1. Recognition of Sami rights in Norway
The Government and the Sámediggi in Norway differed in their understanding of the
substantive content of article 14 of the Convention [concerning land rights]. The Government
interpreted its obligations under article 14 to be limited to ensuring a strongly protected
usufruct right to lands and natural resources for the Sami, whereas the Sámediggi believed
the State is obliged to recognize and protect Sami rights of ownership and possession, as
well as usufruct rights. The difference between the positions of the Government and the
Sámediggi as far as the land rights provisions were concerned established serious constraints
for their cooperation and dialogue within the framework of the periodic reporting to the ILO
(Henriksen, 2008: 5).
In April 2003, the Norwegian Government submitted a bill to the national parliament on the
regulation of land rights in Finnmark (the Finnmark Act). As noted by Henriksen:
The proposal was strongly criticised by Sami institutions, legal experts and international
entities for not meeting the international legal requirements for recognition and protection
of Sami rights. This forced the National Parliament to enter into a direct dialogue with the
Sámediggi regarding the contents of the Act (Henriksen, 2008: 9).
The guidance provided by ILO Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations played a key role in helping the parties to appreciate the obligations under
Convention No. 169. The Committee noted in its comments to Norway in 2003:
In light of the differing interpretations of what was occurring, the Committee cannot be
sure whether the consultations at this time remained open to the Sámediggi being able to
influence their outcome; it is apparent that there was a breakdown in confidence between
the two sides, though sporadic consultations were still being held in a different form from
previously (CEACR, 2003: 15).
The Committee of Experts also emphasized the importance of a process leading to a correct
interpretation of the adequacy of the contents of a given proposal:
The process and the substance are inextricably intertwined in the requirements of the
Convention, and in the present conflict. It appears to the Committee that if the Sámediggi,
as the acknowledged representative of the Sami people of Norway, were to agree to the
proposal, they could accept this solution as a resolution of the claims of land rights
which have long been the subject of negotiation between the Sami and the Government.
The adoption of the Finnmark Estate without such agreement amounts, however, to an
expropriation of rights recognized in judicial decisions in Norway and under the Convention
(CEACR, 2003: 19).
Over the course of 2004, the Government renewed its efforts to consult the Sámediggi and
in June 2005, the “dialogue process concluded with the adoption of a radically revised and
amended Finnmark Act by the National Parliament” (Henriksen, 2008: 9).
Given the controversies about consultation procedures in the process leading to the adaptation of the Finnmark Act, the Sámediggi and the Norwegian Government agreed that continued debate about the interpretation of the duty to consult was undesirable. Accordingly, in
March 2004, it was agreed to establish a joint working group, comprising two representatives
of the Sámediggi and three representatives of the Ministry of Local Government and Regional
Development (Kommunal- og regionaldepartementet – KRD). The mandate of the working
11