Giitu ságadoalli / Thank you Chair,

I have the honour to make this statement on behalf of the Sámi Parliament in Norway.

Thank you for inviting me to be here today to say a few words about the country engagement mission that recently took place in Norway.

Unfortunately, not much has changed, nor prior to or after to this country engagement. Many of the problems remain the same. Some would say our situation is even worse today. I must therefore address some major concerns regarding our situation in Norway.

The Sámi Parliament in Norway supported the idea of a country engagement, and we were pleased to contribute to the country engagement mission to Norway. Fortunately, the Norwegian authorities were also in favour of the idea.

The country engagement went through, as planned expertly by the Saami Council with the involvement of the Sámi Parliament and the Sámi ivil Society.

While the final remarks are, to my knowledge, not yet made public – I would like to make some remarks and comments on some of the themes we discussed, as well as some comments on recent developments.

First, I would like to reemphasise, that the rights and land areas of the Sámi in Norway are being subjected to ever increasing pressures. This tendency is a major area of concern for the Sámi Parliament.

This situation, as reported prior to the country engagement, has accelerated with the governments policy of “green energy” that takes our land rights, and pristine nature as a commodity, and for granted. Something to sacrifice for the perceived greater good of the Norwegian Society.

This has led to the necessity for the Sámi Parliament in Norway to – for the first time – take legal measures and prepare a lawsuit against the Norwegian government regarding the Melkøya-decision. The lawsuit is based on the government's administrative measures and missing consultations with the Sámi Community.

In 2023, the Norwegian government approved the electrification of Hammerfest LNG – Melkøya. It concurrently launched a significant surge for power development in Finnmark County.

The government stated that it was prepared for possible conflicts with the reindeer husbandry, and reported that they would promote new measures to mitigate territorial disputes with the reindeer husbandry in connection with the power grid expansion and new power production.

Neither these measures, nor the administrative decision on the electrification of Melkøya itself were made with the free, prior and informed consent from the affected indigenous people nor the Sámi Parliament. In fact, formal and substantive consultations were not conducted prior to the decisions made.

It is the position of the Sámi Parliament in Norway that this is a violation of both domestic and international law.

In September 2023, the Sámi Parliament processed the government's Melkøya decision, where all parties stated that the government's decision on the electrification of Melkøya had to be withdrawn.

The Sámi Parliament consider the Melkøya decision to be particularly problematic due to the large-scale wind power development it entails. With the course laid out, each wind industry facility will be individually processed, while nobody is taking responsibility for the sum of interventions and the serious consequences of the government's decision.

The Sámi's cultural practice, businesses, or use of nature are not considered in the current situation. Therefore, I asked the Sámi Parliament’s plenary session for authorization to possibly take legal action. The authorization was given in June 2024.

With regards to previous statements made to EMRIP by the Sámi Parliament in Norway, I must inform that the situation is still the same as reported to EMRIP and other UN bodies.

In Norway, indigenous people’s basic human rights seem to still be regarded as something that can be sold or implemented as a minor value in the assessments made by both public and and private sectors. The last time I was here I reported that both the public and private sectors have a substantial need for improvement when it comes to respecting the material cultural heritage of the Sámi, along with our human rights and our right to self-determination.

One example of this is the Fosen-case, that has been thoroughly reported in prior sessions in EMRIP. While the parties have come to an arrangement that if respected and fully carried out, may comply with international law, new projects are being planned in adjacent areas by private companies that will impact the same parties affected by the Fosen-case.

In order for history not to repeat itself in ongoing and future legal disputes, I believe, as president of the Sámi Parliament in Norway, that three lessons need to be learned from the Fosen case.

Firstly, amendments need to be made in Norwegian legislation to make it clear that pre-accession should be discontinued for cases concerning land issues that might impact traditional Sámi areas or livelihoods. This is in accordance with a recommendation made by the Norwegian National Human Rights Institution pertaining the Fosen case.

Secondly, approval for impact assessment studies, as well as the selection of assessors, must not occur without the free and prior informed consent from the Sámi rights holders.

Thirdly and as stated by the Sámi Parliament plenary session: An independent investigation of the Fosen case should be initiated.

As for the ongoing cases before the courts, I would like to reemphasize that the Sámi Parliament's principal view is that it will always be an advantage both for full disclosure and for the Sámi's security under the law when important bodies like EMRIP conduct investigations and make comments. The balance of power between the parties is extremely skewed in these cases, as small local Sámi communities or groups with limited financial resources stand alone, facing off against big money and the vast state bureaucracy.

In several cases, the Norwegian authorities have also chosen to intervene actively, taking the side of the business community in ongoing legal suits against the Sámi. This was true in the Fosen case and it happened again in the Øyfjellet case and the Karasjok case. This has given rise to strong reactions in the Sámi community.

By way of conclusion, I would mention that the legal implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is still an unaddressed issue in Norway. No measures have been taken in Norway.

Contrary to our neighboring countries, Sweden and Finland, it seems like Norwegian authorities take every opportunity to emphasize that that this is a politically, but not legally binding Declaration in Norway. It is the opinion of the Sámi Parliament in Norway that Norway needs to take more responsibility in this area to accept and strengthen the development of indigenous human rights both on the domestic and international level.

Thank you for your attention / Ollu giitu