3. Implementation experiences
Parliament can conclude special consultation agreements concerning specific matters, as
may be necessary.
With regard to the implementation of the PCSSP, the Committee notes that the Government
and the Sami Parliament, in some instances, express differing views on whether or not
the agreed consultation procedure has been respected. These differences appear to be
related principally to the issue of whether a consultation has been initiated early enough,
to uncertainties as to whether a consultation process on a specific matter has actually
commenced or concluded and to whether certain announcements made by state authorities
during a consultation process amount to a lack of good faith. For instance, the Sami
Parliament considers that the Government prematurely announced its position on how to
deal with Sami rights in the new Mining Act in March 2008, before consultations had been
concluded. The Committee welcomes the PCSSP as a significant step towards ensuring
that consultations, in accordance with the Convention, take place with regard to all matters
affecting the Sami directly, and looks forward to receiving continuing information on its
implementation and on any special agreements with regard to specific matters. Welcoming
the apparently increasing number of consultation processes, the Committee encourages
the Government and the Sami Parliament to consider ways and means to address and
settle disagreements regarding the PCSSP’s application, particularly with regard to the
abovementioned differences, in a timely fashion. Noting that under the PCSSP, the
state authorities are to inform the Sami Parliament “as early as possible” about the
“commencement of relevant matters which directly affect the Sami”, and emphasizing
that consultations should be initiated as early as possible to ensure that indigenous
peoples get a real opportunity to exert influence on the process and the final outcome, the
Committee hopes that the Government will take the measures necessary to ensure that
these requirements are applied fully and systematically (CEACR, 2009).
In his 2011 report, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples analysed
the consultation procedures as follows:
The Special Rapporteur considers this agreement to represent good practice with respect
to implementation of the duty of States to consult with indigenous peoples, which provides
an important example for the other Nordic countries as well as for countries in other
regions of the world (Anaya, 2011: 17).
At the same time, the Special Rapporteur raises a few concerns:
Certainly, to some extent, the Sami parliaments’ participation in decision-making affecting
the Sami people is facilitated by the establishment of clear consultation procedures.
(…) Norway has signed a consultation agreement with the Norwegian Sami Parliament.
However, the Sami Parliament has stated that while “the procedures for consultations gave
Sámediggi a better influence on the Government’s policies in Sámi issues [,] experiences
with the consultation agreement [have been] mixed. There [are] still challenges regarding
traditional Sámi ways of living and industrial developments.” Also, representatives of the
Norwegian Sami Parliament expressed concern that the Government has at times entered
into consultations having already decided on outcomes. However, the Special Rapporteur
observes that, if correctly applied, the consultation procedure provides an important tool
for the advancement of Sami rights and the improvement of relations between the Sami
people and the Norwegian State (Anaya, 2011: 39).
35