accepted in state-owned lands.

There are many young reindeer herders in our co-operatives who want to stay in their traditional areas, in most remote villages, and practise reindeer herding essential to our culture. The high expenses of reindeer herding (motor vehicles and their fuel, present amount of feeding etc.) and low income are already now a difficult obstacle for young practisers of this livelihood. Loss of more winter pastures would most likely mean so big additional expenses and further declining income in form of reduced amount of reindeer, that reindeer herding in its present form would become impossible. In general, reindeer herding employs directly and indirectly a remarkable number of our regions labour force.

We are aware that also forestry provides important jobs. However, as the natural forests are decling, at least in our co-operatives the situation has come to the point where forestry is about to enter the last horsetail lichen areas, unbroken forest areas, which are vital for the reindeer herding. There is practically no space for the reindeer herding to move. If solving the situation demands one of the means of livelihood to back of, in our point of view it has to be forestry. To a lumberjack, felling trees is not a way of life, to a reindeer herder herding reindeer is. Practise of reindeer herding is about not only means of livelihood, but also way of life, traditions hundreds of years old, culture and keeping the most remote corners occupied. We think that it is totally possible for the state to prevent with its measures of support those economical and employment disadvantages that adjusting forestry to the needs of reindeer herding would cause. Probably the employment rate of forestry would in future anyway decline as the work is mechanized.

This is why we propose the following:

1. Logging in the remaining old-growth and other forests essential for reindeer herding, and building of new forestry roads have to be abandoned in the state lands in the region of co-operatives in question. Especially in the following areas the logging plans have to be immediately given up:

Reindeer herding co-operative of Muddusjärvi: Pekantupavaara, Jäkälämaa, western side of Rovistovuoma, northern Jäävaara and eastern side of Saurasvaara,

Reindeer herding co-operative of Hammastunturi: Kynsileikkaamaniemi, Passimoselkä-Illesti area, Kirakka, Kotivaara and Väänäsenvaara,

Reindeer herding co-operative of Muotkatunturi: Kippalvaara, northern side of Vaskojoki, Savonvaara and surroundings of Pontikkalampi,

Reindeer herding co-operative of Paatsjoki: Kiimaselkä-Mourasvaara area,

Reindeer herding co-operative of Ivalo: Sarminiemi, Arkivaara region.

2. The profit target and the allowed cut of the FPS have to be lowered in Upper-Lapland so that the forestry practises can be adjusted to meet the needs of reindeer herding in the whole region (e.g. according to the proposal mentioned above), and so that the logging plans for our region will not be transferred to pastures of other co-operatives. (The evaluation group of the FPS landscape-ecological planning has proposed similar suggestions).

3. The interactions (including economical losses) of all land management activities – those planned and those already executed – with reindeer herding will be examined before new plans, and all activities that can reasonably be believed to hamper reindeer herding in the region of the co-operatives will be abstained from, excluding those with the slightest impact.

In the same connection, a study about land use preconditions of our practise of reindeer herding and impacts of reindeer herding itself shall be started. This means at least mapping winter pastures areas together with reindeer herders. (The evaluation group of the FPS landscape-ecological planning has proposed similar suggestions).

4. The FPS has to alter their decision making procedures so that the expertise of the reindeer herders and their views on protecting the conditions of reindeer herding will be fully noted. The so-called negotiation process used by FPS nowadays is by no means sufficient for securing the participation of reindeer herders.

Appendices:

Appendix 1. Reindeer herding area of Finland, the area especially for reindeer herding and the traditional area of Saami people. Reindeer list data from co-operatives in question.

Appendix 2. Impacts of logging towards winter pastures. Data and maps.

Appendix 3. Chapter concerning reindeer herding from the report of the evaluation group of the FPS landscape-ecological.

References:

Eriksson, O. 1976. Silvicultural practices and reideer grazing in Northern Sweden. Julkaisussa: Tamm, C.O. (ed.) Man and boreal forest. Ecological bulletin 21: 107-120.

Eriksson, O., Sandevall, M. ja Wilhelmsson E. 1987. Virkesproduktionens inverkan på renskötselsns lavbete – en metodstudie. Rangifer 7(2): 15-33.

Gustavsson, K. 1989. Rennäringen, en presentation för skogsfolk. Skogsstyrelsen, Jönköping.

Haapalehto, M. 2001. Virkistyskäytön vaikutus porojen laitumen käyttöön Saariselällä. Lopputyö, Rovaniemen ammattikorkeakoulu.

Helle, T. 1995. Reindeer husbandry and hunting. In: Hytönen, M. (ed) Multiple-use forestry in the Nordic countries. Jyväskylä. Ss. 157-190.

Helle, T. & Särkelä, M. 1993. The effects of outdoor recreation on range use by semi-domesticated reindeer. Scand.J.For.Res. 8:123-133.

Helsinki Consulting Group Oy Ltd 2001. Metsähallituksen alue-ekologinen suunnittelu: Arviointi ja kehittämissuositukset. 107 s. + liitteet

Komiteamietintö 1973. Matkailu/porotaloustoimikunnan mietintö 123. Komiteamietintö. Helsinki, 79 s.

Kumpula Jouko 2001: Productivity of the Semi-domesticated Reindeer (Rangifer T. Tarandus L.) Stock and Carrying Capacity of Pastures in Finland During 1960- 1990’s. Reindeer Research Station, Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute, Department of Biology, University of Oulu. Academic Dissertation. http://herkules.oulu.fi/issn03553191/ Oulu 2001. 37 p. + References + Original Papers.

Massa, I. 1994. Pohjoinen luonnonvalloitus. Suunnistus ympäristöhistoriaan Lapissa ja Suomessa. Gaudeamus. 297 s.

Mattila, E.1979. Kangasmetsien luppometsien ominaisuuksia Suomen poronhoitoalueella 1976-1978. Folia Forestalia 417, 1-39.

Mattila, E. 1988. Suomen poronhoitoalueen talvilaitumet. Folia Forestalia 713. 53 s.

Nelleman,C., Henry D., Vistnes, I., Forbes, B., Kofinas, G., Kaltenborn, B., Grön, O., Kullerud, L., Magomedova, M. & Larsen, T. 2001. The arctic 2050 scenario. Critical levels of industrial developement and tourism in relationship tp biodiversity, eco-ystem function and indigenous people in the Arctic.

Näsi, L. 1992. Metsätalouden vaikutus porotalouteen. Poromies 1: 5-6.

Saastamoinen, O. 1982. Economics of multiple-use forestry in the Saariselkä forest and fell area. Comm.Inst.Forest Fenn. 104.

Sandström et al 2000. Ylä-Lapin luonnonvarasuunnitelma.

Sipilä, P., Magga, H. & Aikio, P. Luppoa etsimässä. Lapin paliskunnan alueen luppolaidunten inventointi 1999-2000. Lapin paliskunta. Oulu, 24 s.

Työryhmämuistio MMM 1996:6. Porotaloustyöryhmän muistio. Helsinki 1999.

Veijola, P. 2001. Metsätalouden ja porotalouden yhteensovittaminen saamelaisten kotiseutualueella. Esitelmä poropäivillä 3.5.2001 Rovaniemellä

Nissilä, P. 1970. Porotalouden asema Saariselän seudun luonnonvarojen moninaiskäytössä. Oulun yliopisto, maantieteen laitos.

(You can close this window if you like)