Dear colleagues, friends, and distinguished guests,
It is a great honour to speak here today on behalf of the Sámi Parliament in Norway.
The EMRIP country engagement in Norway has been a valuable process—both symbolically and practically. It provided Sámi institutions and civil society with an opportunity to present our concerns in a structured and internationally recognized forum. For that, we are truly grateful—to EMRIP for their engagement, and to the Norwegian authorities for their willingness to participate.
I had the honour of welcoming EMRIP to the Sámi Parliament at the beginning of their visit. They were also able to observe one of our plenary sessions, which offered insight into how our democratic institutions function in practice. The mandate for the country visit was quite broad, encompassing land rights and governance. As the process unfolded, it became necessary to narrow the thematic scope further. We chose to focus primarily on land encroachments—because that is where Sámi rights are under the greatest pressure today.
I am grateful to the Sami council and the collaboration on facilitating the country engagement. It was made a deliberate effort to ensure that EMRIP met with a broad range of stakeholders—not only state actors and companies, but importantly, Sámi rights holders and organizations. EMRIP met with Corgas, Bivdi, Bivdu, NRL, Fiettar, and the Fosen reindeer herding district, as well as with Protect Sápmi, FeFo, Statkraft, Fosen Vind, St1, the National Human Rights Institution, the Norwegian government, the Sámi Council, and of course the Sámi Parliament. These meetings created space for unfiltered voices to be heard—and that was essential.
We experienced a high level of goodwill from the government in facilitating the visit, and the dialogue was constructive. But I must be honest: many of the challenges we raised before and during the visit remain unresolved. In some areas, the situation has even worsened. Large-scale development projects—often framed as part of the green transition—continue to encroach upon Sámi lands and livelihoods. These developments highlight that Norwegian legislation does not yet sufficiently protect Sámi rights.
Our experience shows that the right to consultations, in order to obtain our Free, Prior and Informed Consent, is still being debated—and, in practice, not always respected.
One of the key lessons from this engagement is the critical importance of independent mechanisms like EMRIP. When power imbalances are as stark as they are—between small Indigenous communities and large state or corporate actors—international oversight is not a luxury. It is a necessity. EMRIP’s presence helped rebalance the conversation and bring visibility to the structural challenges we face.
Another lesson is that dialogue matters. The perspectives of the Sámi Parliament and the Norwegian government may not always align, but this engagement created a space for structured exchange. That is a strength of EMRIP’s mechanism—and one that should be further developed and protected.
From our side, we have also learned that follow-up is essential. Recommendations must lead to real change. We saw that the follow-up to the EMRIP visit to Finland took seven years before a resolution was achieved. We acknowledge that this kind of work takes time—but time must not become an excuse for inaction. We urge both states and Indigenous Peoples to treat EMRIP’s advice not as symbolic, but as a roadmap for meaningful progress.
Finally, I want to emphasize that in Norway, the legal implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples remains an open question. Unlike our neighbours in Sweden and Finland, Norway has yet to take concrete steps to incorporate the Declaration into domestic law. The Sámi Parliament strongly recommends that Norway move forward and take active measures in this regard.
We believe EMRIP’s country engagement mechanism holds great potential. But its impact depends on political will, transparency, and a shared commitment to justice.
Giitu. Thank you for your attention.