Beyond Consultation with the Sámi: Exploring Co-Management Possibilities!

At the High North Dialogue 2026, held in Bodø from April 22–23, I participated as an invited speaker in a side event titled “Arctic Transportation Corridors: Governance, Resilience, and Security of Supply.” The session was organized by Nord University, Nordlab, the Arctic Six Chair on Transportation Corridors, in collaboration with the Norwegian Public Roads Administration and the Arctic Centre at the University of Lapland. It focused on Arctic infrastructure planning and highlighted a critical governance gap: the lack of meaningful multi-actor engagement and transparent processes.

In my intervention, I emphasized the need to better integrate Sámi institutions into shared governance frameworks when planning transportation corridors—both nationally and across borders in the Nordic region. I argued that current approaches must move beyond consultation and toward meaningful co-governance if the rights of the Sámi are to be effectively protected, particularly their ability to influence decisions that directly affect their lands, livelihoods, and culture. During the session, I raised concerns that planning processes across the Sápmi region still rely heavily on so-called consultation mechanisms that do not grant Indigenous institutions real decision-making authority. While the Sámi are recognized as Indigenous peoples and benefit from a range of international human rights protections, these frameworks are applied unevenly across Norway, Sweden, and Finland. I noted that core human rights treaties safeguard cultural protection and participation, while instruments such as ILO Convention No. 169 and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) further reinforce consultation and participation rights, including the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC). However, in practice, these rights often remain procedural and complex, falling short of delivering transformative outcomes.

As I emphasized in my presentation, consultation ensures that Sámi voices are heard, but it does not necessarily ensure that those voices influence outcomes—particularly in the absence of co-governance structures. Across the Nordic countries, Sámi Parliaments function as representative institutions, yet their mandates vary and remain limited in terms of formal decision-making power. In my analysis, existing governance models fall short of true co-governance, with most systems stopping at consultation or, at best, partial co-management. I pointed to examples such as Norway’s Finnmark Estate, where Sámi representatives share certain land management responsibilities, as well as consultation arrangements in Finland and Sweden related to land use and conservation. Despite these developments, I noted that large-scale infrastructure projects—such as transportation corridors—remain predominantly state-driven.

To illustrate these challenges, I presented the Arctic Railway project as a key case study. The proposed rail connection between northern Finland and the Norwegian coast, crossing Sámi homeland areas, raised significant concerns among Sámi communities due to its potential impacts on reindeer herding, land use, and cultural practices. Although consultations were held and Sámi institutions were invited to provide input, I underscored that the process did not include any shared decision-making authority. There was no joint governance structure, no requirement for Sámi approval, and no institutionalized co-management framework. Therefore, opposition increased between 2018 and 2020, with Sámi representatives and civil society organizations claiming that the process failed to meet FPIC standards, citing issues with timing, transparency, and limited Indigenous participation. The project was ultimately canceled in 2021, with Sámi opposition widely seen as a major factor.

I concluded that the Arctic Railway case highlights broader structural challenges in Arctic governance. Although consultation frameworks are often introduced, there is still a lack of institutional arrangements that allow real power-sharing between states and Indigenous peoples. The discussion that followed engaged participants in exploring how governance models could evolve to address these gaps. Suggestions included establishing joint decision-making bodies, involving Sámi institutions earlier in project design, and developing clearer procedural standards for implementing FPIC in practice. Overall, the exchange reinforced a growing recognition within Arctic policy circles: sustainable development in the High North depends not only on economic and environmental considerations, but also on the inclusion of Indigenous governance systems as equal partners in decision-making—especially when decisions directly affect their communities.

-       Kamrul Hossain