1

A LANDSCAPE ACROSS BORDERS A MULTIPERSPECTIVE RESEARCH ON THE INFLUENCE OF THE NATIONAL BORDERS IN THE

BORDER AREA OF FINLAND, NORWAY AND SWEDEN

Arjan Conijn – University of Groningen - ELY Centre Lapland

August – October 2013

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 - Introduction to transborder landscape research .................................................................................................................. 3

2 - Methodology....................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

3 - The physical landscape ................................................................................................................................................................... 8

3.1 - Altitude......................................................................................................................................................................................... 8

3.2 - Geology and soil ........................................................................................................................................................................ 8

3.3 - Climate ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 9

4 - The natural layer in the landscape ...........................................................................................................................................11

4.1 - Differences in the natural landscape ...............................................................................................................................11

4.2 - The fell landscape disassembled .......................................................................................................................................13

4.3 – Nature protection ..................................................................................................................................................................14

5 - The cultural layer in the three borders area .........................................................................................................................16

5.1 - Perspective of the locals .......................................................................................................................................................16

5.2 - Perspective of the tourists ...................................................................................................................................................17

5.3 - Perspective of the reindeer herders.................................................................................................................................19

5.4 - Other stakeholders and their perspectives....................................................................................................................21

6 - Influence of the borders ...............................................................................................................................................................22

6.1 - The influence of the borders on everyday local life ....................................................................................................23

6.2 - Influences of the borders on tourism ..............................................................................................................................24

6.3 - Influence of the borders on reindeer herding...............................................................................................................24

6.4 - Influence of the border on other stakeholders .............................................................................................................26

7 - Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................................................................27

8 - Suggestions for a flourishing transborder landscape.........................................................................................................29

9 – References ........................................................................................................................................................................................30

Appendix I – List of Interviewed people .......................................................................................................................................31

Appendix II – A selection of the interview-questions ...............................................................................................................32

3

1 - INTRODUCTION TO TRANSBORDER LANDSCAPE RESEARCH

During years of studying the landscape, men will find that landscape will not stop at national borders. Even if

there are physical barriers in the landscape like a river or a mountain range the physical landscape across the

border will change gradually. Because landscape continues beyond borders it is essential to include both sides of

the border when you work with landscape in a border region. Fortunately this is also the vision the European

Landscape Convention had when they decided to focus on more cooperation across borders on landscape related

issues.1 By unification of the European Union crossborder cooperation becomes more realistic and therefore it is

useful to elaborate on the influence of borders in the landscape. On behalf of that, this paper tries to answer the

question: How do borders influence the landscape in the three border area of Finland, Norway and Sweden?

The reason for using the three border area of Finland, Norway and Sweden (as showed in figure 1) as research

area is that this area brings together many different cultures. Not only the Finnish, Norwegian and Swedish

culture, but also Lappish, Sami and Kven culture are present in the area. Of great importance in this paper is the

Sami culture because of their long tradition of transborder reindeer herding. The nomadic lifestyle of living near

the coastal pastures in Norway during summer and in the inland forest in Sweden and Finland during wintertime

goes back thousands of years when the Sami where still hunting and gathering. The area is not defined by edges,

because the point of this research is that landscapes continue across borders. But the area has a core in the

Käsivarsi Fell landscape. Most people in the area live there and the way they use the landscape defines what area

is included in this report.

Figure 1: the three border area of Finland, Norway and Sweden, with its core in the Käsivarsi arm

Although this paper is not a historical overview for any of the present cultures, or a geographical overview of the

physical and natural landscape, it is important to sketch a picture on how every culture and all aspects of nature

are related in the area. Therefore this paper first introduces the landscape of the area by discussing the different

aspects a landscape exists of. Landscape is a much debated term and according to Gräno it even has various

meanings in different languages. The English landscape and the Finnish maisema normally means the visual

landscape people experience, but the German Landschaft and the Swedish Landskap include the cultural region

as well. 2 To avoid misunderstandings in this paper the definition of the European Landscape Convention of 2000

in Florence is used:

1 Council of Europe (2000), European Landscape Convention of Florence in 2000, European Treaty Series - No. 176, Articles 7 and 8 2 Raivo, P. (2002), The Finnish landscape and its meanings, in Fennia 180: 1-2, p. 89-98, Helsinki

4

“Landscape means an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and

interaction of natural and/or human factors”3

This definition is thorough since it gives attention to the visual perceived aspects of landscape, and it also takes

into account the interaction between nature and culture which form landscapes. The natural factors can be

defined as “an assemblage of plants and animals in specific physical conditions”.4 Since these physical conditions

are essential for the natural factors in the landscape the first chapter of this paper would describe and define the

physical landscape of the research area. This will include the emergence of this area, its elevations, the geology

and soil forming processes and the influence of the climate. Once this physical structure of the landscape is

defined the natural landscape typologies can be placed in the landscape. This will be the main subject of the

second chapter, divided in a regional and a local scale. The various layers of the landscape are shown in figure 2.

Figure 2: the layer structure of the landscape in this research, from the bottom to the top: physical layer; natural layer; cultural layer; borders

3 Council of Europe (2000), European Landscape Convention of Florence in 2000, European Treaty Series - No. 176, Article 1a 4 Based on an interview with Antero Järvinen, director of the Kilpisjärvi Biological Station on September the 4th in 2013, “an assemblage of plants and animals in specific climatologic conditions”

5

The third chapter of this paper will discuss the cultural use of the landscape in the research area. Culture is

defined as the human factors which influence the landscape. This includes the (visual) experience of the

landscape, or the so-called perception. Giving meaning to landscapes is a process which is created by human

factors and thus by culture. However, the focus of this paper will be on the use of landscape by people. But, this

cultural study will be based on interviews with people, so the description of the cultural landscape will be

influenced by the experiences people had with the discussed landscape. The cultural chapter is organized by the

different groups of stakeholders. This is also the case for the fourth chapter, when the focus finally moves to the

influence of borders in the research area. Various perspectives on the borders are discussed and some

conclusions are given in the end. These conclusions become the starting point for some suggestions on how to

deal with the borders in the area, in daily life and in governmental practice.

6

2 - METHODOLOGY

Before rushing into the result first the methodology of the research should be explained. As a researcher it is

important to be neutral and give everyone who is involved an equal voice. In order to make sure the researcher

in this project was neutral the preliminary knowledge was kept to a minimum. On one hand this has the negative

effect that the researcher is not able to dig into specific issues at first. On the other hand a lack of preliminary

knowledge gives a neutral outsiders vision on the landscape in the area, which might give fresh new insights.

As mentioned earlier it is also important to make sure that all groups of stakeholders are equally involved. To

accomplish this much of the field work consisted of interviewing stakeholders, locally in the area and experts on

the whole region. Many of interviewed people were also asked which groups should also be included and if they

could suggest other contacts for interviews. On one hand this enlarges the network, but on the other hand the

suggested names are part of the same network, which might have led to similar perspectives on issues. But it was

made sure that the research was multi-perspective by continuously checking which groups needed to be

approached to have an equal voice. It has to be noted that the research was supported and initiated in Finland at

the Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment for Lapland (ELY Centre), and the first

contacts were mostly Finnish. Although it has affected which people were interviewed, this never endangered

the multi-perspective research.

Figure 3: the interviewed people sorted by stakeholder group and nationality

In the end over 40 interviews have been done and in addition to that some telephone and e-mail interviews. The

graph (figure 3) shows which groups where involved in which countries. The first thing that takes attention is

that the most interviewed people are Finnish, caused by the fact that there are more villages on the Finnish side

than on the Swedish and Norwegian side in the three border region. Thus are more Finnish people suitable for an

interview. Then also springs in eye that most of the reindeer herders are Finnish and even no Swedish reindeer

herders of the research area are involved. This is because reindeer herders have flexible working hours and

locations and are therefore hard to contact, especially in the short period of two weeks I have been in the area.

The third thing about the selection of interviews is the minor presence of Swedish official organizations like the

Norbotten county and the Lansstryrelsen; they weren’t available for interviews, some of them because they were

settled in Kiruna and not enough meetings were set to travel the distance to Kiruna in this tight time schedule. A

list of interviewed people can be found in Appendix I.

The interviews were set up in a structure of layers comparable to the report. A personal and organization layer

gave the opportunity to place the persons in their context and to make sure his or her answers were interpreted

the right way. Besides that, some questions on physical landscape were asked; these were more specified for the

experts. In questions about the natural landscape the relationship with nature was questioned even so the

consequences of nature protection. In the cultural layer the important aspects of local culture had to be pointed

out. The relation to the various cultural groups was pointed out here as well. The final layer of questions asked

7

about the influence of the borders in the area and the possibilities for current and future cooperation. In the end

the future perspective on the area was asked all the interviewed persons, including their hopes for the area;

these gave a good insight in where everybody is aiming to go with this area. An overview of the questions can be

seen in Appendix II.

The interviews were mostly done during two weeks in the three borders area in the end of August and the

beginning of September. Interviews with experts took place in months august to September of 2013. The

interviews were mostly done in working places of the interviewed people and took about one to two hours.

Important to note is that most interviews were done in English, this is the mother tongue of neither the

interviewed person nor the interviewer. The interviewed people which did not speak that well English were

translated from Finnish to English. Using these different languages might have led to some unavoidable loss of

knowledge.

The answers were interpreted by the interviewer and arranged for the various groups of stakeholders; this made

clear which group had which opinions and where these groups are aiming for with the area. The results in the

report are mainly based on these interviews. After concluding the different opinions some suggestions about the

area can be made for future use of the landscape in this area.

8

3 - THE PHYSICAL LANDSCAPE

The physical conditions of a landscape are crucial for the natural and cultural factors in that landscape. For the

natural layer the physical conditions decide which species of plants and animals can survive. This depends for

example from the altitude, the soil conditions and the climate. Altogether this chapter to provides a extended

fundament for the natural and cultural layers of this area.

3.1 - ALTITUDE

Natural growth depends for example from the presence of oxygen and water, the presence of these elements is

discussed in the physical layer. Among others this depends from the altitude. The most important element of

altitude in the three border area is the Caledonian mountain range. This mountain range runs along the

Norwegian coastline from the South-West to the North-East. The North Western side of this range goes from the

Arctic Ocean (0 meters) to peaks of above 1500 meters, in the North this drops to 500-1000 meters. In figure 4

can be seen that the altitude drops to 200m towards the inlands. The emergence of this mountain range has big

effects on the local climate, but the influence on the geology and soil of the area is discussed first.

Figure 4: in only several kilometers the altitude changes from 0m at the Arctic Ocean to over 1200m in the mountain range. More to the inlands

the altitude would drop to about 200m.

3.2 - GEOLOGY AND SOIL

The Caledonian mountain range is built of a complexity of many different types of bedrock. To identify all of

these and their various influences on the landscape goes beyond the scope of this paper. But it is important to

know that there are various bedrocks with various characteristics and they are diverted all over the mountain

range.5 Because of the variation in the nutrient content in the bedrock and its multiform deposition, in some

areas nutrient rich places are exposed more than in other areas which can lead to unique plant species. Figure 5

shows the unique Caledonian depositions in northwestern Finland. Combined with the various climates south to

north and oceanic versus continental (see Climate 3.3) this can give opportunities to unique habitats with rare

species which do not occur somewhere else in Scandinavia or even in Europe.6 A good example of such a unique

set of circumstances is the Malla strict nature reserve in the three border area.

5 Kauhanen, H. & Mattsson J. (2005), Mallan luonnonpuiston luontotyypit, In: Mallan luonnonpuiston edited by Mikko Jokinen, METLA, Kolari, page 49-54 6 ibid, page 54-70

Kilpisjärvi

Kaaresuvanto Skibotn

1000 m

500 m

0 m

0 km 50 km 100 km 150 km 200 km

9

Figure 5: the geology of the Finnish part of the Caledonian mountains shows in purple the Caledonian deposition which especially at the edges

provides unique resources for the environment (Source: GTK Lapland)

3.3 - CLIMATE

Besides altitude, geology and soil also the climate has important influences on the landscape. Together with the

other factors climate determines which of the species may survive in the area, and which of the species are best

adapted to the local circumstances. For this reason it also directs the way people can use the landscape

extendedly, but more on that in chapter 5.1. Besides the differences in temperatures because of the distance to

the equator, the presence of the Atlantic Ocean on the west coast of Norway, and especially the Northern Atlantic

golf stream is important. This warm water stream makes the climate milder along the coastline.7 In the end this

means: less extreme winters and milder summers. This is called Oceanic climate and it also includes stronger

western winds because the winds can freely blow over the sea. On top of that much of the rain will fall in the

mountain range because rainy clouds cannot easily pass the mountains.8 On the other side of the mountain the

effects of the ocean are less, and the climate is more influenced by continental winds, this is called the

Continental climate. Big differences in climate are caused by these two important influences which exist in only a

few tens of kilometers, in figure 6 these climatic influences are showed in the map.

7 Linderholm, H.W. et al. (2010), Dendroclimatology in Fennoscandia, Clim. Past, page 94 8 ibid, page 94

10

Figure 6: influence of the climate, altitude, latitudes and Oceanic versus Continental climate

On a smaller scale the microclimate of lakes have the same effects the sea has. The water levels the temperatures

so that in the autumn nearby areas to the lake stay warmer longer than its surroundings. There is an opposite

effect in the spring time when the close areas are colder for a longer time than its surroundings. This causes even

more differences in the (micro)-climate around the lakes like the Kilpisjärvi. All in all these physical layer forms

the fundament of the natural layer which is discussed in the next chapter.

Altitude

Oceanic

Continental

Latitude

11

4 - THE NATURAL LAYER IN THE LANDSCAPE

The physical influences on this landscape form the base for the natural conditions in the area. Together with the

visual perception of the landscape a division in typology can be made. In the regional scale these influences give

different types of natural landscapes: coastal landscape, river valleys, mountainous landscape, fell landscape and

the inland forests. After these different typologies are discussed we focus on the fell landscape in a local scale,

because this is the one which contains the borders, and some villages like Kilpisjärvi and Karesuando. In this

area where people live the relation between the natural and the cultural landscape is more visible.-

Figure 7: the natural layer of the landscape: coastal landscape, river valleys, mountainous landscape, fell landscape, forest inland

4.1 - DIFFERENCES IN THE NATURAL LANDSCAPE

The coastal landscape is located along the Norwegian fjords and consists mostly of pine forest. Spruce and pine

are present till 200 m above sea level. But the tree line is on about 400 m for the mountain birch forest. Views in

this area are dominated by the big mountains and there glaciers.

Figure 8: coastal landscape in Skibotn (Norway)

Melting waters from the glaciers and the snowy mountain tops cause waterfalls and rivers, which in their turn

cause herb rich river valleys, by flowing water and flooding. These river valleys are very rich in flora (also other

than only ground) due to water, which brings enough nutrients and moisture to the area. The richness of

nutrients and availability of water resources makes these river valleys green strings through the various

12

landscape types. These rivers also provided easy access to these impassable landscapes of the North. Especially

the Kven culture made good use of the river to transport their products to the Atlantic coast.9

Figure 9: river valley in Reisa National Park (Norway)

More elevated in the mountain range above the tree line a mountainous landscape emerges. This open landscape

consists partly of boulders and bare rock, but also contains multiple lichens and mosses. Only a few plants can

survive in this harsh climate sometimes even above the 1000 meters altitude.10 For example the Glacier

Growfoot (Rannunculus glacialis) would survive. Around the tree line some Mountain Birches (Betula pubescens

czerepanovii) can still be found, but on higher ground only a few species would survive.11 The cold mountainous

area is a habitat to the Gyrfalcon (Falco Rusticolus) and the Norway lemming (Lemmus lemmus), which in good

years extends its habitat to the fell landscapes.

Figure 10: mountainous landscape on Saana (Finland)

The fell landscape spreads from the eastern side of the Caledonian mountain range to the inlands of Finland,

Norway and Sweden, including most of the Käsivarsi area. As stated in the Natura 2000 brochure of the EU, the

fells consists of fell vegetation dominated by moorland species.12 Although this results in a predominant open

landscape, it consist of different habitat types: Mountain birch forest, open heath lands and mires, palsa mire is

typical mire type in the northernmost parts in Finland. This subdivision on local scale will be discussed in

paragraph 4.2.

9 Based on interviews at Reisa National Park 10 European commission: Sundseth, K. (2005), Natura 2000 in the Alpine region, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, page 8-9 11 ibid, page 9 12 ibid, page 8

13

Following the landscape further in a south eastern direction you will get to see more and more pines and even

spruces. These indicate the forest Lapland in the Finnish and Swedish inlands. Forest Lapland has denser

evergreen forests, which differs in ground flora. The ground flora differs mainly depending on the nutrient

content, but also reindeers and forestry can affect it (grazing, tramping and cutting) Forest Lapland exists of

different kinds of forest like spruce or pine forests, alternating from herb-rich forest to nutrient-poor heat with

pines; mires in wet areas and old growth forest.13 These forests give shelter to the bigger mammals of the north

like the brown bear and the lynx. But they also gratify the demands of reindeer with richness in mushrooms,

lichen and berries.

Figure 11: old growth forest in southern Lapland (Finland)

4.2 - THE FELL LANDSCAPE DISASSEMBLED

Zooming in at the fell landscape in consist of various occurrence. On lower elevation near rivers and lakes, the

Fell landscape is mostly dominated by Mountain Birch (Betula pubescens czerepanovii). These trees grow to a

size of only a few meters because of the circumstances. The roots get covered under the snow and therefore are

protected from winter storms. Even though the trees are quite small they can be multiple centuries old;

unfortunately the most birches in the Käsivarsi area where cut during the Second World War.14 The Willow

Grouse (Lagopus lagopus) and the Bluethroat (Luscinia svecica) are birds who favor this habitat.15

Figure 12: a reindeer in the mountain birch forest at Saana (Finland)

When the mountain birch forest ends above the tree line, which drops to 300 meters in northernmost Lapland,

the landscape is open and consists mostly of heather, grasses and sedge.16 These fells are a harsh landscape to

13 Crossbill guides (2010), Finnish Lapland, Crossbill Guides Foundation, Arnhem, The Netherlands, page 34-40 14 Based on interviews with Metsähallitus and the Biological Research Centre in Kilpisjärvi 15 Crossbill guides (2010), Finnish Lapland, Crossbill Guides Foundation, Arnhem, The Netherlands, page 52-55 16 ibid

14

survive because of the hard winds that even might blow away the protecting snow cover. Often in spring these

spots are the first possibilities for plant growth, but since the ground is still frozen, drought can be a threat.

Common species in this open tundra landscape are Alpine Crowberry Empetrum (nigrum) hermaphroand Dwarf

Birch besides the mosses and lichens.17

Figure 13: open fell landscape in Kilpisjärvi (Finland)

On wet spots these open tundra landscapes might turn into mires. In this area mainly Palsa mires have

developed due permafrost. This results in a unique appearance and great breeding grounds for birds.18

Surrounded by the melting waters the Palsa hillocks are often dry and covered with heath and many lichens.

Figure 14: palsa mire, 50 km southeast of Kilpisjärvi (Finland)

Further elaboration on these landscapes typologies is way too extensive for this paper. Most of the discussed

landscapes can be found on both sides of the borders. The next chapter elaborates on how these natural

landscapes influenced the cultural life in the area.

4.3 – NATURE PROTECTION

17 ibid 18 ibid, page 44, 45, 209

15

The northern part of Lapland in Finland, Norway and Sweden contains enormous areas of natural landscapes

and many of these are protected by laws.19 In the municipality of Enontekiö for example 75% of the land is

protected nature area. At the moment Metsähallitus is exploring the need and possibilities for a National Park in

the Käsivarsi area on behalf of the Ministry of Environment. This has led to many debates among the locals, just

like it does with every new nature protection area. These debates are often about the rights and the restrictions

within the protected area for various groups. Because these protected nature areas are protected by law, it might

influence the land use in the area.

19 Metsähallitus (2011), The wilds of Lapland – far away from everything, visited 21th of October

16

5 - THE CULTURAL LAYER IN THE THREE BORDERS AREA

The cultural use of the area has always been influenced by the physical and even more by the natural layer of this

area’s landscape. On the contrary of the physical and natural layer the cultural layer is not only stated by facts,

but it is also influenced by various perspectives and opinions of the people who use the area. Because the use of

the land is the main focus of this chapter presented by various perspectives, the chapter is based on the

interviews done in the three borders area of Finland, Norway and Sweden from August until October 2013. (The

selection of interviews is discussed in the chapter 2: Methodology) In order to work with the results, opinions

had to be gathered together and this evolved in several perspectives on the landscape by the main groups of

users in the area. Some minor stakeholders also have their voice in the final paragraph of this chapter.

5.1 - PERSPECTIVE OF THE LOCALS

The inhabitants of the area are of course the first to be discussed and probably the most important group in the

area. They live in the area 24 hours a day and 365 days a year. The definitions of a local given by the interviewees

differ in years of living in the village or area to be called local. According to most of the interviewed people from

the area a local has to earn his/her livelihood in the area for at least 5 to 10 years to be called local. But the

variation is from living in the village for a year to being born and raised there.20 This difference might be caused

by the Kilpisjärvi locals, Kilpisjärvi is only developed in the last 50 years and most inhabitants have moved to

Kilpisjärvi from other regions. So only a few of people has been born and raised in Kilpisjärvi so far.

On the Finnish side of the border population is not dense and not even 2000 people live in the Enontekiö

municipality on a permanent base. Most of these inhabitatants are centered in small villages like Kilpisjärvi (130

inhabitants), Kaaresuvanto(300 inhabitants) and Hetta (800 inhabitants).21 In Sweden the municipality of Kiruna

has its main village Kiruna providing over 18,000 of the municipalities 22,000 inhabitants housing. Other

inhabitants of the area live in small villages (max. 800 inhabitants) along the road from Karesuando to Kiruna.

The Norwegian side of the borders has many municipalities and counts a total of about 28,000 inhabitants. Most

of these villages are along the coast of the Arctic Ocean fjords and therefore different from the Finnish and

Swedish villages. The coastal villages are focused on the good fishing waters and trade with other parts of the

country, which was very good possible because of their location along the shore. The Norwegian municipality of

Kautokeino is on physical and natural landscape better comparable to these Finnish and Swedish villages,

because it is also located in the fell landscape area. Kautokeino, the main city of the similar named municipality,

counts about 1300 inhabitants of the 2900 living in this municipality.22

The most important facility for local people in Kilpisjärvi is the school, it is a place where people can meet and

the school is also available for cultural and sportive activities, organized by Kilpisjärven Saana-Veikot ry among

others. The shops in the Finnish villages are mainly used by tourists and Norwegian border shoppers,

Norwegians who shop in Finland and Sweden because the prices are much lower in those countries than in their

own. (More on this border shopping in chapter 6.1.) The local people often do their shopping at once in the

bigger towns nearby like Kiruna, Hetta and Muonio, because there are more shops, these movements are

mapped in figure 15. Sometimes the locals even go to Troms or Rovaniemi to do some shopping.

In the fell landscape municipalities the most important livelihoods are tourism (5.2) and reindeer herding (5.3),

which are discussed later this chapter. This paragraph will focus on the use of the landscape in private life.

However, the two main livelihoods reindeer herding and tourism business don’t work in office hours, they have

heavy workloads, also in the off-season, because no staff is employed. Therefore the locals don’t have much free

time for recreation. When the local people do have some time for recreational activities they often go into nature,

for example to hunt, fish or to gather berries. Some of the locals also like to hike, ski and use the snowmobiles.

The most important destinations are Halti and Saana, just as it is for the tourists. Also some hunting is done in

20 Based on interviews with locals in Kilpisjärvi, Karesuando and Kautokeino 21 Based on interview Enontekiö municipality 22 PopulationRegister Center of Finland (15-9-2013), Statistics Norway (4-1-2008) and Statistics Sweden (14-12-2011)

17

free time by locals, for example Grouse hunting and Moose hunting.23 When locals go hunting and fishing the

Finnish and Norwegian locals are also familiar with the northernmost areas of Sweden, and it seems that they go

there more often than tourists.

Figure 15: movements of locals and core areas, recreation in Swedish nature, Halti and Saana area. Shopping in cities of Mounio and Troms.

Locals claim to care about the landscape because they are depending on it. They may have chosen the area for its

peacefulness and remote location. The dark and cold period can also make it more difficult to live in the area, but

adapting to that is part of Lappish culture. Some people say this also counts for the tourists who visit the area.

They have traveled a lot to be here in the natural and peaceful environment, they know how to behave among

nature. This is the main reason that most locals do not favor a national park in the Käsivarsi area; they don’t need

restrictions in their use of nature. So far, this has led to many heated discussion in the small communities of the

Enontekiö municipality.

In the small communities, like for example Kilpisjärvi debates about the implantation of a National Park in the

area can divide the community. Internal problems in such small communities are more difficult to deal with

because the locals are depending on each other.24 The differences in rights of reindeer herders and Sami, tourism

entrepreneurs, tourists and locals can lead to a disturbed society. They influence a National Park would have for

tourists is discussed in the next chapter.

5.2 - PERSPECTIVE OF THE TOURISTS

The tourist-perspective in this paper mainly comes from the local tourism-entrepreneurs, the visitor centers,

Norwegian cabin owners in Kilpisjärvi and briefly by the Metsähallitus and Reisa National Park. Tourists can be

people just passing by for one or more days, but also the Norwegian cabin owners are still considered as tourists,

also from their own perspective. However they have come to Kilpisjärvi and its environment for nearly 10

years.25 The tourist and in special these Norwegian cabin owners are indispensable for the area; without tourists

it would have been nearly impossible to earn a living. And with less people living in the area it would be

impossible to hold on the current facilities in the villages. Tourists also bring life to the villages, because of them

something is happening in the area. Mostly the tourists are around from March to September, this is the now

called tourist-season.26

23 Based on interviews with locals in Kilpisjärvi, Karesuando and Kautokeino 24 Based on interviews with locals in Kilpisjärvi 25 Based on interviews with locals in Kilpisjärvi, Karesuando and Kautokeino 26 ibid

18

Every year about 85.000 people visit the Kilpisjärvi area. One third of these visitors are Norwegian, about

27.000.27 In Norway in the Reisa National Park only about 3000 visitors visit the park yearly.28 On the Swedish

Norrbotten no absolute numbers are found but tourism is increasing, 70% of the tourists in Norbotten are

Swedes.29 It seems to be a lot of visitors, but if you count the size of the area you might consider it not much.

However there are not that much facilities in the small village, so there cannot be so much more visitors. For

example the ’Only Two Fish Ice Fishing’ -contest in Kilpisjärvi counts 1400-3000 visitors every year, but the

village has only about 300 places to sleep.30 Most of the tourism entrepreneurs agree on this by commenting that

they cannot handle more visitors during the tourist-season, but there would be more of possibilities in the off-

season.31

Most facilities in the villages of Kilpisjärvi and Kaaresuvanto are aiming for tourists, like hotels, bed and

breakfast and small bars. Also the shops aim for tourists and sell hunting and fishing gear and also the permits.32

In the villages of Enontekiö and Kautokeino the cultural heritage of the Sami attract tourist and give jobs to

tourism entrepreneurs as well as municipality for preserving the culture, for example in the Sami University

College in Kautokeino. The three borders area facilitates many attractions like the most Northern village in

Sweden (Karesuando), the three borders point, the Finnish fell area including almost all off the Finnish 1000+

tops and the highest point of Finland at the Halti in the mountainous landscape. The main touristic areas are

mapped in figure 16.

Besides these attractions many tourist come to ski (mainly Finnish, but the numbers are decreasing) and for

snowmobiling (mainly Norwegian) in wintertime from February to May. The fell landscape provides a good

variety of skiing slopes and an open landscape which makes it very good accessible and safe for as well skiing as

snowmobiling. The aforementioned Kilpisjärvi ice fishing competition is one of the main events in the area. In

summer and early fall the area attracts a lot of hikers and fishermen, mostly Swedish and Finnish tourists. The

most important areas for tourists are pointed in figure 16 including their routes.

Figure 16: movement of tourist and main tourist areas. Fishing on Arctic coast and along the rivers, Sami tourism in Kautokeino and Hetta

The Fell area around Halti is very popular, and nowadays there is also much snowmobiling on the lake in

Kilpisjärvi. In earlier days this was a meeting place for skiing tourists and especially for locals, but because of the

27 Based on interviews with Metsähallitus 28 Based on interviews at Reisa National Park 29 Pantzare Information AB (2010), Facts about Norrbotten, GTC, Luleå, page 60 30 Based on interviews with locals in Kilpisjärvi, Karesuando and Kautokeino 31 Based on interviews with tourism entrepreneurs in Kilpisjärvi and Karesuando 32 ibid

19

snowmobiling this function is diminished.33 The sound of snowmobiles is heard far and may disturb the

peacefulness of the area.

The tourists are very welcome in the area since they provide a source of income for the locals. The tourists

themselves have not much problems with locals, besides some of them who don’t obey the rules and for example

go off track with snowmobiles. These problems sometimes lead to disputes between the locals and the

entrepreneurs, but are often solved by the parties themselves because of the limited presence of police in the

area.34 Because of the possible National Park in the area the entrepreneurs are also debating with Metsähallitus,

because they expect less tourists if they cannot ride their snowmobiles in the area. The good relationship with

Metsähallitus is somewhat disturbed because of this issue. Together they even made agreements on where to

drive and when.35 Tourism does not conflict with reindeer herding, only sometimes the sound of snowmobiles or

barking dogs scares the reindeer, but this does not influence the relationship between the groups.

5.3 - PERSPECTIVE OF THE REINDEER HERDERS

The third important group in the three borders area is the reindeer herders, in this area they are all Sami people.

A reindeer herder is defined in this paper as someone who is herding reindeer as a livelihood. The reindeer

herders are important because they use almost the whole area, reindeer are free to graze everywhere in a

herders area which includes the forests, meadows, villages. Every other land use in this area influences reindeer

herding and is influenced by herding.36 Besides that the Sami people lived in this three border area for centuries.

The position of Sami culture in contemporary society is discussed in chapter 5.4.

Formerly the reindeer herders used to have a nomadic lifestyle, travelling with the herd from the summer to the

winter pastures and back. These Sami tribes followed the natural movements of wild reindeer (Rangifer tarandus

tarandus) to hunt them, but since 500 years they domesticated the reindeer, herding them but still following the

natural movements of the reindeer. Figure 17 will show how the reindeer use the landscape through the year. In

spring the calves are born in the mires. Near to the windy open places were the first grasses of the year will

grow. In summer time the reindeer used to go to the open fells and the mountains near the Arctic coast to flee for

mosquitoes. River valleys were often easier to pass than the high mountains. In autumn the reindeer moved on

to more sheltered areas in the forests to eat mushrooms. The reindeer stayed in the inland forests during winter

digging for lichens.37 When the calving period in March comes closes the reindeer move out of the forests again.

The only facilities reindeer herders needed where the pastures and for the different season and their moving

settlements. Although once a year the herders gathered on Maria’s to trade and buy necessities on the market

place.

33 Based on interviews with locals in Kilpisjärvi and Karesuando 34 ibid 35 Based on interviews with entrepreneurs in Kilpisjärvi and Karesuando 36 Paliskunnat, Poro – Reindeer, the reindeer herders association, Rovaniemi, page 9 37 Crossbill guides (2010), Finnish Lapland, Crossbill Guides Foundation, Arnhem, The Netherlands, page 61

20

Figure 17: natural movement of reindeer: In the forest during winter tie for shelter and lichen; on the mires around march for calving and fresh

grasses made snow free by the wind; flee for mosquitoes to the open fell top grazing for berries; heading back for the forest in autum for

mushrooms; and takingshelter for the snowfall in the forest during winter again

When the national borders were established, the movement of the herders had to change (see chapter 6.3). Now

the summer and winter pastures are less distant reindeer herders started to have a permanent settlement,

however the introduction of snowmobiles and ATV’s were the most important motives for this development.38

Because of these vehicles the herder was able to live in the settlement and go to the herd 30 or 50 kilometers

away in just a couple of hours. 39 This changed the lifestyle of reindeer herding families completely. Nowadays

the reindeer herders use many facilities of the local villagers, since they are also living in the village. The urge for

summer and winter pastures has stayed the same although they are more nearby nowadays; these pastures are

indicated in figure 18.

Figure 18: movements of the reindeer and their herders from the winter pastures, in the south eastern forest, to summer pasture in the north

western fells and along the Arctic coast

38 Paine, R. (1994), Herds of the tundra, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London, page 147 39 ibid

21

Recently another facility is needed by reindeer herders, because Sweden and Finland joined the European Union.

In order to European legalization the slaughtering of reindeer can no longer take place along the erotus area

(separation areas) and herders have to transport their reindeer to slaughterhouses. In the three border area

these slaughterhouses are in Karesuando and Kautokeino, however this gives a problem for the Finnish reindeer

herders. If they want to slaughter their reindeer for selling the meat they got two options: they have to export

them to Sweden or Norway, which will results in high extra costs; or they have to transport the animals to

Rovaniemi (300-450 km), which is not good for the animal and not good for the meat and will also result in high

costs. For this purpose the reindeer herders in the Finnish parts of the three border area are trying to establish a

slaughterhouse in the area, but the Enontekiö municipality so far has not approved their plans so far.40

The relation of reindeer herders with others groups in the area is often good; they are considered locals and have

good communication with other locals and tourism entrepreneurs. The reindeer herders also get along pretty

well with the Metsähallitus and their plans for the National Park, because the herders would still have the right

to herd in the area, but the National Park will diminish chances of mining and other threatening land use in the

area.41 Only in the Malla strict nature reserve debates about the herding are going on for years. Because Malla

consist some unique species the area is protected and reindeer herding is prohibited. But at the moment there

are still reindeer grazing, according to the herders only passing through. Especially the biological research

station, which is doing different kind of studies in the area, is complaining complains on this because endangered

species are grazed and trampled by reindeers.42 Overgrazing is mentioned regularly in this area and it is often

said that the reindeer herders should obey state laws on reindeer numbers. The reindeer herders are mostly

pointing to each other. This is an indicator of the internal conflicts between the reindeer herders themselves,

mostly about number of reindeer and grazing areas. This might be the result of the so called reindeer wars in the

70’s when stealing and killing reindeers from other herds happened a lot.43 Probably this is caused by the

aftermath of closing the borders after the Second World War, but more on that after the other stakeholders are

discussed.

5.4 - OTHER STAKEHOLDERS AND THEIR PERSPECTIVES

The discussed groups are not the only stakeholders in this area. This paragraph includes the perspectives of the

people who are involved in the area in a less direct way, like the municipalities, nature organizations like

Metsähallitus and Statskog, the Sami Parliament and the research institutes.

Municipalities in this area have different main focus, but in the end they are all dealing with same problems.

Enontekiö municipality for example wants to boost the economy of the area and in special the airport.

Kautokeino would like to have some more economic cooperation with Enontekiö, and they see lessons to be

learnt from Enontekiö, while Kautokeino is further developed on path finding to preserve the Sami tradition and

language, however Enontekiö also organizes some events and has road signs in Sami language as well.44 Also

Kiruna municipality has a task by Swedish government in preserving Sami language. However, the main focus of

Kiruna municipality is on moving the city of Kiruna due the mining expansion.45 The interviewed municipalities

are willing to do more on cooperation because the surrounding municipalities often deal with the same

problems, like mining exploration and job shortages. Although Kiruna and Enontekiö have managed to realize a

sewage plant for Karesuando together, Kiruna mentioned that working with municipalities of the same country

is easier, mostly because of legalization and money issues.46 Also on county level often heard complains are that

the governments in the south do not know what is going on in the north. Cooperation with the northern counties

40 Based on interviews with reindeer herders in Kilpisjärvi, Karesuando and Kautokeino 41 Based on interviews with reindeer herders in Enontekiö (Hetta, Kilpisjärvi and Karesuando) 42 Based on interviews with reindeer herders in Kilpisjärvi, Karesuando and Kautokeino and researchers of the Biological research station 43 Based on interview with University of Lapland 44 Based on interviews with Enontekiö and Kautokeino municipality 45 Based on interview with Kiruna municipality 46 ibid

22

would be more beneficial, because of the similarities.47 However as elaborated on in chapter 6.4 this is not easy

due the language barrier.

Other important stakeholders in the area are the nature organizations: Metsähallitus which is managing

governmental lands on the Finnish side. In Norway this is Statskog, although the National Parks in Norway have

their own board. The forests on Swedish side are mostly privately owned. The differences between these

organizations in the various countries are too comprehensive to discuss in this report, but it is important to

realize that these differences make cooperation between the nature organizations more difficult. Both in Finland

and Norway these organizations cooperate well with locals and tourism entrepreneurs maintaining the

infrastructure in nature, making the unique fell area accessible and attractive for visitors.48 In Finland the

relation between Metsähallitus and the locals is disturbed because of the proposal of the National Park. Locals

think that Metsähallitus is not a neutral organization to investigate the possibilities of the National Park because

they will earn a lot of publicity and money with it. But Metsähallitus argues back that they are just doing the

exploration that the Ministry of Environment has addressed to them.49

As mentioned earlier the Sami lived in the area even prior to the nation state building and they are called

indigenous. This is due the right to self-identification as stated in United Nations article 33.50 According to the

Sami parliament being indigenous gives Sami “the right to maintain and develop their own language, culture and

traditional livelihoods.”51 These rights give Sami an important position in the area, because the traditional

reindeer herding is involved everywhere. For that reason the Sami parliament is also involved in many land use

issues in the area and they are supposed to be included in all negotiations.

The final stakeholder discussed is the Biological research station in Kilpisjärvi; they cooperate with Troms

University on the Norwegian side of the border. The Biological research station was founded in Kilpisjärvi in

1964 and is therefore one of the oldest stakeholders in the area. Since then they do a lot of research on

vegetation and species in the area, but also climate change. Their research plots are spread all over the area. For

example in the unique Malla district a lot of research is done, also some longer sequences to study variation over

the years. Therefore it seems understandable that the biological research station is not happy with reindeer

tramping endangered species in Malla. Some critique on the biological station is that they have had strong

opinions on some issues in the village which leads to a disturbed relation between the biological station and

some locals, mostly with some of the herders. Although, some of the herders do agree there is overgrazing in this

area.52

All together the three borders area has a complex structure of stakeholders, because many persons can be

counted in multiple groups and besides that opinions change on almost every subject. In an attempt to see the

whole picture of how the landscape is used in this area; the influence of the borders has to be included, since

they might have caused some of the earlier discussed problems.

6 - INFLUENCE OF THE BORDERS

Besides getting a broad view on how the area works and how the landscape is used, this research also aimed to

find out how the borders influence the area. The borders between Norway and Sweden (including Finland)

where officially established in 1751. The most important change this caused was that land was now owned by

Swedish or Danish crown.53 But luckily for the nomadic reindeer herders a Lapp Codicil was stated that Sami

47 Based on interviews with counties and municipalities 48 Based on interview with Metsähallitus and Reisa Nasjonal Park 49 Based on interview with locals of Kilpisjärvi and Metsähallitus 50 United Nations (2008), The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, published by United Nations, Article 33 51 Sami parliament (2008), The Sami in Finland, Sámi Parliament Publications 52 Based on interview with locals and the Biological research station in Kilpisjärvi 53 Forrest, S. M. (1998), Do fences make good neighbors? – The influence of territoriality in State-Sami relations, Simon Fraser University, Northern Britisch Colombia, page 48

23

reindeer herders were still allowed to cross the borders as they needed.54 In 1809 Sweden had to cede Finland to

Russia, which established the border between Sweden and Finland. But only when Russia closed down the

border between Finland and Norway completely in 1852 the traditional migration of the Sami was disturbed.

This let to migrations, Sami had to move more south in Finland or cross the border to Norway definite to find

proper summer and winter pastures. The same happened when Russia closed down the border with Sweden in

1889. Reindeer villages were split and reindeer herders from Karesuando had to migrate southward or to the

Arctic coast of Norway.55 The border between Sweden and Norway remained open according to the Lapp Codicil

of 1751, even when Sweden joined the EU and Norway did not. Thus the establishment of the borders have

created a complex situation in the border area which is discussed in this chapter along the various groups of

stakeholders.

6.1 - THE INFLUENCE OF THE BORDERS ON EVERYDAY LOCAL LIFE

Many of the interviewed locals say that the borders do not exist at all. They are free to move wherever they want

to go and whenever they want to go.56 Of course the locals know the borders are there, but many of them

appreciate the multicultural environment they are living in. This indicates that there is some interaction between

the different countries and cultures. This interaction is mostly on personal level, family and friends. Or people

are going fishing or shopping in the other countries.

Border shopping is also one of the most important reasons some local shops can exist.57 Because the differences

in prices many Norwegians cross the borders of Sweden and Finland to do some cheap shopping.58 This border

shopping is essential for local shops because the local people go to Kiruna, Hetta or Muonio to do some shopping,

because there are more different shops and it might be even cheaper, as already mentioned in chapter 5.1.

Then there are also some negative effects of living in the border region. One is the different legislation in various

countries. These differences can confuse locals, but can also lead to misunderstandings by tourists which in its

turn can lead to conflicts. Also as a result of different legislation some confusion in funding can emerge. One

example is the two schools in the small village of Kaaresuvanto/Karesuando, because they are funded on the

Finnish side and on the Swedish side, it would probably be cheaper if these schools are combined. Another

problem is that all acts have consequences in multiple countries, because they are so close related to each other

in this area. For example if snowmobiling is forbidden in Norway, the Norwegians go the Finland and Sweden

and they have more snowmobiling influencing their areas. 59

The language barrier is not seen as the biggest problem. It is not so easy to communicate when neighbors have

different mother tongues. But, Swedish and Norwegian understand each other quite well and besides that the

Finnish learn Swedish at school so they might also understand some of the other tongues. Furthermore most of

the locals in all three countries have a respectable knowledge of English, and in Northern Sweden and also in

Norway many speak Finnish as well. Aside of this the border area has its native language, the Sami language. This

is promoted extensively in Kautokeino, but also in Finland and Sweden road signs in Sami language can be

found.60 Although on one hand Sami language is common heritage of these Northern region, a lot of people

moved into this area the last 100 years and do not speak Sami at all.61

Even if the locals don’t experience the borders it gives enough troubles with legislation and with language. The

multicultural character of the area might diminish if the borders disappear, but it would also create some

opportunities.

54 ibid, page 49 55 Pennanen, J. & Näkkäläjärvi, K. (2003), Siidastallan, Siida Sami museum, Inari, page 138-139 56 Based on interviews with locals in Kilpisjärvi, Karesuando and Kautokeino 57 Based on a interview with Kilpisjärvi locals 58 Lorentzon, S. (2010), Shopping along the border in Norway and Sweden as engine of regional development,

Dep. of Human and Economic Geography, School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg, page 1 59 Based on interviews with locals in Kilpisjärvi, Karesuando and Kautokeino 60 Based on interviews with locals, municipality and Sami university College in Kautokeino 61 Based on interviews with locals in Kilpisjärvi, Karesuando and Kautokeino

24

6.2 - INFLUENCES OF THE BORDERS ON TOURISM

The borders give also opportunities for tourists, since they don’t experience borders as well. The borders can be

seen as an attraction for tourists, especially because they can freely move across the borders. Swedish people

visit the three border point and hikers cross all borders on the North Calotte trail. Thereby for Norwegian people

it is relatively cheap to recreate in Finland or Sweden which has led to about 200-300 Norwegian cabins,

summer cottages and caravans in Kilpisjärvi. These Norwegian people come to Kilpisjärvi every weekend or at

least every month and for longer periods in summer.62 Most of the Norwegian live and work in Troms, and come

to Kilpisjärvi to rest and relax. The fell area is also suitable for other activities like hiking, skiing. According to the

Kilpisjärvi locals also snowmobiling might be one of the main activities in Finland, because Norwegian legislation

is strict on snowmobiling. While the Kilpisjärvi tourism entrepreneurs profit from these legislation difference the

main focus in Karesuando is still on Finnish and Swedish tourists, although last year an English tour operator has

found the city.63

However the differences in legislation give some advantages, it also brings some disadvantages. It can lead to

confusion among tourists, for example about the fishing rules in Finland and in Norway in Reisa National Park,

this can even give small personal conflicts.64 But besides that the borders aren’t the biggest hurdle for tourism in

the area, the enormous distances are more difficult, although that is also one of the attractive things of the fell

landscape.

The local entrepreneurs of Kilpisjärvi tried to cooperate in transportation, but this did not work out well, so now

the Finns are trying they cooperate within their own country.65 There is also cooperation in providing activities

for wider range of companies and institutions, even from Troms, because there live more people there.

Cooperation on the North Calotte trail is going well; this is mostly done by Metsähallitus and National Park

boards.66 All together the borders have mostly positive effects on tourism, but cooperation across borders can

still be improved.

6.3 - INFLUENCE OF THE BORDERS ON REINDEER HERDING

In earlier times the nomadic Sami followed the natural movements of the reindeer. After closing the borders this

was impossible, because the Finnish reindeer could not go to their summer pastures anymore, and Norwegian

could not go to the winter forests. This affects the reindeer; it has to adapt its diet to these restrictions. This

could be one of the reasons extra winter feeding is necessary nowadays. On top of the extra costs this brings for

reindeer herders it also makes the natural dynamic of the herd numbers disappear. Reindeer numbers will not

decrease of food shortages, leading to bigger herds, which in its turn can lead to overgrazing of the pastures.67

Besides the reindeer, the establishment of the borders also effect herding. Herders in the border region now

have as a main task to make sure reindeers don’t cross the border to avoid fines and on that behalf they have to

maintain the border fences all the time.68

62 Based on interviews with Norwegian cabin owners 63 Based on interview with Karesuando visitors centre 64 Based on interviews with people from Reisa National Park 65 Based on interviews with tourism entrepreneurs in Kilpisjärvi 66 Based on interviews with people from Reisa National Park and Metsähallitus 67 Based on interview with University of Lapland 68 Based on interviews with reindeer herders in Kilpisjärvi, Karesuando and Kautokeino and Paliskunnat

25

Figure 19: the fence divides grazed and not grazed lands, the difference in amount of lichen can clearly be seen (Kaarantojärvi, Finland)

Since the reindeer herders were living their nomadic lives in the three border area long before the borders were

established, this establishment had an enormous impact on their lifestyle. The nomadic lifestyle was a remainder

of when the Sami did not herd, but mostly hunted the reindeer. In those days the Sami villages (siida) had

dynamic borders that were more fluent than the contemporary borderlines as becomes clear from the next

citation from Scott Forest’s paper on Sami territoriality.

“These divisions did not form linear boundaries so much as serve to denote the transition from

one area to another. It was possible for more than one siida to occupy a single territory, or more

commonly, share territory in the boundary zones between one another.”69

Establishment of the border, and even more closing the borders made this gradual border zones disappeared. It

became necessary to relocate many siida, because the summer and winter pastures were not in the same country

and could not be grazed legally anymore. Only the Norwegian and Swedish border continued the Lapp codicil,

but recently this agreement wasn’t ratified by all the reindeer herders of the Könkämä siida, which led to a

conflict these days.70 Despite of all this influences the one positive effect of these borders is that some smaller

herding entrepreneurs got the possibility to start herding.71

It had to be said that most of these problems were dealt with when the borders closed in the early 20th century.

These problems were solved by former generations of reindeer herders and today a complete new generation of

reindeer herders is raised acknowledging the borders and have never experienced how it was when reindeer

could still cross.72 The main problem Sami are still dealing with is caused earlier when the state claimed the

grazing lands of the Sami. Because Sami used the land seasonally for economic purposes, and the state claimed as

they say ownerless lands. That is why Sami still have to fight for their rights on land and resources.73

Because the Sami as culture lived all over the North Caledonian area in Finland, Norway, Sweden and Russia they

have many international contacts. Many herders have contacts at family level. Often families have reindeer on

both sides of the border, which leads to close cooperation for example when reindeer accidentally cross the

border.74 Secondly there is an overarching institute on reindeer herding, the International Centre for Reindeer

69 Forrest, Scott M. (1998), Do fences make good neighbors? – The influence of territoriality in State-Sami relations, Simon Fraser University, Northern Britisch Colombia, page 25 70 Oddasat.se (2013), Könkämä sameby stoppade renbetesavtal [English: Könkämä siida stopped grazing agreements] 71 Based on interview with Paliskunnat 72 Based on interviews with reindeer herders in Kilpisjärvi, Karesuando and Kautokeino, Paliskunnat and University of Lapland 73 Forrest, Scott M. (1998), Do fences make good neighbors? – The influence of territoriality in State-Sami relations, Simon Fraser University, Northern Britisch Colombia, page 45 74 Based on interviews with reindeer herders in Enontekiö

26

Husbandry which is settled in Kautokeino. Their main focus is to provide, to exchange and to develop

information and knowledge along authorities, herders, herding associations, researches and more.75

Thus most problems for reindeer herding caused by the establishment of the border are already solved and

contemporary reindeer herders have adapted to the current situation. Of course there are some exceptions, like

the issue with the Könkämä siida. A lot of cooperation across the borders is going on already because of the

international history of the Sami.

6.4 - INFLUENCE OF THE BORDER ON OTHER STAKEHOLDERS

Other stakeholders in the border areas are also influenced by the national border. For example the governmental

institutions on county-level who argue to have more in common with their fellow northern counties than with

the southern part of their own country. This is because of the similarities in climate, physical and natural

landscape, low density of habitation and the influence of Sami culture.76 However they claim that it is hard to

cooperate because of cultural differences. Examples are the preference for thorough research that has to be done

before acting in Sweden and the language barrier between Finland and Norway/Sweden. Despite of the fore

mentioned difficulties there is some cooperation between the countries and counties controlled by EU. Good

examples of this are the landscape convention of Florence in 2000 and the ILO 169 convention about the rights

of indigenous people, which is ratified by Norway already.

The municipalities deal with the same ideas. They would like to cooperate more, for example Kautokeino and

Enontekiö, because they have to deal with similar problems, as stated in chapter 5.4. Cooperation between

Kiruna and Enontekiö in the village of Karesuando is getting better and some projects are already completed.77

The nature organizations like Metsähallitus and the Statskog and the National Parks in Norway are cooperating a

lot. They join each other in international seminars and symposia. This cooperation is mostly on policy and

regional scale. On local scale there is some cooperation on the North Calotte route, but quite often the field of

work ends at the border, probably because they are not allowed to do tasks on the other side of the border.78 The

cooperation with these organizations is also quite poor with Sweden. They are not always attending in

international meetings and are difficult to contact according to multiple interviewed parties.79

The Sami culture has a long history across borders which is discussed in chapter 6.3. As an addition to that the

Sami parliament should be mentioned. This is the political institution which “is the representative body of self-

government of the Sámi.”80 This Sami parliament is settled in Finland, Norway and Sweden and they have three

meetings and one council every year. The Sami parliament advices national governments and other

organizations about Sami involvement, they supervise and promote Sami rights, conditions and language.81

Cooperation between researchers in this area is doing quite well; there are multiple contacts with universities in

Troms, Lulea, Umea, Stockholm, Oulu, Helsinki and Lapland (Rovaniemi). This is possibly caused by the

availability of the Biological research station in Kilpisjärvi which is used for many cooperative researches.82

To conclude it can be stated that locals, tourists and reindeer herders barely experience the borders, these

borders mostly exist on a governmental level. Especially municipalities and counties could improve cooperation

and maybe take an example in the nature organizations or the research institutes.

75 ICRH (2013), Website of the International Centre for Reindeer husbandry 76 Based on interviews with Fylkesmannen, Sami parliament, ELY Centre Finnish Lapland 77 Based on interview with Kiruna municipality 78 Based on interviews with Metsähallitus and Reisa Nasjonal Park 79 Based on interviews with counties, municipalities and own experience 80 Sami Parliament (2012), Brochure: The Sami parliament (English), The Sami parliament of Finland, Inari 81 ibid 82 Based on interview with Biological research station in Kilpisjärvi

27

7 - CONCLUSIONS

This research shows that it is impossible to analyze only one of the countries in this area, because they are all

related and connected across the borders. In this area the relation between nature and culture became very

clear, because the visual landscape and the peacefulness are reasons people live here, or come there to leisure.

Elaborated on the many interviews with experts and local stakeholders this chapter will list some of the

conclusions resulting from this research.

The physical landscape is a system which influences Finland, Norway and Sweden. The Caledonian mountain

range influences the climate and thereby the nature in all three countries. This relation is even better visible

looking at the natural landscape. The natural typologies sketched in chapter 4 shift gradually and are often

connected by the river valleys. When comparing the various stakeholders in the cultural layer it is incontestable

that the landscape is related across borders. Many of the interviewed people cross the border often and do not

experience there is a border at all.

However, the establishment of the borders have had a great impact in the area. Especially in former times, when

reindeer herding Sami were crossing the border yearly with their herds, closing the border caused many

migration flows in the area. On top of that many reindeer herders had to change their herding system, different

pastures and they were not able to follow the natural movements of the reindeer anymore. This made an end to

the dynamic way of herding and a herding system started to exist which was not led by natural processes, but by

human effort. Although the borders changed the tasks of a herder, most of the current day reindeer herders are

adapted to this new situation and much of these problems are solved now. But man could think that

contemporary problems like extra feeding the reindeer in winter time and thereby overgrazing is a result of

these former changes.

Besides the reindeer herders also the locals have adapted to the borders, they cross over whenever they want

and most of them feel the borders don’t exist; they do their shopping just as easy in Troms as they go to Kiruna

or Rovaniemi. Tourists are also adapted to the borders and also crossing borders on their fishing hikes or with

snowmobile. Borders are most visible for organizations and governmental institutions, because of differences in

legislation, but these organizations and institutions have managed to adapt to the borders as well and nowadays

they are cooperating across border quite often, although this could still be improved with the municipalities and

the counties.

There some negative aspects to borders. Mostly the legislation differences leads to confusion with tourist and

even to locals. The various rules for fishing and snowmobiling can even lead to small conflicts in the area. On top

of that the governments should realize that legislation in their country immediately affects the neighbouring

countries. Besides these negative effects of the legislation differences, the borders have also changed the

traditional reindeer herding culture of the area. Although, the herders have adapted, the identity of the area is

damaged, or at least influenced by the borders. The traditional nomadic lifestyle has changed completely, partly

due the borders. Contemporary Sami are still fighting to preserve their cultural history. This is of course partly

due nation building in the past as well. This nation building has created differences between the people of the

North, which were not recognized before.

On one hand the different languages do not make it easier to cooperate. On the other hand these cultural

differences make the people of the area feel multicultural, which is one of the reasons most of the locals

appreciate the area. So the borders can also have positive effects, the borders can even be an attraction like the

three border point and the transborder North Calotte trail. These positive aspects give possibilities to improve

tourism in the area, which can give some economic growth in the area as well. Just like the bordershopping

which is one of the most important sources of income in the area. The Norwegian bordershoppers in Finland and

Sweden keep local shops alive and thereby they keep the village alive. This is one example of the advantages of

different legislation, giving some more opportunities to provide in other countries shortcomings.

28

All in all, the borders had great impact in the area, but nowadays most people are adapted to this new situation.

This means that there is no need to remove the borders whatsoever. That would only unbalance the whole

society in this area again. People in this area should try to deal with some of the negative effects and use the

possibilities the positive effects of the borders give. Some suggestions on how to do this are pointed out in the

next chapter.

29

8 - SUGGESTIONS FOR A FLOURISHING TRANSBORDER LANDSCAPE

During this research some ideas came up on how to use the borders as catalyst for a liveable transborder

environment with a good balance in peacefulness and tourists to provide income for the local facilities. Of course

these are just suggestions. This is because it is not to a neutral outsider to tell the locals in this area what to do. If

changes are needed in this area it is for the locals and other stakeholders in the area to take chances and realize

whatever needed.

A first suggestion could be an encouragement to continue using the border as an attraction, maybe even expand

this on using the cooperation between countries as an attraction. For example the North Calotte hiking trail,

create some more of those and cooperate with accommodations on both sides of the borders, for example about

transport of gear and cars. Another idea could be, instead of creating National Park everywhere along the

borders create one of the first International Parks in cooperation with the other countries, this might attract

extra tourists. This is actually more logic from a natural perspective as well, because the landscape doesn’t stop

at the border, and the situation on the other side of the border will also influence the natural state of a National

Park. Overarching for these suggestions collective promotion could be improved, this saves all the entrepreneurs

time and is clearer for tourists. The traditional transborder herding could also be an attraction for tourists,

because maybe on small scale it is possible to open up the borders for reindeer herding, for example when

families herd on both sides of the border and this could bring the traditional way of herding back. In

contemporary society some extra income for the herders would not be declined and imagine how it would be for

tourists to join the traditional herders some days, sleeping in camps and taking care of the herd.

Another often mentioned issue is the difference in legislation. This can lead to misunderstandings and even

conflicts. That is why the countries should try to synchronize the legislation, at least on smaller issues, like for

example where to get permits for hunting or fishing. This should not be that hard to synchronize, and it would be

clearer to tourists and even to locals. The possibilities the differences in legislation give can still be profited, if the

countries make good agreements it can even be profitable for all parties.

The next suggestion is to make the village interesting whole year. Some of the entrepreneurs complained about

too less tourists in the off-season. Maybe together the entrepreneurs can come up with good activities for

wintertime, or at least to lengthen the season. The complete days of darkness is quite unique in Europe and

promoted well this could attract at least some more tourists, just like the Northern lights. This would keep the

village alive also in wintertime. And if it’s not for the tourists, make sure that there are activities for the locals in

wintertime. In the tourist season the entrepreneurs have to work hard, but the village is alive. It could be

suggested that the local social live could be developed more to keep the village alive in winter time as well and to

improve to local binding in this small communities. But, this suggestion will only work if all entrepreneurs work

together to promote wintertime and make sure the villages is lively whole year.

The final suggestion is to preserve your unique environment. The landscape and its peacefulness is why people

come to the area, so don’t spoil this with building tourist accommodations everywhere, and be aware of the

disturbance snowmobiling gives on the peacefulness. Be careful in the planning of buildings, try to concentrate

them so that most of the beautiful nature is still undisturbed. Additional benefit this gives is that all facilities are

closer together and people can walk outside, talking and socializing with other tourists or locals, which off course

brings more live into the city and also improves the bond between people.

This paper hopes to make the stakeholders aware that the landscape does not stop at the borders and that

Finland, Norway and Sweden should cooperate to preserve the unique landscape in the area. The natural values

as well as the cultural traditions are the most important aspects of this transborder landscape.

30

9 – REFERENCES

LITERATURE:

- Council of Europe (2000), European Landscape Convention of Florence in 2000, European Treaty Series

- No. 176

- Crossbill guides (2010), Finnish Lapland, Crossbill Guides Foundation, Arnhem, The Netherlands

This book is published in association with Metsähallitus, WILDGuides, KNNV Publishing and Saxifraga

Foundation. It is edited by John Cantelo, Brian Clews, Cees Hilberts, Riet Hilberts, Maarit Kyöstillä, Kari

Lahti, Olli Lamminsalo, Kim Lotterman, Matti Määttä, Päivi Paalamo, Manuela Seifert, Pekka Sulkava and

Tarja Tuovinen

- European commission: Sundseth, K. (2005), Natura 2000 in the Alpine region, Office for Official

Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg

- Faculty of Biosciences (2004), Presentation: Kilpisjärvi Biological Station, Helsinki University, Helsinki

- Forrest, S. M. (1998), Do fences make good neighbors? – The influence of territoriality in State-Sami

relations, Simon Fraser University, Northern Britisch Colombia

- Kauhanen, H. & Mattsson J. (2005), Mallan luonnonpuiston luontotyypit, In: Mallan luonnonpuiston

edited by Mikko Jokinen, METLA, Kolari

- Linderholm, H.W. et al. (2010), Dendroclimatology in Fennoscandia, Clim. Past

- Lorentzon, S. (2010), Shopping along the border in Norway and Sweden as engine of regional

development,

- Dep. of Human and Economic Geography, School of Business, Economics and Law, University of

Gothenburg

- Oksanen, L. & Vitanen, R. (1995), Topographic, altitudinal and regional patterns in continental and sub-

oceanic heath vegetation of northern Fennoscandia, Finnish Zoological and Botanical publishing board,

Helsinki

- Pantzare Information AB (2010), Facts about Norrbotten, GTC, Luleå

- Paliskunnat, Poro – Reindeer, the reindeer herders association, Rovaniemi

- Pennanen, J. & Näkkäläjärvi, K. (2003), Siidastallan, Siida Sami museum, Inari

- Raivo, P. (2002), The Finnish landscape and its meanings, in Fennia 180: 1-2, Helsinki

- Sami parliament (2008), The Sami in Finland, Sámi Parliament Publications

- United Nations (2008), The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, published

by United Nations

WEBSITES:

- Metsähallitus (2011), The wilds of Lapland – far away from everything, visited 21th of October

http://www.outdoors.fi/destinations/wildernessareas/Pages/Default.aspx

- PopulationRegister Center of Finland (15-9-2013), Statistics Norway (4-1-2008) and Statistics Sweden

(14-12-2011), visited on 30th of September 2013

http://en.wikipedia.org/, searched for various municipalities in Norway, Sweden and Finland,

- Oddasat.se (2013), Könkämä sameby stoppade renbetesavtal [English: Könkämä siida stopped grazing

agreements], visited on 9th of October 2013

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2327&artikel=5480681

- ICRH (2013), Website of the International Centre for Reindeer husbandry, visited on 9th of October

http://reindeerherding.org/about-us/

31

APPENDIX I – LIST OF INTERVIEWED PEOPLE

Name Organization Date

Peter Johansson GTK 14.8.

Jouni Pihlaja GTK 14.8.

Pirjo Rautiainen Metsähallitus 16.8.

Arja Vasama Metsähallitus 16.8.

Kauko Kuukasjärvi Local (Customs office) 19.8.

Satu Ahonen Entrepreneur (Haltimaa) 19.8.

Simo Vanhanpiha Entrepreneur (Tundrea) 19.8.

Jukka-Pekka Sutela Entrepreneur (Arctic Polar) 19.8.

Rune Benonisen Reisa National Park 20.8.

Odd Rudberg Reisa National Park 20.8.

Geir Reisa National Park 20.8.

Rauni Partanen Biological station 21.8.

Antti Ohenoja Metsähallitus 22.8.

Hann Rauhala Entrepreneur (Kilpissafari) 22.8.

Mikko Jokinen Metla 23.8.

Heikke Kaunanen Metla 23.8.

Kari Henttunen Paliskunnat 27.8.

Matti Särkelä Paliskunnat 27.8.

Pertti Itkonen Metsähallitus 28.8.

Ann-Heidi Johansen Fylkesmannen/Troms County 1.9.

Mikko Kärnä Municipality (Enontekiö) 2.9.

Tuomas Palojärvi Reindeer herder 2.9.

Kaisa Rautio Helander Saami University College 3.9.

Mikkel-Nils Sara Saami University College 3.9.

Anonymous Local (Saami Kautokeino) 3.9.

Pål Norvall Municipality (Kautokeino) 3.9.

Lasse Mäkitalo Municipality (Enontekiö - retired) 3.9.

Antero Järvinen Biological Station 4.9.

Elina Rouso-Karlsen Entrepreneur (Kilpisjärvi shop) 4.9.

Juha Tornens Reindeer herder 4.9.

Elli-Marja Kultima Local (Village association) 5.9.

Mats Eliasson Local (Karesuando) 6.9.

Armi Ylitalo Local (Karesuando) 6.9.

Anni Rautio Local (Karesuando) 6.9.

Juha Pahajoki Local (Karesuando) 6.9.

Per Ola Juuso Reindeer herder 6.9.

Timo Jokelainen ELY Centre 12.9.

Stefan Mikaelsson Swedish Sametinget 16.9.

Tapio Nykänen University of Lapland 18.9.

Telephone interviews Lisa Hörnström Nordregio 25.9.

Tero Mustonen Snowchange 25.9.

Maria Johansson Kiruna municipality 2.10.

32

APPENDIX II – A SELECTION OF THE INTERVIEW-QUESTIONS

‘…….’ could be the group or organization an interviewed person belongs to. For example locals, tourism entrepreneurs, reindeer herders, Metsähallitus, etc. Personal:

What is your function at ……….?

How long have you worked/lived there?

Organization:

What are the tasks and responsibilities of ……….?

Is reindeer herding profitable or is it subsidized?

How did ………. develop over time?

Physical layer: How do the physical conditions (soil, climate, water) influence the three border area and does this influence your work?

And if there are climate changes, what would be the effects on ……….?

Natural layer:

How would ………. define nature?

What is the value of the natural environment of the three border area?

How do nature preservation projects influence ………., now, in the past and in the future?

How do these nature protection projects influence on tourism?

How does tourism affect the nature protection areas?

Do the nature protection areas in Finland have different rules than the Norwegian or Swedish areas? Which flora and fauna is important for reindeer herding? Which habitats would be the best for herding, in summer and in winter?

Does reindeer herding influences nature?

Cultural layer:

How would you describe local culture, what are important moments, places and activities?

How would you define a local?

How do local people see the municipality?

Howis your relation with tourists, and how do they know what tourists want?

What facilities of Kilpisjärvi are only used by tourists and locals don’t care about? And the other way around?

How is your relation with traditional Reindeer herders/Sami?

How did Kilpisjärvi and its local culture change over time?

Is there another (cultural) group who influences culture in the three border area?

Which conflicts influence local culture in Kilpisjärvi?

Borders:

How do national borders influence the region, and how do they influence your work?

Do you cooperate with ………. from Sweden and Norway? Which people and why?

How does this cooperation work and on which points could it be improved?

Should the reindeer herders be able to cross the border again to the summer pastures on the coast?

Conlcuding:

What do you think should happen in this area on behalf of ……….? And how would that differ from reality?

Is there something I should take into account for you, while studying these transborder landscapes?