In November 2022, the Swedish government, represented by Rural Affairs Minister Peter Kullgren, announced its intention to dissolve the Reindeer Husbandry Committee. This committee was established, in the wake of the landmark Girjas ruling, to investigate and clarify the question of who holds the right to allocate hunting and fishing permits in the Swedish mountain regions. The Girjas ruling, a Supreme Court decision from 2020, granted the Girjas Sami village exclusive rights to manage small game hunting and fishing on their traditional lands. This decision, based on the Sami people’s ancestral land use, created a precedent with significant implications for the remaining 50 Sami villages in Sweden. The committee was tasked with determining whether this right extended to other Sami villages or if the state retained authority.
In August 2023, the Committee issued a preliminary report indicating that the Sami villages, and not the state, likely held the right to manage hunting and fishing. This conclusion sparked widespread controversy and criticism from various stakeholders, including the Swedish Hunters’ Association, several municipalities, other organizations, and even government agencies. Minister Kullgren defended the government’s decision to dissolve the committee, citing the ”extensive” criticism of the report and the need for the government to ”reassess” the issue. This explanation did not satisfy all parties, and Emma Nohrén, chair of the Parliament’s Environment and Agriculture Committee and spokesperson for the Green Party on rural affairs, took the significant step of reporting Minister Kullgren to the Constitutional Committee.
Nohrén strongly criticized the government’s handling of the situation, characterizing it as ”incredibly poorly managed.” She emphasized the importance and sensitivity of the issue, arguing that the government’s decision to dissolve the committee further complicates matters and potentially violates existing law. Specifically, Nohrén pointed to the legal requirement for the government and other state entities to consult with Sami representatives before making decisions that could significantly impact them. She argued that the government’s announcement of the committee’s dissolution at a press conference, before consulting with Sami representatives, contravened this legal obligation. This omission, according to Nohrén, formed the basis of her complaint to the Constitutional Committee.
The context surrounding this dispute is complex and rooted in long-standing tensions regarding land rights and the historical treatment of the Sami people. Prior to the Girjas ruling, the Swedish state controlled the allocation of hunting and fishing permits in the mountain regions, a practice dating back to 1993. This arrangement was challenged by the Girjas Sami village through a lawsuit initiated in 2009 by the Swedish Sami National Association (SSR). The subsequent Supreme Court victory for the Girjas Sami village was a landmark moment, reaffirming their ancestral rights and challenging the state’s authority.
The Girjas ruling, however, did not explicitly address the rights of other Sami villages, leading to ongoing legal battles. Currently, five separate lawsuits are pending, with various Sami villages suing the state for the same rights granted to the Girjas Sami village. These ongoing legal proceedings highlight the significance of the Reindeer Husbandry Committee’s work and the potential consequences of its dissolution. Former Chancellor of Justice Anna Skarhed expressed dismay at the government’s decision, describing it as “a bolt from the blue” and lamenting the wasted effort invested in the committee’s work. She criticized the government’s apparent disregard for the substantial research and findings compiled by the committee, characterizing it as “fact-resistant.”
The government’s move to dissolve the Reindeer Husbandry Committee has therefore been met with significant opposition and raises questions about the future of hunting and fishing rights in the Swedish mountain regions. It has also sparked concerns about the government’s commitment to consulting with Sami representatives on matters of vital importance to their community. The case now rests with the Constitutional Committee, which will investigate whether the government acted within the bounds of the law and determine the appropriate course of action. The outcome of this process will have significant ramifications for the relationship between the Swedish state and the Sami people and the management of resources in the contested territories.
