169
7
Biologists at the University of Tromsø and the Norwegian Institute of Nature
Research (NINA) in Tromsø have for a couple of decades been providing the scientific
justification for the policy of reducing reindeer numbers based in particular on the
claim that there are too many reindeer on the winter pastures. Their research is an
example of how studies based in the natural sciences may not only be normative, but
manifestly political, while the scientists themselves continue to pretend that their work
is objective and apolitical. Hence, this is an example of apolitical ecology (see 7 Chaps.
1 and 2), which in reality is just as political as political ecology, if not more so.
Among the explicit recommendations from this group of biologists is that participation and co-management involving the Sámi reindeer owners does not lead to
better management. They criticize the ‘myth’ that ‘co-management, voluntary agreements, and economic incentives (in reindeer husbandry), so-called “carrot-incentives”, are more efficient than the good old whip’ (Økland 2010). In this way, these
biologists situate themselves within a long Norwegian colonial history in relation to
the Sámi people, and in particular in relation to reindeer pastoralism where the use of
the whip (or the stick, and not the carrot) has been the rule rather than the exception.
This is research, which is adapted to, and which reproduces the dominant discourse in Norwegian society about Sámi reindeer pastoralism, which is further
implemented through the state’s reindeer governance. This top-down governance has
since about 2010 gradually developed into a policy of forced reduction of reindeer
numbers and threats of exceedingly high fines for the reindeer owners who do not
comply. In this way, these biologists also return the favour to the Ministry of Food
and Agriculture for generous research funding over many years. Using this research
as justification, the ministry then responds by swinging the whip over a small minority of Sámi reindeer pastoralists. So, clearly reindeer governance and research on
reindeer management in Norway is in urgent need of decolonization.
The reindeer-keepers themselves have, however, a completely different understanding of Arctic pastoral landscape dynamics. They argue that it is mainly climatic
factors (in addition to encroachments from other land-uses) that determine the survival and condition of their reindeer, which corresponds to a large extent to the ideas
found in non-equilibrium thinking and the flexibility discourse. As seen for instance
in the quote above by the agricultural minister, government officials and politicians
tend, however, to treat this as a problem of misinformation among the pastoralists
further reinforcing colonial perspectives and top-down management including lack
of recognition of traditional knowledge (Benjaminsen et al. 2015).
This experience-based knowledge that reindeer herders have acquired over many
generations has in particular a focus on fluctuations and unpredictability. For instance,
mild weather with subsequent periods of frost can form ice layers. The reindeer can
break through one such layer of ice to get down to the lichen below, but several layers
or large amounts of snow may be too much. Then the pastures will be ‘locked’ under
ice and snow and the reindeer will starve—regardless of how much pasture is available
below the layer of snow. This situation occurred in the winter and spring of 2020
when unusual amounts of hard packed snow made pastures inaccessible to reindeer,
which had to be fed with feed concentrate. So, while the reindeer suffered from this
situation, the lichen and other vegetation under the snow remained largely untouched.
7.1 · Debates About Overgrazing
7
Biologists at the University of Tromsø and the Norwegian Institute of Nature
Research (NINA) in Tromsø have for a couple of decades been providing the scientific
justification for the policy of reducing reindeer numbers based in particular on the
claim that there are too many reindeer on the winter pastures. Their research is an
example of how studies based in the natural sciences may not only be normative, but
manifestly political, while the scientists themselves continue to pretend that their work
is objective and apolitical. Hence, this is an example of apolitical ecology (see 7 Chaps.
1 and 2), which in reality is just as political as political ecology, if not more so.
Among the explicit recommendations from this group of biologists is that participation and co-management involving the Sámi reindeer owners does not lead to
better management. They criticize the ‘myth’ that ‘co-management, voluntary agreements, and economic incentives (in reindeer husbandry), so-called “carrot-incentives”, are more efficient than the good old whip’ (Økland 2010). In this way, these
biologists situate themselves within a long Norwegian colonial history in relation to
the Sámi people, and in particular in relation to reindeer pastoralism where the use of
the whip (or the stick, and not the carrot) has been the rule rather than the exception.
This is research, which is adapted to, and which reproduces the dominant discourse in Norwegian society about Sámi reindeer pastoralism, which is further
implemented through the state’s reindeer governance. This top-down governance has
since about 2010 gradually developed into a policy of forced reduction of reindeer
numbers and threats of exceedingly high fines for the reindeer owners who do not
comply. In this way, these biologists also return the favour to the Ministry of Food
and Agriculture for generous research funding over many years. Using this research
as justification, the ministry then responds by swinging the whip over a small minority of Sámi reindeer pastoralists. So, clearly reindeer governance and research on
reindeer management in Norway is in urgent need of decolonization.
The reindeer-keepers themselves have, however, a completely different understanding of Arctic pastoral landscape dynamics. They argue that it is mainly climatic
factors (in addition to encroachments from other land-uses) that determine the survival and condition of their reindeer, which corresponds to a large extent to the ideas
found in non-equilibrium thinking and the flexibility discourse. As seen for instance
in the quote above by the agricultural minister, government officials and politicians
tend, however, to treat this as a problem of misinformation among the pastoralists
further reinforcing colonial perspectives and top-down management including lack
of recognition of traditional knowledge (Benjaminsen et al. 2015).
This experience-based knowledge that reindeer herders have acquired over many
generations has in particular a focus on fluctuations and unpredictability. For instance,
mild weather with subsequent periods of frost can form ice layers. The reindeer can
break through one such layer of ice to get down to the lichen below, but several layers
or large amounts of snow may be too much. Then the pastures will be ‘locked’ under
ice and snow and the reindeer will starve—regardless of how much pasture is available
below the layer of snow. This situation occurred in the winter and spring of 2020
when unusual amounts of hard packed snow made pastures inaccessible to reindeer,
which had to be fed with feed concentrate. So, while the reindeer suffered from this
situation, the lichen and other vegetation under the snow remained largely untouched.
7.1 · Debates About Overgrazing