This article was downloaded by: [Universitetsbiblioteket i Oslo]On: 21 March 2012, At: 08:57Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of HeritageStudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjhs20

World Heritage and Indigenous rights:Norwegian examplesGro B. Ween aa Social Anthropology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

Available online: 13 Mar 2012

To cite this article: Gro B. Ween (2012): World Heritage and Indigenous rights: Norwegianexamples, International Journal of Heritage Studies, DOI:10.1080/13527258.2012.663779

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2012.663779

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

World Heritage and Indigenous rights: Norwegian examples

Gro B. Ween*

Social Anthropology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

(Received 11 October 2011; final version received 1 February 2012)

This article approaches Indigenous concerns with World Heritage through theuse of three Norwegian Sámi sites. The article argues the importance ofapproaching World Heritage as a process. A process, in this context, is amulti-sited, multi-dimensional coming into being. Exploring the ways in whichWorld Heritage sites are brought into existence provides the opportunity for acloser view of exactly how Indigenous rights are relevant. The three Norwe-gian Sámi cases examined confirm the need to maintain two perspectives ofthe use of Indigenous rights. Firstly, Indigenous rights are useful as a post-colonial trope, making visible the cultural gaze of World Heritage institutionsand processes. Secondly, heritage protection processes have a concrete impactupon the lives of a people. Significant themes in the course of such processesare opportunities of co-management; the continuation of cultural practices andopportunities for economic development. While Norway, internationally speak-ing, is recognised for its Indigenous rights initiatives, cases of heritage protec-tion have indicated the existence of several severe blind spots in the Sámirights implementation.

Keywords: Sámi; Indigenous peoples; Indigenous rights; representativity;co-management; sustainability

Introduction

The UNESCO World Heritage List aspires to protect the world’s most outstandingmonuments, natures and cultures for future generations of mankind. Since its estab-lishment in 1977, the list has become enormously popular. Logan (2012) refers to itas the ‘magic list’, expressing the status and expectation of benefits that come withit. To have one’s culture acknowledged as outstanding is obviously prestigious.However, despite its enormous popularity, the List has had some negative impacts.In this article, I explore Norwegian-Sámi experiences with World Heritage throughthree examples: Tysfjord-Hellemo, Røros and the Circumference and Ceávcca-geádgi. Following these three examples, I ask: Can Indigenous or Sámi rightsinstruments benefit Norwegian Sámi groups in the course of heritage protectionprocesses? A view of World Heritage inscription as a process is essential in order tograsp the complexities of this seemingly simple question. In the following pages, Iwill include details of how Norwegian Sámi sites are suggested, nominated andinscribed, as well as the consequences of these actions for the Sámi involved. Other

*Email: g.b.ween@sai.uio.no

International Journal of Heritage StudiesiFirst article, 2012, 1–14

ISSN 1352-7258 print/ISSN 1470-3610 online� 2012 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2012.663779http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

ket i

Osl

o] a

t 08:

57 2

1 M

arch

201

2

Indigenous and minority experiences are included throughout, for comparativepurposes.

Collecting for the future of humanity

As the authorised heritage discourse (Smith 2006), World Heritage is framed in asimilar trope as a number of other UN global environmental discourses. From apanoptical view, one imagines that it is possible to salvage and register orders, andcount every kind. Since 1972, a steady stream of new sites have been suggested,thoroughly evaluated, and a few have actually been approved. This process can beperceived as an ongoing mapping exercise. Each country that has signed the WorldHeritage Convention (1972) contributes to the ‘identification, nomination, protec-tion, conservation, presentation, and transmission to future generations of sitesfound on their territory’ (Operational Guidelines point 15a). Sites are forwarded tothe Commission as standardised documents, describing their ‘Outstanding UniversalValue’ (OUV). OUVs are assembled in precise processes by state institutions, inaccordance with existing bureaucratic and academic research practices.

Bringing a site into existence as a potential World Heritage item takes consider-able time and involves hard work from a number of actors. At each session of theWorld Heritage Commission, all state parties may submit up to two complete nomi-nations, provided that at least one of them is a natural property (Labadi 2005).Inscription on the List marks the end of a process that, in Norway, starts with initia-tives from local stakeholders, municipal politicians and regional authorities beingpresented for assessment to the Directorate of Cultural Heritage. Should a site sur-vive this evaluation process, it will be gradually transformed from a local to anational site, inscribed on the Norwegian tentative list.

Jokilehto (2011), who himself is a member of the World Heritage Committee,notes that in the beginning of the Committee’s existence, the outstanding value of asite was largely self-evident. For example, sites suggested included the Great Wallof China and the Galápagos Islands. Since then, the List has grown to host 911sites (Logan 2012). With this dramatic expansion of the number of sites, the size ofthe nomination dossiers has grown accordingly. Jokilehto (2011) argues that, inrecent times, it is the narrative and the site justification that determines its outstand-ing value, rather than the site itself. These narratives may change in the course ofthe site evaluation process. Jokilehto exemplifies using the city of Assisi, Italy. Ass-isi was first proposed for nomination simply as a medieval town. However, medie-val towns are not outstanding. Eventually, after evaluations, negotiations andrewrites, Assisi was inscribed on the World Heritage List as ‘central to the birthand expansion of the Franciscan movement, as well as the philosophy of St. Francisand his relationship with nature’ (Jokilehto 2011, p. 68).

This example clearly speaks against the cartographic trope of the authorisedWorld Heritage discourse. Sites are not out there, waiting to be discovered. Theimpression of an intrinsically objective OUV presented to the world at large is, as anumber of academics have pointed out, obviously a matter of perspective (Østigård2001, Smith 2006, Labadi 2007, Grahn 2011). The World Heritage Committee isalso well aware of this. What is defined as outstanding is continuously debated. Forexample, following the August 2010 session, the Committee observed that therewere 704 cultural, but only 180 natural and as little as 27 mixed sites on the List(Logan 2012a). On these grounds, the Committee decided to invite more applicants

2 G.B. Ween

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

ket i

Osl

o] a

t 08:

57 2

1 M

arch

201

2

from cultural sites outside of Europe, more sites that exemplify recent history, andmore natural or mixed sites (Labadi 2007).

Indigenous rights issues in World Heritage processes

In the context of World Heritage processes, Indigenous rights are relevant as analternative trope (Hayden 2007) that raises awareness of other measures of outstand-ingness, but also as concrete legal objections to particular points in World Heritageprocesses. As a trope, Indigenous rights forwards new issues of representation. Aswith any other kind of United Nations-authored list, the World Heritage List is astatus competition (Riles 2000). Having sites on the UNESCO lists testifies to anation’s cultural or natural beauty (Connerton 1986, Logan 2012a). Sites also autho-rise particular narratives of the past, at the exclusion of other landscapes and time-places, and therefore embody a potential to shape the future (Ashworth and Lark-ham 1994, Tunbridge 1994, Labadi 2007).1

However, the costs of becoming a World Heritage site involve more than a sym-bolic transference of ownership. According to the UNESCO Operational Guidelinesthat underlines the opportunities for sustainable use of sites, protection is a win-winsituation.2 Site protection represents new employment opportunities, both in thecourse of restoration and as part of heritage tourism. On the downside, peoplethemselves may become an attraction. Protection often involves surrendering con-trol; loss of self-determination and restrictions on existing lifestyles. Indigenousexperiences describe how local groups may become unwanted and how local usesmay become redefined as illegitimate (Jacoby 2001, Nustad 2011). In such cases,the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or the Interna-tional Labour Organisation Convention (ILO) 169 Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’Convention, may hypothetically offer protection. However, as the Norwegian pro-cesses will illuminate, it is not always clear and how Indigenous rights instrumentsare useful.

In the following section, I will illustrate why it is that Sámi or Indigenous rightsprotocols have not been terribly successful in aiding Sámi interests in NorwegianWorld Heritage cases. In these cases, Indigenous rights are relevant as a trope, andfor expressing a need for post-colonial redefinitions of existing narratives and cate-gories of aesthetics. At the same time, existing narratives of protection also haveconcrete consequences. These are exasperated by existing blind spots in the Norwe-gian implementation of existing Indigenous and Sámi rights obligations. Before Idescribe the Norwegian Sámi experiences of World Heritage, I must provide thereader with an understanding of the Norwegian Sámi rights situation.

Norwegian Sámi and their rights

The Sámi live in Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia. Sámi subsistence practicesinclude combinations of reindeer herding, farming, fishing, hunting and gathering(NOU 1984:4, Sillanpää 2002, Thuen 2002, Minde 2005, Ravna 2006, Ween2010). There are more Sámi in Norway than in the other countries,3 and Sámirights are also more developed within a Norwegian national state than in the othercountries with a Sámi presence. For the purposes of this article, the first relevantinclusion of Sámi rights into Norwegian law in contemporary times came in 1978,when Sámi cultural heritage received particular mention in the Cultural Heritage

International Journal of Heritage Studies 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

ket i

Osl

o] a

t 08:

57 2

1 M

arch

201

2

Act (Kulturminneloven). The new Cultural Heritage Act provided new recognitionof the existence of a Sámi history. It also acknowledged the particular nature ofSámi cultural heritage: Made primarily from organic, perishable materials, Sámi cul-tural heritage deteriorated faster and had to be protected at an earlier point (Fjell-heim 1999, Ween 2008) (see Figure 1).

At this point, Sámi politicians realised that in the absence of land rights, theCultural Heritage Act could be used to protect Sámi areas from development. TheAct could also be employed to establish new forms of Sámi self-determination asSámi administration of heritage (Fjellheim 1999, Ween 2006). The Cultural HeritageAct was also introduced in the beginning of Sámi land rights history. In 1979, theState decided to build a hydro-electric power plant in Sámi core areas by dammingthe Alta-Kautokeino River. Sámi attempted to use the new Cultural Heritage Act tohave the construction stopped (Paine 1982, Thuen 2002, Minde 2005). However in1982, the Supreme Court decided in favour of the Government (Berg 2004).Between 1979 and 1982, there were also large-scale demonstrations at the construc-tion site in Finnmark and hunger strikes outside the Norwegian parliament in Oslo,(Minde 2005). Although the Alta-Kautokeino River eventually was dammed, theseevents dramatically changed the view of non-Sámi Norwegian’s towards the Sámiwithin a national imagery. These events then led to the establishment of the SámiRights Commission (Minde 2005, Ween 2008). In time, its recommendations led tothe amendments of the Norwegian Constitution to include the Section 110a, popu-larly called the Sámi Act (Sameloven) (1988). This Act states that it is ‘the respon-sibility of the State to enable the Sámi to preserve and develop their language, their

Figure 1. Map of Sápmi.

4 G.B. Ween

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

ket i

Osl

o] a

t 08:

57 2

1 M

arch

201

2

culture and their way of life’ (translated in Sillanpää 2002, Minde 2005). Land andresources was considered a prerequisite to the maintenance and continuation of cul-ture (NOU 1984:18, Gintal 2010).

The Alta-Kautokeino conflict also empowered a Sámi civil society and contributedto identifying the Sámi as an Indigenous people. In 1990, Norway became the firstnation to sign the ILO Convention No. 169, on the Rights of Indigenous and TribalPeoples (Minde 2005). A few years after, in 1993, the Sámi Rights Commission pub-lished its propositions on the rights to land and resources in Finnmark (NOU1993:34). In 2003, the Finnmark Act, in acknowledgement of the Norwegian state’scolonisation and unlawful acquisition of the county of Finnmark, returned the land toits original owners, the inhabitants of the county (NOU 1997:4, Ravna 2006).

Despite all that has been accomplished, there are still a number of issues thathave not been dealt with. These are also highly relevant to World Heritage issues:The special mention of Sámi culture in the Cultural Heritage Act was not extendedto the Sámi cultural landscape, or to what non-Sámi Norwegians perceive as nature,or even wilderness. There is Sámi reindeer herding in two-thirds of Norwegiannational parks (Einarsbøl 2005). However, up until recently,4 environmental protec-tion legislation did not accommodate the concerns of Sámi reindeer herders (Riseth2007, Riseth and Holte 2008, Ween 2009). Nature protection was prioritised infront of the survival of the industry. Little was done to secure reindeer herders’ fairrepresentation in local national park management structures. With this connection,the resource geographer Riseth has pointed to that this could be improved byincluding the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) ProtectedArea Category VI ‘Protected Area with sustainable use of natural resources’ intoNorwegian environmental protection. This category would serve to recognise notonly the Sámi presence, but to acknowledge the sustainability of Sámi uses of thelands, allowing the co-presence of protection with ongoing sustainable use, as wellas new institutionalisation of Sámi rights concerns within nature protection pro-cesses and co-management (Riseth 2009, IUCN Guidelines).

Sami experiences of World Heritage

The three Norwegian heritage protection experiences involving the Sámi display someof the Indigenous dilemmas associated with World Heritage sites. In the first case,UNESCO and IUCN saw the Sámi cultural landscape as worthy of protection. How-ever, as the mixed site category does not exist within Norwegian natural resourcemanagement, this had no consequence for the people involved. In the second case, itwas another landscape that was considered worthy of protection, rather than the Sámi.The deletion of reindeer herding from the landscape narrative put local Sámi in anawkward negotiating position. In the final case, the value of protecting a Sámi land-scape is pitched against other sites worthy of protection within a larger heritage econ-omy. As significant for this case is an ongoing archaeological debate over what aSámi landscape is. This debate has consequences for the representation of Sámi on theNorwegian Heritage List, effectively eradicating an official Sámi prehistory.

Tysfjord-Hellemo National Park – the Norwegian Laponia?

What was to become the Tysfjord-Hellemo National Park is situated in Nordland,surrounding the deep green waters of Tysfjord, above the Arctic Circle in the Lule

International Journal of Heritage Studies 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

ket i

Osl

o] a

t 08:

57 2

1 M

arch

201

2

Sámi areas. Tysfjord is the Lule Sami centre. Nielsen describes the area as beingpredominantly Sámi up until the sixteenth century (Nilsen 1990). Today, Tysfjord isstill a vital Lule Sami cultural area and the home of several prominent Sámi politi-cians and cultural actors (Myrvoll 2010). The Tysfjord-Hellemo National Park wasfirst suggested in the New National Park Plan in 1992 (Ween 2009). At about thesame time, on the other side of the Swedish-Norwegian border, the Laponia areawas in the process of being inscribed on the World Heritage List.5 Eyeing theopportunity for a transnational Sámi site (a type of site the World Heritage Commit-tee had expressed an interest in), Tysfjord-Hellemo was soon proposed as an exten-sion. As was the case with Laponia, Tysfjord-Hellemo was suggested for theNorwegian tentative list as an UNESCO mixed site, acknowledging both its uniquenature and Sámi culture, as human–nature interaction (see Figures 2 and 3).

The Tysfjord-Hellemo National Park first had to become a reality. From thestart, local Lule Sámi leaders were remarkably efficient in resisting both the estab-lishment of the national park and the World Heritage nomination. Protesting LuleSámi leaders were aware of the growing troubles of Sámi reindeer owners in theSwedish Laponia. In Laponia, the two protection purposes (nature and culture) sooncame into conflict. Swedish environmental authorities complained about the damagecaused by motorised vehicles. Swedish Sámi reindeer herders protested that reindeerherding was forced into a position where they were present for tourism purposes,rather than as a contemporary, viable economic practice (Dahlström 2003, Green2009). Information of these troubles reached the Sámi on the Norwegian side. Inconnection with the proposed Norwegian extension, a local Lule Sámi leader,Anders Urheim, commented: ‘The Government parties want us to representourselves as a museum people for the UN and a spectacle for the world of tourists.We are about to become protected to death’ (Sagat 2003).

Figure 2. Map of Swedish Laponia and closeness to Norwegian border.

6 G.B. Ween

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

ket i

Osl

o] a

t 08:

57 2

1 M

arch

201

2

The acknowledgement of Sámi presence implied in the inscription of Laponia asa mixed site was also not mirrored in the suggested park management structure.Only after years of negotiation, as late as 2010, did the Swedish Sámi secure amajority of representatives on the management committee (Green 2009). Similarly,in the case of Tysfjord-Hellemo, Norwegian Nature Protection did not offer specialmention of Sámi rights. Lule Sámi leaders therefore made it clear that all nationalpark establishments should be postponed until the Sámi Rights Commission had fin-ished its inquiries into the rights in the areas south of Finnmark (NOU 2007:13).Unparalleled in the Norwegian history of environmental protection, the Ministry ofEnvironment agreed that the Tysfjord-Hellemo had a special position (Parliamentaryprp. No. 33, (2001–2002)). Towards the end of 2011, Tysfjord-Hellemo, the last ofthe parks named in the New National Park Plan of 1992, has still not become real-ity. As local acceptance and participation is a prerogative for World Heritage estab-lishment, the site in turn failed to qualify for further World Heritage development.

What happens to Sámi interest if the landscape deemed worthy of protection isnot their landscape?

Røros and the Circumference

To non-Sámi Norwegians, Røros is a picturesque sixteenth-century mining town inthe north of Østerdalen. However, Røros is also a central part of the southern Sámiarea, an area with long-standing reindeer herding traditions. The Sámi population inRøros has inhabited the area since time immemorial (Fjellheim 1999, NOU2007:13, Bergstøl 2008). Since the sixteenth century, conflicts with a growingnon-Sámi population have been ever present (Fjellheim 1999, Ween 2006) (seeFigure 4).

Røros was first admitted by World Heritage as an outstanding example of anearly industrial mining site (Gjaestrum 1999). In 2009, the Directorate of Cultural

Figure 3. Tysfjord.

International Journal of Heritage Studies 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

ket i

Osl

o] a

t 08:

57 2

1 M

arch

201

2

Heritage suggested an extension of the Røros site, called the ‘Circumference’. TheCircumference was originally brought into being by the King Christian IV as a cir-cle drawn around the Røros mining site when the copper mine was established. Bydrawing this circle, the King obligated the farming population inside to deliverwood to the mine. The site is considered an early industrial–rural cultural landscapeby the Cultural Heritage Directorate. In the World Heritage dossier, there aredescriptions of transport routes, the historical water supplies and the absence oftrees. With the exception of some historical photos, the dossier does not mentionthat the area also is the winter grazing land for several Sámi reindeer herdinggroups (Riksantikvaren 2009).

For many local Sámi, the establishment of the Røros Circumference was unset-tling. They argued that Røros was a reindeer herding area long before the coppermines were established. In their eyes, the mining in its time had served to banishthe Sámi from what had been their areas. The historical revision involved in makingthe Circumference an exclusive mining landscape was also painful because theSámi in this area already have suffered the loss of land in previous historical revi-sions (Fjellheim 1999, Ween 2006).

Such classifications are known to have practical consequences. The anthropolo-gist Nustad describes how site classification also has practical consequences for thepopulations involved. When iSimangaliso Wetland Park became a natural site it, inhis opinion, legitimised the deportation of local Indigenous people (Nustad 2011).The overall World Heritage, ambition of new economic activity also provideshindrances to ongoing subsistence activities (Jacoby 2001, Maikhuri et al. 2001,Palmer 2004). The reindeer owners in Røros feared that the reindeer would be dis-turbed by tourists and that the local Sámi would suffer loss of access to grazing

Figure 4. Røros and the Circumference.

8 G.B. Ween

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

ket i

Osl

o] a

t 08:

57 2

1 M

arch

201

2

land. The Sámi were worried that they would be included in the local managementof the Circumference when they were not part of the rationale of the protection pur-pose. Many were also concerned that the Sámi cultural heritage sites within the Cir-cumference would not be protected from the expected tourism developments. Toprotect their animals, the reindeer owners asked that new planning routines bedeveloped, to aid the co-existence of reindeer and tourists. However, these negotia-tions are still not over.

Ceávccageádge

Ceávccageádge is the Sámi name of a spiritual landscape that from a distanceappears as a mosaic of greens and grey stretching into the waters of Varangerfjordin Finnmark. Unjárga, (Nesseby) has always been considered a Sámi village,although the population today is more mixed. According to archaeologists, Ceávc-cageádge has been a settlement for 10,000 years; there has been a continuoushuman presence from the Neolithic era onwards. At this site, there is evidence ofhunting and fishing, as well as traces of religious activities. There are graves andsacrificial stones, as well as a labyrinth. The cultural heritage site is named aftersuch a sacrificial stone, the Ceávccageádge (or cod-liver stone). The Sámediggi(Sámi Parliament) has argued that Ceávccageádge is unique, both in the density ofexisting cultural heritage in the area, the time perspective manifested at the site, aswell as the multitude of different sites present. They also stress that Ceávccageádgeis a testament to living culture, as many Sámi still grow up with the same storiesand practices embedded within this landscape (Sametinget 2008) (see Figure 5).

Ceávccageádge was mentioned as a possible candidate to the Norwegian tenta-tive list in 2006. In contrast to Tysfjord-Hellemo and Røros, Ceávccageádge is asite that Sámi actively work towards having placed on the Norwegian tentative list.The Directorate of Cultural Heritage has not nominated the site, but keeps encour-

Figure 5. Ceávccageádge, the Rock.

International Journal of Heritage Studies 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

ket i

Osl

o] a

t 08:

57 2

1 M

arch

201

2

aging local stakeholders and Sámi institutions, explaining that the building of a dos-sier takes time.

With a nation state such as Norway, built upon the land of two peoples (theSámi and the Norwegian), it was felt that it should have a Sámi site on the list ofits World Heritage.6 To the Directorate of Cultural Heritage however, Sámi repre-sentativity is only one of many concerns to be juggled. Looking at the existing Nor-wegian List of inscribed properties, there is no doubt that the Directorate ofCultural Heritage has made sure to include a range of different kinds of significantpoints in Norwegian history, as well as a range of geographical sites presumed torepresent the entire nation: Rock Art of Alta, Bryggen in Bergen, Norwegian Pointson The Struve Geodetic Arch, Røros Mining Town, Urnes stave church, VegaArchipelago and West-Norwegian Fjords (Riksantikvaren 2007).

In line with the aforementioned World Heritage Commission’s expressed interestin nature sites, most sites on the Norwegian tentative list today are described assuch; examples being Lofoten and the Spitsbergen archipelago. Also, in line withthe recommendations of the World Heritage Committee, the Norwegian tentative listhosts examples of modern industrial sites, as with the towns of Rjukan and Odda.With similar recommendations in mind, the Directorate of Cultural Heritage hassuggested that Ceávccageádge would stand a better chance if it became a transna-tional site (as was the intention with Laponia). In its communication with the Min-istry of Environment, the Directorate of Cultural Heritage questions whether, giventhe existence of Laponia, there is a need for more Sámi sites. The Directorate alsoexpresses doubts about how Ceávccageádge would compare to other possible siteswithin the larger transnational Sápmi (Riksantikvaren 2007).

However, from a Sámi perspective, one could argue that the nomination ofCeávccegeádge on the Norwegian tentative list would represent a national post-colonial embracement. The post-colonial in this context refers to the inscription ofthe Sámi in national histories, but also to making explicit the politics of academicsite production. As mentioned above, the Alta rock carvings could have beendescribed as Sámi heritage, but they are largely not.7 This is because Norwegianarchaeologists argue that Sámi ethnicity only became a significant identity marker2000years ago. Although those who created the Alta rock carvings were the forefa-thers of the Sámi, it is argued that they did not at the time consider themselves assuch (Olsen 1986, Hesjedal 2001, Grahn 2011). This archaeological position, how-ever, serves to render a Sámi prehistory impossible (Hesjedal 2001). Ceávccageádgethen could become the first explicitly Sámi Norwegian World Heritage site. Ininsisting that Ceávccegeádge has been a Sámi site for 10,000 years, the Sámediggiimplicitly asks for a reevaluation of existing archaeological truths, with conse-quences for the inscription of the Sámi in official Norwegian history.

Conclusion: World Heritage and Indigenous issues.

How then, do these three cases contribute to a discussion of Indigenous rightsissues in World Heritage protection processes?

I started this article by underlining the necessity of regarding World Heritagesites as a process, as co-produced by a number of contributing factors. Asdescribed, World Heritage management struggle with issues of balance andrepresentativity at all levels. The World Heritage Committee is aware of this andhas strategies in place to decolonise its gaze, inviting the nomination of natural

10 G.B. Ween

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

ket i

Osl

o] a

t 08:

57 2

1 M

arch

201

2

sites, industrial sites, transnational sites and cultural sites outside of Europe. Still,summing up the three Norwegian cases this article has provided, there is a visiblelack of understanding of Sámi issues. I argue that the way this balance is tipping isnot accidental. As Smith states, cultural heritage management cannot be figuredapart from a nation’s ongoing negotiations over history and identity (Smith 1994).In the Norwegian Sámi cases, non-Sámi perceptions of landscape and history per-sist, to the detriment of Sámi interests.

With the World Heritage Committee’s efforts to include other sites, and as illus-trated by the classification of Laponia as a mixed site, it is evident that Indigenousrights can contribute to making other kinds of outstandingness visible. However,the World Heritage Committee’s efforts to achieve this have little impact if new cat-egories and amended guidelines are not also implemented in the protection work ofindividual nation states.

All three cases underline the significance of the classificatory aspects of site-making. In both Røros and the Circumference, the Sámi felt excluded and left outof the protection purpose. In Tysfjord-Hellemo, Sámi were suggested to be includedin the World Heritage process, but similar recognition was not offered within Nor-wegian environmental management regimes. Ceávccageádge illustrated another clas-sificatory difficulty, where the consequences of naming particular time-placesextended into the past as well as into the future.

The three examples of Sámi heritage processes make it evident that the catego-ries employed and the histories evoked in particular time-places have real-life, prac-tical consequences for local Indigenous people. In this respect, World Heritageprocesses do invite concrete legal objections to particular issues. However, the ques-tion is, when, in the course of a World Heritage process concrete legal objectionsshould be made. The cases discussed here, have raised a number of examples: inthe case of Laponia and Røros, reindeer owners must share land with new naturetourist initiatives. The World Heritage establishment hence brings a significant lossof useable land, as well as restricted access to existing resources (Dahlström 2003,Ween 2009, Nustad 2011). World Heritage establishment also leads to increaseddevelopment: areas must be made accessible; hence more roads. The buffer zonesurrounding the actual protected site creates room for tourists; it is made with con-sideration for accommodation, food venues, souvenir shops, parking lots and recrea-tional areas. As illustrated by Sámi demands in Røros and in Laponia, localIndigenous groups are rarely given control of what it is that should be developed(Jacoby 2001, Maikhuri et al. 2001). Norwegian Sámi experiences with nature pro-tection and national park development are that interventions are difficult to negotiatebecause there is little long-term planning. Instead, interventions are piecemeal andinvolve different stakeholders. Under such circumstances, individual cases neverreally become significant enough to be argued as Indigenous rights cases (Ween2009).

Sámi rights issues cannot, in other words, be solved piecemeal, as concreteailments in the course of particular protection processes. Instead, Indigenous rightsinstruments must be employed with a view of protection processes as an entirety.Indigenous rights must be included from the start, in a way that reconstitutes therelations between the parties involved. This is illustrated by the opportunitiesemerging with the new Nature Diversity Act (2009), which explicitly calls for theinclusion of local knowledge and Sámi knowledge into nature protection processes.As this Act is currently interpreted by the Ministry of Environment and the Direc-

International Journal of Heritage Studies 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

ket i

Osl

o] a

t 08:

57 2

1 M

arch

201

2

torate of Nature Management, it has brought moves to establish proper Sámi repre-sentation nature protection cases (Sametinget SAK 132/10). Although it is earlydays, the existing Ministry of Environment implementation of this Act signalsawareness that Indigenous or Sámi rights cannot be added as an afterthought to analready established or concluded heritage process.

AcknowledgementsThe author would like to thank the editors, Laurajane Smith, Amund Sinding-Larsen, StenerEkern and Bill Logan for all their help, and for insightful comments. In the writing process,Marit Myrvoll, Sverre Fjellheim, Lars Aage Brandsfjell, Audhild Schanche, Stine Rybråten,and Jon Petter Gintal, Thorstein Arisholm and Ellen Devold, have all offered their wise andkind advice. Finally, I would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for valuableinformation and comments.

Notes on contributorGro B. Ween (Dphil, Oxon) is postdoctoral fellow at the Department of Social Anthropology,University of Oslo. Prior to her current position, she held a fellowship at the NorwegianCentre for Human Rights (UiO). Her work concerns nature practices, in connection with legalanthropology, indigeneity and identity politics.

Notes1. As recognised in the title of the Norwegian Official Report on heritage management:

‘Past Shape Futures’ (NOU 2002:1).2. Nordic World Heritage Foundation: World Heritage and Tourism. http://www.nwhf.no/

index.cfm?oa=content.display&con=140.3. According to galdu.org: 40,000 in Norway, 20,000 in Sweden, 7500 in Finland and

2000 in Russia.4. As I will return to, this was changed with the introduction of the new Biodiversity Act

in 2009, which states that although nature protection shall be science based, sciencemust be complemented by local knowledge and particularly Sámi knowledge. Thisappears to have caused considerable changes in the Directorate of Nature Managementapproaches to local Sámi interests, however, the consequences of this law is just begin-ning to show.

5. The site was listed in 1996.6. As expressed by Norwegian High Court Judge, Carsten Smith, the leader of several

Sámi Rights Commission inquiries.7. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/352.

References

Ashworth, G.J. and Larkham, P.J., 1994. Building a new Heritage: tourism, culture andidentity in the new Europe. London: Routledge.

Berg, B.A., 2004. 25 år i skyttergravene? Fra kampen om Alta/Kautokeino vassdraget tilBondevik-regjeringens forslag om Finnmarkslov. Available from: www.galdu.org/doc[Accessed 7 June 2011].

Bergstøl, Jostein., 2008. Samer i Østerdalen? En studie av etnisitet i jernalderen og middel-alderen i det nordøstre Hedmark. Thesis (Phd). University of Oslo.

Connerton, Paul, 1986. How societies remember. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Dahlström, Å.N., 2003. Negotiating wilderness in a cultural landscape. Predators and Sámi

Reindeer Herding in the Laponian World Heritage area. Uppsala Studies in CulturalAnthropology no. 32. Uppsala.

Einarsbøl, E., 2005. Reindeer husbandry rights in Norway. Available from: www.galdu.org/doc [Accessed 7 June 2011].

Fjellheim, S., 1999. Samer i Rørostraktene. Snåsa: Saemien Sijte.

12 G.B. Ween

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

ket i

Osl

o] a

t 08:

57 2

1 M

arch

201

2

Galdu, 2006. Samene, en håndbok. Available from: http://www.galdu.org/govat/doc/nor_sa-mer.pdf [Accessed 13 June 2011].

Gintal, J.P., 2010. Naturen er vårt liv. Arran: Bårjås.Gjaestrum, J.A., 1999. När historia skapas: Berättelsen om ett världskulturarv i Røros. Tvärs-

nitt, 2 (21), 42–47.Grahn, W., 2011. Intersectionality and the construction of cultural Heritage management.

Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress, 7 (1), 222–250.Green, Carina., 2009. Managing Laponia. A World Heritage as arena for Sámi Ethno-poli-

tics in Sweden. Uppsala Studies in Cultural Anthropology no. 47. Uppsala.Hayden, C., 2007. Taking as giving: bioscience, exchange, and the politics of benefit-shar-

ing. Social Studies of Science, 37 (5), 729–758.Hesjedal, A., 2001. Samisk forhistorie i norsk arkeologi 1900–2000. Thesis (PhD). Univer-

sity of Tromsø.International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Guidelines-for-protected-area-manage-

ment-categories. http://www.iucn.org/about/union/commissions/wcpa/wcpa_puball/wcpa_ pubsubject/wcpa_categoriespub/?314/ [Accessed 14 June 2011].

Jacoby, K., 2001. Crimes against nature: squatters, poachers, thieves and the hidden natureof American conservation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Jokilehto, J., 2011. World Heritage: observations on decisions related to cultural heritage.Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 1 (1), 61–74.

Labadi, S., 2005. A review of the global strategy for a balanced, representative and credibleWorld Heritage List 1994–2004. Conservation and Management of Archaeological sites,7, 89–102.

Labadi, S., 2007. Representations of the nation and cultural diversity in discourses on WorldHeritage. Journal of Social Archaeology, 7 (2), 147–170.

Laponia Evaluations. IUCN and ICOMOS. 1996. Available from: http://whc.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/774.pdf [Accessed 7 June 2011].

Logan, W., 2012a. Cultural diversity, cultural Heritage and human rights: Moving towardsHeritage management as human rights-based cultural practice. International Journal ofHeritage Studies, 18 (3), DOI: 10.1080/13527258.2011.637573

Logan, W., 2012b. States, governance and the politics of culture: World Heritage in Asia. In:Patrick Daly and Tim Winter, eds. The Routledge handbook of heritage in Asia. London:Routledge, 113–128.

LOV 2009-06-19 nr 100: Lov om forvaltning av naturens mangfold (Naturmangfoldloven)[The Nature Diversity Act], http://www.lovdata.no/all/nl-20090619-100.html [Accessed 6May 2011].

Maikhuri, R.K., Nautiyal, S., Rao, K.S., and Saxena, K.G., 2001. Conservation policy – peo-ple conflicts: a case study from Nandi Devi biosphere reserve (a World Heritage Site),India. Forest Policy and Economics, 2, 355–365.

Minde, H., 2005. The Alta case: from the local to the global and back again. In: G. Cant, A.Goodall, and J. Inns, eds. Discourses and silences. Indigenous peoples, risks and resis-tance. Christchurch: University of Canterbury, 13–35.

Myrvoll, M., 2010. Bare gudsordet duger. Om kontinuitet og brudd i samisk vir-kelighetsforståelse. Thesis (PhD). University of Tromsø.

Nilsen, A.R., 1990. Fra steinalderen til 1700 tallet. Lødingen: Tjeldsund og Tysfjord Kom-muner.

NOU 1984:18. Om sameness rettstilling. Utredning fra Samerettsutvalget [Norwegian OfficialReport: on the rights position of the Sámi. Report from the Sámi rights commission].

NOU 1993:34. Rettigheter til land og vann i Finnmark. Utredning fra Samerettsutvalget[Norwegian Official Report. Rights to land and waters in Finnmark. Report from theSámi rights commission].

NOU 1997:4. Naturgrunnlaget for samisk kultur. Utredning fra Samerettsutvalget [Norwe-gian Official Report: nature as the foundation of Sámi culture. Report from the Sámirights commission].

NOU 2002:1. Fortid former framtid. Utredning fra Kulturminneutvalget [Norwegian OfficialReport. The past shapes the fuiture. Report from the cultural heritage commission].

NOU 2007:13. Den nye sameretten. Utredning fra Samerettsutvalget [Norwegian OfficialReports. New Sámi law. Report from the Sámi rights commission].

International Journal of Heritage Studies 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

ket i

Osl

o] a

t 08:

57 2

1 M

arch

201

2

Nustad, K., 2011. Property, rights and community in a South African land-claim case.Anthropology Today, 27 (1), 20–24.

Olsen, B., 1986. Norwegian archaeology and the people without (pre) history: how to createa myth of a uniform past. Archaeological Review, 5 (1), 25–42.

Østigård, T., 2001. Norge uten nordmenn. En antinasjonalistisk arkeologi. Oslo: Spartacus.Paine, R.P.B., 1982. Dam a river, Damn a people? Sámi (Lapp) livelihood and the Alta/

Kautokeino hydro-electric project and the Norwegian Parliament. Copenhagen.Palmer, Lisa, 2004. Fishing lifestyles: ‘Territorians’, traditional owners and the management

of recreational fishing in Kakadu National Park. Australian Geographical Studies, 42(1), 60–76.

Ravna, Ø., 2006. Recognition of Indigenous peoples’ land rights through modern legislation.The case of the Sami people in Norway. Oslo: Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Riksantikvaren, 2007. Trangt om plassen på Norges tentative liste. Available from: http://www.riksantikvaren.no/?module=Articles;action=Article.publicShow;ID=4359 [Accessed13 June 2011].

Riksantikvaren, 2009. Røros Mining Town and the Circumference. Norwegian Nomination2009 for extension of WHS Røros Mining Town. Available from: http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/nominations/55bis.pdf [Accessed 14 June 2011].

Riles, A., 2000. The network inside out. Ann Arbour: University of Michigan Press.Riseth, J.Å., 2007. An Indigenous perspective on National Parks and Sámi Reindeer man-

agement in Norway. Geographical Research, 45 (2), 177–185.Riseth, J.Å., 2009. Which good for whom? Indigenous interests challenging conventional

protection typologies: Norwegian conservation vs. Sámi subsistence. Unpublished paper.Riseth, J.Å. and Holte, A., 2008. Rennäring och nationalparker i Norge. In: C. Sandström,

S. Hovik, and E.I. Falleth, eds. Omstridd natur. Trender och utmaningar i nordisk natur-förvaltning. Umeå: Borea, 269–290.

Sagat, 2003, Sámi newspaper, 4 February, p. 3b.Sametinget, SAK 132/10. Verneprosesser i samiske områder [Sámi Parliament, case 132/10.

Protection processes in Sámi areas].Sametingets miljø og arealmelding, 2008. Å leve på landet på landets vis. Available from:

http://www.sametinget.no/fil.asp?MId1=3429&FilkategoriId=37 [Accessed 13 May 2011].Sillanpää, L., 2002. Government responses to Sámi self-determination. In: K. Karppi and J.

Eriksson, eds. Conflict and cooperation in the North. Umeaå: Umeaå Universitet.Smith, L., 1994. Heritage management as postprocessual archaeology? Antiquity, 68 (259),

300–309.Smith, L., 2006. Uses of Heritage. London: Routledge.Thuen, T., 2002. In search of space: challenges in Sami ethnopolitics in Norway 1979–2000.

In: K. Karppi and J. Eriksson, eds. Conflict and cooperation in the North. Umeaå:Umeaå Universitet.

Tunbridge, J.E., 1994. Whose Heritage? Global problem, European Nightmare. In: G.J. Ash-worth and P.J. Larkham, eds. Building a new heritage: tourism, culture and identity inthe new Europe. London: Routledge.

Ween, G.B., 2006. Sørsamiske sedvaner: Tilnærminger til rettighetsforståelser. Diedut. Nor-disk samisk institutt.

Ween, G.B., 2008. Indigenous land rights in Norway: does Norwegian Indigenous landrights developments have relevance for Africa?. Oslo: Kartverket.

Ween, G.B., 2009. Blåfjell-Skjækerfjell Nasjonalpark: Naturforvaltning som produksjon avnatur/sted. Norsk antropologisk tidsskrift, 2009 (1–2), 95–108.

Ween, G.B., 2010. Making places and politics: indigenous uses of cultural Heritage legisla-tion in Norway and Australia. In: G. Minnerup and P Solberg, eds. First World FirstNations. Internal colonisation and indigenous self-determination in Northern Europeand Australia. Sussex: Sussex Academic Press.

14 G.B. Ween

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

ket i

Osl

o] a

t 08:

57 2

1 M

arch

201

2