FIGHTING for EXISTENCE Exposing, Questioning and Moving Beyond Colonial Practices Within the Swedish Planning Framework for Mining Establishments

Örebro Universitet HumUS-institutionen Kulturgeografi

FIGHTING FOR EXISTENCE Exposing, questioning and moving beyond colonial practices within the Swedish planning framework for mining establishments.

Emma Rasmusson

Master thesis in Public Planning for Sustainable Development, Human Geography Spring, 2017 Tutor: Mats Lundmark

ABSTRACT The aim of this thesis is to centre three people’s stories, their experiences and understandings of the Swedish planning framework for mining establishments. The stories centred are from Sami people whom in different ways analyses, questions, challenges and changes the diverse expressions of colonialism, racism and capitalism within this framework. Through centring indigenous and decolonial planning this thesis tries to expose colonial planning practices and how indigenous knowledges, worldviews and perspectives are made marginalised. But at the same time it reformu- lates, reconstruct and reimagines planning where non-hierarchical and relational thinking is centred. This thesis is made through guidance of (mainly) indigenous and decolonial theories, methodologies and methods.

Keywords: decolonial, indigenous, planning, Sami, colonialism, capitalism, resistance.

2 THANKS Without Sarakka, Matti and Hanna Sofie it would not have been a thesis. I am extremely grateful and I feel very honoured to have been given the opportunity to listen to their stories, to be able to discuss and think with them. I hope that this thesis re- spectfully reflects your stories and experiences, and that we will continue to discuss these issues at several occasions. As your ally, I will continue to expose colonial, racist and capitalist systems in the Swedish society.

3 Contents ABSTRACT ...... 2 THANKS ...... 3 INTRODUCTION ...... 5 Purpose and questions ...... 6 Outline of thesis ...... 7 Introduction and contextualisation ...... 7 Theoretical framework ...... 7 Methodologies and methods ...... 7 Conclusion and some final thoughts...... 7 Limitations ...... 8 One part of many stories – what this thesis can contribute with ...... 8 Contextualisation ...... 8 Colonisation of Sápmi ...... 8 Planning frameworks (for mining establishments) ...... 11 International research on indigenous and decolonial planning ...... 11 Planning framework for mining establishments in Sápmi...... 12 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK - DECOLONIAL THINKING...... 17 Contextualising western planning ...... 18 Colonial thinking ...... 19 Decolonial thinking ...... 19 Indigenous and decolonial planning ...... 20 METHODOLOGY AND RESPECTFUL RESEARCH ...... 24 Location ...... 24 Yarning and the interview process ...... 25 Finding people to talk to ...... 25 Yarning ...... 26 Method – Listening and give space to stories ...... 27 Questions to navigate through their stories ...... 28 Reflections on the research process in general ...... 28 EXPOSING, CHALLENGING AND MOVING BEYOND COLONIAL PLANNING ... 30 Colonial views of Sápmi ...... 30 Centring own views of Sápmi and land usage ...... 32 Historical perspectives on planning ...... 34 Navigating within the planning framework ...... 37 Strategies ...... 41 Demand economic compensation ...... 41 Using your rights ...... 42 Stressing the system and going to court ...... 44 Practicing reciprocity ...... 45 The necessity to fight ...... 45 Think outside the (colonial) box ...... 47 CONCLUSION, FINAL THOUGHTS AND FUTURE STUDIES ...... 50 REFERENCES ...... 53 APPENDIX ...... 66 Map over Sápmi ...... 66 Rights relating to indigenous people ...... 67 The mining establishment process ...... 68 Interview questions ...... 69

INTRODUCTION This thesis centres the stories of three people, their experiences and understandings of Swedish planning frameworks for mining establishments. The stories are told by Sami people who in different ways have been challenging, discussing and critiquing mining establishments in Sápmi. The Sami peoples are the indigenous peoples whose land has been divided by four countries: Norway, Sweden, Finland and Rus- sia1 (Lantto, 2010; Lundmark, 2008). Sápmi is the traditional and/or homeland of the Sami peoples, and it is here the great majority of mines and minerals are located (e.g. Haikola & Anshelm, 2016; Lawrence & Åhrén, 2017; Müller, 2013; Ojala & Nor- din, 2015; Sehlin MacNeil & Lawrence, 2017). The exploitation through mining is to be understood as one of the greatest challenges of Sami cultural survival of today (Gärdebo, Öhman & Mayuryama, 2014; Liliequist & Cocq, 2014). There is a historical and on-going ignorance in Sweden when it comes to colonisation of Sápmi (e.g. Larsson, 2014; Liliequist & Cocq, 2017; Ojala & Nordin, 2015; Omma 2013; Sehlin MacNeil & Lawrence, 2017; Sköld, 2005). In the foreword to Reclaiming Indigenous Planning (Aubin, 2013) we can read:

Today, Indigenous communities have to fight to remain relevant on the environmental, social, political, and economic local, national, and international agendas or they will find themselves planned out of existence (p. xvi).

Thus when I asked one of the participants if it was anything else she wanted to add in the end of our conversation, it was no surprise that she answered “we can’t choose not to engage, not to fight. Because then it's over”. Even if it was no surprise it definitely puts the finger on why there is a need, a must, to discuss these issues. Indige- nous and decolonial planning is a practice that continuously evolves and differs depending on “cultural, temporal, and spatial contexts” (Matunga, 2013, pp. 3-4). In a very simplified manner Indigenous planning can be described as centring indigenous worldviews through decolonial practices; expose colonial planning traditions, processes and practices. Centring indigenous knowledges, experiences and worldviews. Decolonisation could be defined as a critique against colonialism based on an idea of overturning colonial structures and “realize indigenous liberation” (Waziyatawin and Yellow Bird, 2012, p. 3). The context for the planning framework for mining establishment is to be seen from a perspective where issues concerning land and water should be understood as a struggle to have the right and the possibility to define and determine one’s own life and one’s own relationship to land (Matunga, 2013). To talk in broad generalisations indigenous relations to land is many times described in relational terms where you live in reciprocal relationships with the land including its resources (e.g. Fur, 2006; Gaski, 2008; Kovach, 2009; Kuokkanen 2000; Lundmark 2008; Rydberg 2011; Sandström, 2017; Stammler & Ivanova, 2016; Tuhiwai Smith, 1999). This is in opposition to where humans own and control land and resources. There is an imbalance of these different ways of relating and defining land due to colonialism, capitalism and neoliberalism (e.g. Kovach, 2009; Kuokkanen 2000; Sandström, 2017) and this needs to be exposed when talking about planning frameworks for mining establishments.

1 See appendix for map over Sápmi.

5 As a non-indigenous person, it has been important to me to use indigenous and decolonial research and knowledges. I acknowledge my position as a Swedish person where I am privileged due to colonial histories. In this position, I see myself as having a responsibility to try to be an ally in continuous exposing, analysing, discussing and centring stories relating to Sweden’s on-going colonial history (Mutua & Swadener 2004; Noxolo, Raghuram & Madge, 2009). I went to see CO2lonialNATION, by Giron Sámi Teáhter, a documentary form of play that works as a truth commission2 and that deals with the relations between the Sami and its colonizing states (Finland, Sweden, Norway and Russia). They told us non-indigenous people in the audience that we cannot share their stories because we have not experienced them, but we could serve as witnesses. We could testify about the stories that were about to un- fold. We as Swedes needed to do something about our culture, because it is not healthy in how it has treated and still treats Sápmi and the Sami. This thesis can hopefully be understood as a way of testifying. I am going to use my position to be guided by research that analyses and problematize power relations and highlight experiences, ideas and stories that challenge these power relations (Baer, 2008).

Purpose and questions

The purpose is then to centre stories, experiences and understandings of Swedish planning frameworks for mining establishments. Exposing colonial planning practices is one part of indigenous and decolonial planning frameworks; how indigenous knowledges, worldviews and perspectives are marginalised. To expose how these asymmetrical relations are exploitative and requires a never-ending increase of land consumption (Matunga, 2013). At the same time, it is about ”reformulation, reconstruction, reimagination” of planning in relation to indigenous worldviews (Jojola, Walker & Natcher, 2013; see also Jojola, 2008). Departing from these ideas I have formulated three main questions:

How is the planning framework for mining establishments experienced and exposed? How is indigenous and decolonial planning described, experienced and practiced? How is planning “reformulated, reconstructed and reimagined”?

2 ”CO2lonialNATION” is a production by Giron Sámi Teáhter, the theatre of the Sami people. A truth commission’s task is to discover and reveal past offenses by, for instance, a government with the aim to resolve conflict leftovers from the past (that still affects today’s socities). During 2015 the work for the establishment of a truth commission was started. The Discrimination Ombudsman (dis- krimingsombudsmannen) and the Sami parliament is working together in order to make visible all the injustices and assaults that the state has done towards the Sami people. Parallel to this and a step towards reconciliation between the Sami and the Swedish church the white paper De historiska rela- tionerna mellan Svenska kyrkan och samerna (Lindmark & Sundström, 2016) deals with how the church has been treating the Sami people and their historic support for race biology (Liliequist & Cocq, 2017).

6 Outline of thesis

Introduction and contextualisation I will firstly outline the context needed for the thesis; the colonial history of Sápmi. I focus on those parts of Sápmi that is within the borders of Sweden. I will briefly mention research concerning indigenous and decolonial planning in general on an international level. I will then move on to connect the historical perspective of colonisation of Sápmi to today’s planning framework for mining establishments, I highlight research that can be related to indigenous and decolonial planning. Then I will under- line a few specific rights concerning the Sami people that are good to know of in relation mining.

Theoretical framework The focus is on indigenous and decolonial research but I will also use ideas from critical theory in general like post-colonialism and black feminism (Brown & Strega, 2005). I will discuss colonial ideas versus indigenous and decolonial ideas where knowledge production, power and ideas of “truth” and “objectivity” will be highlighted. I then will describe western ideas of planning to continue on to indigenous and decolonial planning where I will emphasise ideas of relational thinking, understanding of place, knowledge production and stories.

Methodologies and methods I have centred indigenous and decolonial methodologies, through these I will for instance locate myself (self-reflexion) and talk about respectful research. I will further highlight the importance of stories and listening to stories (e.g. Kovach, 2005). I describe and discuss the interview process where I was inspired by Yarning, that can briefly be described as a semi-structured interview method that is like a more relaxed and informal conversation (Bessarab and Ng’andu, 2010). I would like to point out that in my conversation I have used Kovach (2005) ideas of an indigenous way of constructing knowledge ”fluid, non-linear, and relational” (p. 27). With the ideas of informal conversation and “fluid” and “non-linear” I have tried to be led, and to follow and to listen to the movements of the stories and see where they take us. Therefore, this thesis might be understood as pointing in too many directions at the same time. But I see it as some sort of mapping of experiences where different dots are not connected to each other in a linear fashion in accordance with western views of knowledge production. I admit that it has been a little bit of a challenge to do it this way in relation to what is demanded of me when it comes to finding appropriate previous research for instance. I have tried my best.

Then I will focus on the stories and experiences of Sarakka, Matti and Hanna Sofie whom I will present later. Through indigenous and decolonial methodologies I have quite good tools for being navigated through their stories. Conclusion and some final thoughts. I will end this thesis with a conclusion where I also share a few final thoughts.

7 Limitations

I have chosen to limit my thesis to planning frameworks for mining establishments concerning those parts of Sápmi that is within the borders of Sweden. I am not going to dig deep into laws, regulations and policies. Neither will I give a detailed description of all the steps in the mining establishment system. Instead I have focused on the participants experiences where you of course relate to laws, regulations, policies and the mining establishment system. But I will centre Sarakka, Matti and Hanna So- fie’s experiences and understandings rather than a never-ending description of the complexities of these legal systems and/or mining establishments systems.3

I have chosen not to include research relating to activism and social movements even though they also touch upon issues discussed in this thesis, instead I have chosen to use indigenous and decolonial planning framework since it has a “strong tradition of resistance” with a focus on rights and self-determination (Matunga, 2013, p. 5).

One part of many stories – what this thesis can contribute with

This thesis, like all stories, is not in any way complete. It should be seen as one part of many stories that are exposing colonial planning practices and centring indigenous and decolonial planning. What I hope to contribute with is creating more space for stories, experiences and practices relating to indigenous planning and decolonial planning. Kuokkanen (2009, 2011) talks about the importance of an intersectional perspective on colonialism. When reading research both regarding planning of Sápmi and other indigenous land I missed some aspects such as gender identity and sexuality. “Too often these issues have been seen as peripheral to the larger struggles against colonialism, too often cis-heteropatriarchal normativity has been justified in the name of decolonization” (Unsettlingamerica, 2015, see also Driskill et al., 2011). I have tried to include these aspects as a way to centre the relational and holistic perspectives.

Contextualisation

Colonisation of Sápmi This contextualisation of the colonisation of Sápmi is not an all-inclusive historic summary, rather it can be seen as a part of (hi)stories that are heterogeneous, diverse and where there is not one single “truth” (e.g. Chilisa, 2012; hooks, 1992; Kuokkanen, 2000; Said, 1978; Tuhiwai Smith, 1999).

3 There is a short description of the mining establishment system in the appendix. If wanting to know even more about the system of regulations when it comes to mining visit the webpage of The Geologi- cal Survey of Sweden, SGU (the expert agency for issues relating to bedrock, soil and groundwater in Sweden). If wanting to read more about mining legislation in relation to Sápmi and Sami rights in all countries Sápmi stretches over read Koivuroa (2015).

8 The different impacts of Sweden’s (on-going) colonisation of Sápmi and the Sami have been written about and been exposed in several studies (e.g. Allard 2006; Brännlund 2015; Fur, 2006; Lantto 2010, 2014; Lantto and Mörkenstam 2008, 2015; Lawrence, 2014; Lundmark, 2008; Mörkenstam, 2005; Ojala & Nordin 2015; Sköld & Lantto 2000; Utsi, 2007; Össbo 2014). They expose colonisation of Sápmi through different exploitive industries, displacements and enforced relocations, language as- similations, race biology “investigations” and enforced Christianity, just to mention a few aspects.

The Swedish state’s interests in Sápmi’s natural resources in the form of minerals grew around roughly the 1600’s. But the Sami people’s way of using the land they lived on and their rights to it were generally acknowledged and also quite respected (e.g. Lundmark, 2008; Sehlin MacNeil, 2017). This respect might have been due to the depiction of Sápmi “as worthless no-man’s land” (Baer, 1982, p. 14). During the 1800’s the intensification of the state’s interest in Sápmi’s natural resources in- creased. Through industrial developments and securing and legitimizing the boarders of the nation state, colonisation of Sápmi was a fact (e.g. Baer,1982; Korpijaakko- Labba 2005; Lantto, 2010; Lawrence, 2014; Lawrence & Åhrén, 2017; Lundmark, 1998; Päiviö, 2011).4 Sápmi went from being seen as a “worthless no-man’s land” to “Sweden’s depot of raw materials, the equivalent of Africa and India for England” (Baer, 1982, p. 14). In order to use this “depot of raw materials” the earlier respect for Sami land rights became an obstacle and was down played, even if not totally extin- guished it was made less and less acknowledged. Instead the Sami was “given” the right to use the land that was now claimed by the state that can be put in relation to how settlers were given ownership rights to farmlands (e.g. Baer, 1982; Korpijaakko- Labba, 2005; Lawrence & Åhrén, 2017; Lundmark, 1998, 2008; Mörkenstam, 1999; Päiviö, 2012; Össbo, 2014). Colonial and racist images of the Sami was built into policies, laws and regulations where the Sami people was understood as an inferior race; incapable of development, unsuitable for land ownership and too dumb to manage their own affairs (e.g. Baer, 1982; Lundmark, 2006, 2008; Mörkenstam, 1999; Päiviö, 2012; Össbo, 2014). The Sami did not use their land in accordance with Swedish (and western) understandings of a “civilised” way of using land such as cul- tivation (e.g. Lawrence & Åhrén, 2017; Lundmark, 2008). Össbo (2014) describes re- writing of history as a colonial technique to claim land. The Sami did not have a “real” history; there were no archives due to oral (hi)story tradition (Lundmark, 2008; Öh- man & Wyld, 2014). Hence, the state needed to take care of business through their rational, policy-based bureaucratic systems (Össbo, 2014).

One policy area that is specifically discussed in previous research is the “Lapp shall be Lapp” 5 (“Lapp ska vara lapp”) and the ideas of “the Real Sami” (e.g. Lantto 2012; Lundmark, 2008). The nomadic reindeer herding6 Sami was to be understood as “the real Sami” and was portrayed to be unfit to be exposed to “civilisation” and could only live as a nomad, this understanding was supported by racist “science” (Lantto 2000; Lundmark, 2008; Mörkenstam 1999, 2005). Non-reindeer herding Sami were to be

4 If you want to know more about colonial and racist histories regarding Norway, Finland and Russia read for example: Jernsletten 1993; Mörkenstam 1999; Brännlund, 2015. 5 “Lapp” is a racist term used for the Sami, this word is still in use and there is a province in Sweden (landscape) that is called “Lappland” for instance. 6 Reindeer herding is not only a way to make an income; it is intimately linked with the Sami culture and has traditions very far back in time (Sametinget, 2017a).

9 assimilated into the Swedish society, this was a way to keep the Sami people in the mountain regions where the land could not really be used for anything else than reindeer herding anyways (e.g. Lundmark, 2008). This had devastating consequences regarding for instance housing, schools and livelihoods in general (Lantto 2012; Lundmark, 2008; Sehlin MacNeil, 2017). Sami rights to use the land they lived on was then gradually transformed into specific rights in relation to reindeer herding (e.g. Lantto, 2012; Sehlin MacNeil, 2017) through for instance the first Reindeer Grazing Act in 1886 and the following changes and updates of that act in 1898, 1928 and in the Reindeer Husbandry Act of 1971 (Lantto, 2012; Sehlin MacNeil, 2017). These acts have created a segregation of the Sami people that still exist today where Sami land rights according to the Swedish state is connected to reindeer herding even though a majority is no-reindeer herding Sami (e.g. Allard 2006; Lundmark, 2008; Mörkenstam 1999). The Sami people do have specific rights to land due to their position as indigenous people. I will get back to this later.

Through these acts the organisation of reindeer herding was to be managed within, what today is called, Sameby (Samebyar in plural) (Cocq, 2014). The Sameby is an economic organisation consisting of reindeer herding companies that manage a specific geographic area. To practice reindeer herding you have to be a member of a Sameby (e.g. Löf, 2014; Sehlin MacNeil 2017). These laws, regulations and control of Sami land usage lead to displacements and forced relocations whose effects are still present today (e.g. Lantto 2012; Lawrence & Åhrén, 2017). Kuokkanen (2009; 2011) discusses how the Sameby-system did not pay attention to the already existing Siida-system. The Siida-system was the Sami’s own way of planning and organising land usage. An extended family system and a smaller community where self- governance and collective decision-making was practiced (Kuokkanen, 2009; 2011). It was dismantled and incorporated into colonial and capitalist economy systems which has led to many gendered consequences like divisions of labour just to mention one. It is pointed out that the state’s laws, regulations and policies tried to weaken Sami women’s’ positions, but they were unofficially still strong in Sami communities (Kuokkanen, 2009; 2011, see also Amft, 2000; Fur, 2006; Knobblock & Kuok- kanen, 2015; Liliequist, 2017; Ryd, 2013 for further discussions of gendered effects of colonial laws, regulation and policies).

It is discussed how policies and rationalisation processes continued during for instance the 1950’s and 1960’s to re-produce colonial ideas in Swedish Sami policies (Lantto & Mörkenstam, 2008). The state was portrayed as modern and intellectual with a focus on technical advancements and democratic consciousness, and in terms of these rationalisation ideas reindeer herding (again) were seen as ”underdevel- oped” (Lantto & Mörkenstam, 2008).

It is important to highlight previous research that discusses how organisation, resistance, mobilization and fighting for rights have always been parallel stories to oppression. Since roughly the 1900s, Sami organisation have worked at local, national and international levels to highlight and strengthen rights to land, to identities, languages, cultures, world-views and self-determination (e.g. Lantto & Mörkerstam, 2008; 2015; see also Liliequist (2017) who writes specifically about women within Sami rights movements).

Finally, I want to highlight discussions of how the Swedish state does not admit and acknowledge its position as a colonial state. The official position is that Sápmi was

10 never subject to colonialism (e.g. Fur 2013; Johansson 2008; Össbo 2014). The discussion of the reason why is partly based on the “salt water” doctrine; colonising only happens when the colonized territory (and its people) is geographically separated from the colonising state/power (Lawrence & Åhrén, 2017; Össbo, 2014).7 The state ignores the stories, the experiences, the documentations and the testimonies of colonisation (e.g. Brännlund 2015; Kuokkanen, 2006; Lawrence 2014: Össbo, 2014). It is also discussed how many different consequences of colonisation of Sápmi that is still present in today’s society such as experiences of racism, discrimination and psychological health problems (DO, 2008; Lönn, 2014; Omma, 2013; Simma et al, 2017; Stoor, 2016). 8

Planning frameworks (for mining establishments) There has not been particularly much written about indigenous and decolonial planning on an international level (e.g., Berke et al. 2002; Hibbard and Lane 2004; Jojola, 2008; Lane and Corbett 2005; Lane and Cowell 2001; Lane and Hibbard 2005; Walker, Jojola & Natcher (eds.), 2013). It seems reasonable to point out that it has not been so much written in English, the other language that I read and speak. And the language that is hegemonic within western academia. When narrowing down to concerning mining establishment in Sápmi I found even less (e.g. Lawrence & Klock- er Larsen, 2017; Lawrence & Åhrén, 2017; Sehlin MacNeil, 2017). If I had used only literature written by people with indigenous experiences then it would be much more limited. I want to point out that it does not mean at all that these kinds of research or these kinds of knowledges do not exist, rather it can be seen as a sign of what planning is thought to be and who writes about it within academia (e.g. Kovach, 2009; Kuokkanen, 2000; Tuhiwai Smith, 1999).

International research on indigenous and decolonial planning Anyhow, we get to understand how planning for wind power development has had devastating interferences on indigenous land in Canada in the name of “greater good” (Booth & Muir, 2011; Windsor & McVey, 2005). The effects of mining are also discussed where indigenous lands are viewed from an economic profitable perspective (Booth & Muir, 2011). Coombs, Johnson & Howitt (2012) are discussing planning frameworks and rights to land from an Australian, American and New Zealand perspective. Indigenous knowledges and communities tend to be excluded from mainstream western planning frameworks in spite of ideas of “co-management”, deliberative-and dialogue oriented ideals (e.g. Hibbard, Lane, and Rasmussen, 2000; Jojola, 2008; Jojola, Walker & Natcher, 2013; Lane and Corbett 2005; O’Faircheallaigh and Corbett 2005; Porter, 2006; 2010; Ugarte, 2014). There is a critique and exposing of how (the top-down) planning approaches in United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand is a continuation of colonial, capitalist and discriminatory practices where planning already performed by affected indigenous communities is ignored (Hibbard, Lane, and Rasmussen, 2008; see also Matunga, 2013). Booth & Muir (2011) problematize how, in Canada, planning with/for indigenous people still to a

7 I also want to point out that Sweden colonized areas that were separated geographically as well, like in Saint Barthélemy (Thomasson, 2013). 8 See for instance Sami radio’s series of programs and their hash tags #vardagsrasismmotmig- somsame #árgarasismamuvuostásápmelažžan #aarkerasismamovvööstesaemine (everyday racism towards me as Sámi) (Sveriges Radio, 2017)

11 great extent is performed by non-indigenous, white and middle-class people (see also Berke et. Al, 2002; Ugarte, 2014). Except from the critique of planning framework we can also find texts where indigenous peoples take the matter in own hands where they resist decisions made concerning intrusions and exploitation of land (e.g. Jojola, Walker & Natcher, 2013).9

Planning framework for mining establishments in Sápmi. The colonial and racist history of the exploitation of Sápmi should be understood as a back-drop to the current situation regarding mining. 10 I will discuss previous research through three headlines: Mining Paradise, Environmental Assessment Impacts and “the possibilities” to participation, National interests and ideas of “the common good” and Rights and definitions.

Mining Paradise As a reminder, the majority of existing and planned mines are to be found in Sápmi. Sweden has through laws, policies and regulations established some kind of neoliberal capitalist mining paradise where growth and profit are keys to success (e.g. Hai- kola & Anshelm, 2016; Müller, 2013; Lawrence & Åhrén, 2017). A liberal environmental regulation, minimal political risks, pretty much non-existent royalty fees11 and an investment security have downplayed Sami national, regional and local rights in fa- vour of growth (Alarik; 2014; Beland Lindahl et al, 2016; Haikola & Anshelm, 2016; Lawrence & Åhrén, 2017; Müller, 2013; Ojala & Nordin, 2015; Sehlin MacNeil, 2015). The Sami Parliament (2014) states for instance that the Mineral Act is nothing more than an exploitation act, with the intention to increase the knowledge about the mineral assets in order to supply the nation and the world’s “needs” for minerals. Coloni- al rationalities are re-used, re-shaped and re-produced through market relations where an economized valuation of natural resources is the main way to understand nature and its resources (Nyström, 2014). The Mineral Strategy has been critically examined in a few studies (e.g. Haikola & Anshelm, 2016) where the state is more or less a facilitator of industrial expansion with the aim to attract multinational companies (e.g. Haikola & Anshelm, 2016; Sametinget, 2014). The mineral strategy is also said to use an imagery of Sápmi as “un-touched” nature and reproduce the colonial idea of how Sámi land usage has been constructed as “non-civilized” (Andersson & Cocq, 2016; Haikola & Anshelm, 2016).

9 In relation to this the resistance against Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) could be seen as indigenous and decolonial planning (Stand with standing rock, 2017). I did not find any research done yet on this. 10 It also serves as a back-drop to hydropower, wind power and similar developments. If you want to read more about how colonialism in different ways affect planning processes relating wind power, hydropower and other aspects of land usage: Allard (2006), Össbo (2014), Öhman (2009) Reimerson (2015, 2016), Lönn (2014), Grahn (2011). 11 Royalties are paid by the owner or the operator of a mine to compensate for natural resources that are extracted. Lawrence & Åhrén (2017) estimated the mining royalties because the wanted to prove a point and their estimation shoed how Sweden deprives the Sámi of roughly 100 million euro annually, simply by not applying the same standard as other comparable countries.

12 Environmental impact assessments and “possibilities” to participation Svonni’s report “Samisk markanvändning och MKB” (2010) was a part of a bigger project initiated by the Sami Parliament and Swedish Sami Association (SSR) concerning land usage and planning. The report focuses on the process with the environmental impact assessments (EIA). The EIA is understood as the main opportunity for the Sameby to explain to concerned parties, such as authorities granting mining permits and mining companies, their perspective on land usage in relation to reindeer herding for instance (Svonni, 2010). While Svonni (2010) focus on EIA as an opportunity to influence there is critique against the preconditions regarding the EIA process. Even though mining companies are by law forced to do an EIA it is more of a one-way communication (Lawrence & Klocker Larsen, 2017). The Mineral Act is also “recommending” mining companies to consult with affected actors where a Sameby could be such an actor, but it is more to give a heads up regarding already decided plans (Alarik, 2014; see also Sehlin MacNeil; 2015; Spiliopoulou Åkermark & Talah, 2007). According to the Reindeer Husbandry Act there is support to view that the reindeer herders through the Sameby is a concerned party (Svonni, 2010).

A few studies show how the EIA does not fully take into consideration Sami knowledges and worldviews (Andersson & Cocq, 2016; Grahn, 2011; Haikola & Anshelm, 2016; Lawrence & Klocker Larsen, 2017; Sehlin MacNeil, 2017; Svonni, 2010). Svonni (2010) describes Sami worldviews where humans are only one part of a whole system that constitutes the living environment; a holistic worldview. The living environment consists of the surrounding land, nature, histories, languages, natural resources and your relation in this wholeness (e.g. Kuokkanen 2000; Rydberg, 2011; Sandström, 2017; Utsi, 2007; Åhrén, 2014; Öhman & Wyld, 2014). Several scholars have discussed how the experience and understanding of place is more than the geographical location. Rather it is about visibility of a people, a history and understandings of nature (Cocq, 2014; Liliequist & Cocq, 2017, 2014; Rydberg 2011; Utsi 2007). Therefore, the environmental effects of an exploitation have a strong connection to social, historical and cultural effects in the local Sami community (Andersson & Cocq, 2016; Grahn, 2011; Haikola & Anshelm, 2016; Lawrence & Klocker Larsen, 2017; Sehlin MacNeil, 2017; Svonni, 2010). Svonni (2010) also describes how this differs from the predominant Swedish planning frameworks where nature and man, nature and culture are seen as separate entities (see also Lawrence & Klocker Larsen, 2017). Sami perspectives of what are to be considered as important impacts to take into consideration when making the EIA are made invisible (Lawrence & Klocker Larsen 2017; see also Tarras-Walberg, 2014). It is then quite difficult for Sami people to recognize oneself in it due a focus on mainly technicalities performed by “special- ists” like engineers and consultants (Lawrence & Klocker Larsen, 2017; Svonni, 2010). It is also noted that EIA enters at a very late stage in the process that makes the chances of influence extremely limited (Grahn, 2011; Haikola & Anshelm, 2016; Lawrence & Åhrén, 2017; Lawrence & Klocker Larsen, 2017; Sehlin MacNeil, 2017). These different “possibilities” to influence is presented as a privileged given by the state and the mining companies – and not as a right (Sehlin MacNeil, 2015). The linkage between the historic phases of colonialism when the state constructed the Sami as unfit to take care of their own matters and the contemporary “possibilities” to influence is shown by several studies (e.g. Lantto, 2012; Lantto & Mörkenstam, 2008; Lawrence & Åhrén, 2017; Lawrence & Klocker Larsen, 2017; Mörkenstam, 1999). There have been deliberative democratic ideals during the last two decades, still colonial ideas are reproduced. Sami knowledges and ways of planning are excluded from existing planning frameworks (Beland Lindahl et. al, 2016; Lawrence & Åhrén,

13 2017; Lawrence & Klocker Larsen, 2017).

In “The politics of planning: assessing the impacts of mining on Sami lands” (Law- rence & Klocker Larsen, 2017) community-based impact assessment (CBIA) as a planning tool is tried out. The Sameby in question used the CBIA to construct own stories regarding the impacts based on own perspectives. The Sameby’s resistance towards the permitting process for mining in Sápmi “feeds into a much longer trajec- tory of Sami resistance” (Lawrence & Klocker Larsen, 2017, p. 6). Åhrén (2014) shows in her text ”En Samebys strategi för överlevnad” a Sameby’s stance when fighting mining exploitation (and other ectractivism on their land). Their fight is based on “conscious strategies based on theories of decolonization” where they do not see consultation as spaces for being listened to (Åhrén, 2014, p. 40). Resistance and the importance of place is discussed by Cocq (2014). During the resistance and protests against the mining in Gállok/Kallak, Coq shows how Sami communities understood Gállok/Kallak as a container of stories, an archive of stories (2014). 12 National interest and ideas of “the common good”13 Ideas of “national interests” and “the common good” are also discussed when it comes to “possibilities” to influence. The history of mining has gone hand in hand with utilitarian perspectives (Andersson & Cocq, 2016). “The common good” in relation to natural resources has influenced laws, regulations and policies and has had (and still has) important consequences for decision-making (Andersson & Cocq, 2016). The Environmental Code describes different “national interests” where reindeer herding is one and minerals are another. Reindeer herding tends to be down played in relation to minerals due to economical profits and how mining is seen to be beneficial for the “common good” (e.g. Lawrence & Åhrén, 2017; Löf, 2014; Spili- opoulou Åkermark & Talah, 2007). The Mineral Strategy and the Mineral Act construct an idea of how these “interests” can coexist peacefully (e.g. Haikola & An- shelm, 2016; Lawrence & Åhrén, 2017; Müller, 2013; Ojala & Nordin, 2015). This idea of co-existence is problematized with the argumentation of false assumptions based on the idea of the vastness of Sápmi. Every new mining development is understood to take place in isolation from other exploitations (such as wind power and hydropower) and the cumulative effects are ignored (Lawrence & Åhrén, 2017, p. 159; see also Larsen et al, 2016). It is also pointed the lack of understanding of reindeer herding cycles.14 An existing or new mine always entails adjustments to the new conditions for reindeer husbandry where change never be can seen as beneficial. It can rather be described as a conflict than a co-existence, and this conflict cannot be solved through the existing systems of dialogue (Länsstyrelsen i Norrbottens län och Sweco, 2015). Löf (2014) argues that there is also a die-hard myth that the Sami

12 Gállok is the Sami place name for what in Swedish is called Kallak. During the summer of 2013 there were big protests against a planned mine in Gállok/Kallak, outside of Jokkmokk. The protest took place on site with the help of different forms of resistance: road blockades, barricades, art and an activist camp. It became creative meeting place. The protesters were both Sami and no-Sami people. These protests were interfered by the police and people were arrested, it gained a lot of media attention. Want to learn more about Sámi fighting for justice read the book Samisk Kamp - Kulturförmedling och rättviserörelse (Liliequist & Cocq (eds.), 2017). 13 If you want to read more about ideas of ”common good” and ”interests” regarding planning framework within wind power check out (Össbo, 2014; Lantz 2014, Näsman, 2014) 14 Moving between different pasture areas is done via ancient trails. It is almost impossible to change a trail since the reindeers are creatures of habit who are easily startled (Sametinget, 2017b). You can read more about reindeer herding via “Reindeer Herding – A virtual guide to reindeer and the people who herd them” (2017).

14 reindeer herding communities will be able to adapt to almost anything, since they always have been forced to do so. Other relevant aspects of “national interest” are the formulation of what is seen as being worthy to preserve regarding nature- and cultural values. Larsson (2014) discusses how Sámi presence in the landscape is not visible since they do not “use” the land in accordance to western ideas of land usage. She discusses how the oral (hi)story tradition does not conform to western ideals of proof about presence. When natural and cultural values are to be investigated within existing planning framework, Sami natural and cultural values can be made invisible (Larsson, 2014). It is discussed that since there are no institutional agreements that makes sure that the Sami ”interests” are seen as equivalent to other ”interests” this imbalance will continue (Lantto & Mörkenstam, 2008; see also Länsstyrelsen i Norrbottens län and Sweco, 2015). This marginalisation of Sami rights has resulted in recurrent critique against Sweden both from the UN and the EU (Anaya, 2011). The legal system is poorly adjusted to Sami customary land use, social and cultural practices (Allard 2006; Åhrén, 2004).

Rights and definitions Rights to land and water is a very complex, debated and heated issue. It has not been dealt with or given any fair solution to which results in Sweden receiving regular criticism from for instance the United Nations (UN), Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD) and the Council of Europe (e.g. Anaya, 2011; Sametinget, 2016a; Össbo, 2014). The rights to practice reindeer herding is built on immemorial rights; an understanding of who has used the land since forever (Svonni, 2010). The Sami has not been “given” this by the state (Svonni, 2010). What parts of Sápmi that are actually owned by the state and to what extent the state can prove their ownership is another question (Sametinget, 2016a).

Svonni (2010) also points out that there is quite low knowledge about the international laws and conventions that concerns the Sami. She mentions a few conventions and definitions that should be highlighted. In 1977, the Swedish parliament acknowledged the Sami as an indigenous people. From 2011 it is in Sweden's constitution that the Sami are recognized as a people. Becoming recognized as a people also means a right to self-determination (Sametinget, 2016b). As an indigenous people, you have a specific position in relation to rights to land and water (Svonni, 2010). It should be pointed out that there is no single definition of an indigenous group since their experiences differs quite a lot depending on historical, political and social contexts. Svonni (2010) uses the follow definitions: An indigenous people descent from people who lived in the land or in a geographic area, that the land belongs to, during the time of conquest or colonisation or when nowadays nation-state’s boarders were determined and who has kept a part or all of their own social, economic and political institutions (Svonni, 2010; see also Anaya, 2004; 2011; Sametinget, 2016c).

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007) also states the indigenous people’s right to participation and possibility to influence in issues concerning their traditional lands (Svonni, 2010). Svonni (2010) also highlights how the UN’s Committee on the Elimination of Racial discrimination (CERD) has the toughest demands when it comes to participation concerning indigenous peoples; demand of prior and informed consent regarding activities on their land (Svonni, 2010, p. 13; Sametinget 2014; Sametinget, 2016b). Another convention that must be mentioned that Sweden has not ratified is The International Labour Organization (ILO) Conven- tion ILO 169. It does not create any new land rights, but strengthen those that al-

15 ready exist and demands that they should be recognized and respected (Sametinget, 2016c; Svonni, 2010). The convention does not grant the Sameby the right to veto, however the right to consultation (Sametinget, 2016c).

16 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK - DECOLONIAL THINKING.

The theoretical framework, methodologies and methods focus on indigenous and decolonial research (e.g. Kovach 2009, 2010; Kuokkanen, 2000; 2007; Tuhiwai Smith, 1999). Indigenous and decolonial research deals with theoretical perspectives as well as methodology and methods. I have chosen to divide my discussions in two parts: Theoretical framework –decolonial thinking and Methodologies and respectful research. This is to improve the readability. Before talking specifically about the theoretical framework, I will say something about indigenous and decolonial research in general. The clear objective is to centre indigenous perspectives and worldviews where the research is to be relevant to indigenous peoples, and also to challenge the way indigenous peoples and their knowledges have been understood and represent- ed (e.g. Canella & Manuelito; Kovach 2010, Moreton-Robinson. 2016; 2008; Rigney 1999; Tuhiwai Smith, 1999;). It highlights and question what is seen as established knowledge and have as aspiration to change people’s understandings of the world and also their actions (e.g. Kovach; 2009; Tuhiwai Smith, 1999). I have let indigenous and decolonial research guide me, but as Tuhiwai Smith (1999) points out, I cannot myself carry it out because of my position as non-indigenous (I will get back to my location and self-reflexion later). I will also use ideas from critical theory in general like post-colonialism and black feminism to further expose and question power relations and ideas of “objectivity” and “neutrality” when it comes to knowledge production where certain people and certain knowledges gets marginalized (Brown & Strega, 2005).

I will firstly discuss planning in general where I will go through colonial thinking and the concept decolonisation. Then I will focus on indigenous and decolonial planning where I highlight important ideas concerning relational thinking, understanding of place, knowledge production and stories.

I want to point out that I am aware about the potential dangers of categorization and generalization when it comes to talking about “western” and “indigenous” for instance. In accordance with Kuokkanen (2000) I will use categories as a tool to highlight and discuss what consequences they (still) have. “Western”, “colonial” and “indigenous” has to be understood in relation to political, social, economic and contextual situations (Kuokkanen, 2000; Moreton-Robinson, 2016). If we, as Sandström (2017) says, boil down the differences between indigenous and western ways of understanding the world to their most fundamental aspects we have a set of not so cor- responding ideas. Holistic, relational perspectives in relation to dualistic, fragmented perspectives. Western and colonial thinking divides everything up into oppositional categories with an inbuilt power imbalance; man/nature, man/woman, civilised/savage (e.g. Kuokkanen, 2000; Said, 1978; Sandström, 2017). Indigenous thinking emphasises the relationships between these categories, or rather emphasise how everything is interrelated and a part of a wholeness that cannot be divided into oppositional categories (e.g. Alfred, 2009; Chilisa, 2012; Kovach, 2009; Kuokkanen, 2000; Sandström, 2017).

17 Contextualising western planning

First, we will look at common definitions of planning within traditional wester planning theory. Then we will look into how colonial thinking has been built into western planning. I will also describe colonialism and decolonialism as concepts (and a practices).

Fainstein and DeFilippis (2016) describe planning as an ”intervention with an intention to alter the existing course of events” (p. 12). There is an inbuilt assumption of continuous advancements and developments (Mukthar-Landgren, 2012). These advancements and developments should serve the “interests of the public” and create a better society in accordance with ”the public good” (Fainstein & DeFilippis, 2016; Mukthar-Landgren, 2012). When making these ”interventions” for ”the public good” in relation to how land and natural resources should be used we need to ask us some questions. What kind of interventions? Who decides on these interventions? Who is “public” and what is “good” for them? Critique in relation to these questions has been done by feminist, queer, critical race, crip, post-colonial experiences and knowledges (e.g. Beard, 2003; Beebeejaun 2004; Burayidi, 2003; Healey 1997; Huning, 2014; Irazabal & Huerta, 2015; Manning Thomas, 2016; Miraftab 2016; Roy 2006; Sander- cock, 1998). By creating space and centring voices that has traditionally been marginalised or not understood as “the public”, practicing planning can be transformative (e.g. Beard, 2003; Beebeejaun 2004; Burayidi, 2003; Healey 1997; Huning, 2014; Irazabal & Huerta, 2015; Manning Thomas, 2016; Miraftab 2016; Roy 2006; Sander- cock, 1998).

Centring voices and experiences of indigenous people, and critiquing colonial aspects of planning has not been done to the same extent. There is not so much literature on indigenous and decolonial planning (e.g. Berke et al. 2002; Hibbard, Lane & Rasmussen, 2008; Jojola, 2008; Lane and Corbett 2005; Lane and Cowell 2001; Walker, Jojola & Natcher, 2013).15 Western mainstream planning’s role in the Euro- pean colonial project has started to gain attention in academia. Land acquisition and social, cultural and political control unveil how planning roots are linked to colonialism (e.g. Matunga, 2013; Porter 2006, 2010). It is discussed how rational and top-down approaches to land and resources has been a tool for dispossession, oppression, and marginalization of indigenous peoples. In order to serve “the public good” it has been seen (and still is seen) as reasonable for indigenous peoples to, for instance, give up their land (e.g. Hibbard, Lane, and Rasmussen 2008; Mukhtar-Landgren, 2012; see also Jojola, 2008; Matunga, 2013). Therefor there is a need to highlight in what way planning has been (and still is) a part of colonisation? How are colonial ideas, worldviews and knowledges sill persistent in planning frameworks (e.g. Jojola, 2008; Matunga, 2013; Roy, 2006).

Planning should be understood as a practice constructed in relation to historical, social, cultural and economic aspects (e.g. Porter, 2010). It is a practice of spatial or- dering that defines, shapes and represents how land should be used. It is a practice that (re)produce (non)space for which ideas, knowledges and people that should be integrated within planning frameworks. These practices should be analysed properly since they many times can be a continuation of hierarchisation where indigenous knowledges, experiences and practices is seen as ”the other” and where western

15 Again, much is written by non-indigenous people.

18 planning framework becomes “neutral”. Even the participation, collaborative, deliberative turn in planning can be a new form of colonial oppression (e.g. Hibbard, Lane & Rasmussen, 2008; Jojola, Walker & Natcher, 2013; Porter, 2010; Ugarte, 2014; Walker & Matunga, 2013). When questioning colonial thinking and exposing ideas of how indigenous knowledge becomes “the other” we need to look into what colonial thinking is all about.

Colonial thinking The ideas of colonialism are based on binary and hierarchical systems that runs through ways of thinking, through languages and through metaphysics (e.g. Hall, 1992; Kovach, 2009; Kuokkanen, 2000; Loomba, 2015; Said, 1978; Tuhiwai Smith, 1999). The binarisation and hierarchisation became quite popular during the enlightenment and has (and still have) great influence on western ways of thinking and understanding the world. As mentioned, you divide everything into oppositional categories; man/nature, culture/nature, man/woman, us/them, body/mind, civilised/savage, modern/unmodern, rational/emotional, heterosexual/homosexual and this can go on forever and ever (e.g. Kuokkonen, 2000; Said, 1978; Sandström, 2017). These oppositional categories then become valued through a hierarchical understanding, which is in itself oppressive because it requires domination and submission (Said, 1978; Sandström, 2017; Spivak, 2006). This model of systematisation made it (makes it) quite easy to legitimise and rationalise claiming of land and people (Hall, 1992; Said, 1978; Sandström, 2017). If we use Said’s (1978) ideas of “the other”; the west was (is) connected to ideas of “modernity”, “civilisation” and “enlightenment” where “they” are connected to “unmodern”, “savage” and “stupid” – “they” became “the other”. Through language, through stories, through images the world receives meanings in how they are made to relate to each other (Loomba, 2015; Spivak, 2006). In this system of understandings nature becomes “the other”, a resource where man can use it as they wish and capitalize from it (e.g. Anaya, 2004; Sand- ström, 2017; Tuhiwai Smith, 1999). Colonialism should be understood as intertwined with racism and capitalism (Anaya 2004; Butler & Athanasio, 2013; Kuokkanen, 2011; Loomba, 2015; Tuhiwai Smith 1999). This system is very much connected to ideas of who/what is seen to have agency or not, who/what is seen as a subject or an object (Loomba, 2015).

It is also pointed out by indigenous feminists and/or indigenous queer thinkers how colonialism also came with ideas regarding sexuality, gender and gender identities such as nuclear family systems, two-binary gender systems and how work was supposed to be divided according to ideas of gender et cetera (e.g., Driskill et al., 2011; see also Knobblock & Kuokkanen, 2015). 16

Decolonial thinking

What does decolonisation mean then? As most concepts, it does not have a single definition, it is complex, versatile and debated (Sandström, 2017; Ugarte, 2014). The most concise (and simplified) definition: a critique against colonialism. Waziyatawin and Yellow Bird (2012) defines decolonisation as:

16 I want to point out that I did not find any specific research about gender identities and sexual identities regarding the historical colonial processes of Sápmi. These kinds of studies have mostly been performed in the US and Canada.

[…] the meaningful and active resistance to the forces of colonialism that perpetuate the subjugation and/or exploitation of our minds, bodies and lands. Its ultimate purpose is to overturn colonial structure and realize indigenous liberation (p. 3).

Decolonisation is about analysing, questioning, challenging and changing the diverse expressions of colonialism (e.g. Chilisa, 2012; Kovach, 2009; Sandström, 2017; Tuhiwai Smith, 1999). Decolonisation emphasize the meaning of activity; decolonisation as practice(s) or doing(s) (Alfred, 2009; Sandström, 2017; Tuhiwai Smith, 1999, Waziyatawin & Yellow Bird, 2012). It is a process that demands a reconnection with each other and where this reconnection includes earth (e.g. Walia, 2012). It is a profound transformation focusing on emancipation and resistance where power imbalances are to be wiped out and replaced with the implementation of relational logic (Sandström, 2017; Ugarte, 2014). If colonialism is about “other-ing”-processes you could say that decolonialism works with “us-ing”-processes (Sandström, 2017). When exposing “othering”-processes we need to be aware how different power relations and experiences work together to produce and reproduce advantages and disad- vantages when it comes to gender, gender identity and sexuality for instance (Cren- shaw, 1991; see also Kuokkanen, 2009; 2011).17

Indigenous and decolonial planning

I understand indigenous and decolonial planning as a way to centre indigenous worldviews through decolonial practices. There is no single way of doing indigenous planning (Matunga, 2013). Nor is there any singular way of thinking or understanding the world from an indigenous perspective due to different contextual preconditions (e.g. Kuokkanen, 2000; Moreton-Robinson, 2016). Kovach (2005) and Sandström (2017) talk about some common denominators; indigenous peoples have an experience of the devastating consequences of colonialism, and also ways of knowing and understanding the world based on how one relates to earth and to each other. And how these knowledges and practices time and time again is diminished by the ero- sion of rights to self-determination, to land and water.

Briefly one can say that indigenous and decolonial planning focus on exposing colonial planning traditions, but it is also about transformation and demands of a commitment to “political, social, economic and environmental change” (Matunga, 2013, p. 5). It is a political strategy aiming to improve indigenous peoples’ lives and environments, and it has a “strong tradition of resistance” with a focus on rights and self- determination (Matunga, 2013, p. 5).

I will further discuss indigenous and decolonial planning through three headlines: Ex- posing colonial planning traditions, centring indigenous experiences, Understandings of place, stories and knowledge production and Strategies.

17 I want to highlight that with this approach I understand categories like indigenous, gender, place etc. as constructed from/with socially, culturally, contextually, historically processes rather than “natural” entities (e.g. Huning, 2014; see also Kuokkanen, 2000).

20 Exposing colonial planning traditions As mentioned, exposing how colonial ideas are a part of western planning framework is one part of practicing indigenous and decolonial planning (e.g. Walker & Matunga, 2013; see also Matunga, 2013). Matunga (2013) talks about how critical questions needs to be asked; Whose future? Who decides? Whose analysis? Who makes the decisions? Based on what worldviews and what methods? (p. 4). It is about highlight- ing and discussing how western mainstream planning is not a universal answer to planning even though it tends to be perceived that way. You expose the different ways planning processes and practices marginalize and exclude indigenous voices, worldviews and perspectives (Matunga, 2013). These asymmetrical relations are exploitative and requiring a never-ending increase of land consumption (Matunga, 2013)

Amongst modern society’s ever-growing need to consume and dis- pose and grow beyond available land and resources, the world’s In- digenous peoples have been neglected, relegated to reservations, and buried in governmental programs, policies, and legislation. Today, In- digenous communities have to fight to remain relevant on the environmental, social, political, and economic local, national, and international agendas or they will find themselves planned out of existence

(Aubin, 2013, p. xvi).

It is pointed out that indigenous planning has always existed and predates ”modern” and “western” planning traditions (Walker & Matunga, 2013). The colonial “othering”- system presented indigenous peoples as ”savage and uncivilized” and the erasing their planning ideas and practices was commenced (Walker & Matunga, 2013). As mentioned, this no-space for indigenous perspectives on planning still exists.

Centring indigenous experiences To centre indigenous experiences demands a re-formulation, re-construction and reimagination of planning so it recognizes indigenous worldviews (Jojola, Walker & Natcher, 2013; see also Jojola, 2008, 2000). It is of importance that planning is practiced by indigenous communities rather than for them, to assure that their perspectives on land usage becomes integrated into the planning framework itself (Jojola, Walker & Natcher, 2013; see also Jojola, 2008). There are some concepts that keeps coming back when reading indigenous and decolonial studies: relational, holistic and reciprocity. These three concepts are interrelated. Kovach (2005) talks about how the indigenous ways of knowing is based on a relational idea that include all different life forms (see also Kuokkanen, 2000). This relational idea can be described through the holistic perspective:

The holistic view leads to an implicit assumption that everything is interrelated. Inter-relatedness leads to an implicit idea of equity among all crea- tion. Equality is brought about by the implicit belief that everything – humans, animals, plants, and inorganic matter - has spirit.

(Alfred, 2009, p. 9; see also Gaski, 2008; Kuhmunen & Sarri 2008; Sandström, 2017).

21 The understanding of how everything is interconnected and related is also expressed in the intergenerational and collective ways of thinking. Your planning should be able to last far beyond a person’s lifetime and also be based on knowledges from the past (Jojola, 2008). Nature and natural resources are seen as borrowed from one generation to the next (e.g. Jojola, 2008; Matunga, 2013). The Sami worldviews is based on an understanding of closeness to nature, an essential respect for nature and the idea of not taking more than needed of the surrounding resources (Balto & Kuhmunen, 2014). Nature is not perceived as “the other”, an object owned by man, but rather as a living source to respect (Balto & Kuhmunen, 2014; Sandström, 2017). Reciprocity is about how we are dependent on each other; humans and the ecosystems are interwoven (Balto & Kuhmunen, 2014; see also Kovach, 2005; Matunga, 2013). Since humans are just one part in a continuous relation to everything else, it is of great importance to take responsibility for this interlinked process (Chilisa, 2012; Kovach, 2009; Kuokkanen, 2000).18 Matunga (2013) points out how indigenous planning is bottom-up and non-hierarchical due to above described ideas and concepts. This is put in relation to western land-usage planning practices that are temporal and corporate, where value of land is done from a capital valuation (Matunga, 2013). Colonial- ism interlinked with capitalism tries to undo these relationships through its binary fragmental logic, it is “[…] fundamentally invested in undoing those relationships to place and imposing new, extractive structures in their stead” (Moreton-Robinson, 2016, p. 22).

Understandings of place, stories and knowledge production An important aspect of indigenous planning hence indigenous worldviews is how it is place-based (Matunga, 2013). Experiences, histories, language, knowledges, emotions, values and worldviews are created in relation to specific parts of land and nature (Matunga, 2013; see also Basso, 1996; Biolisi, 2005; Rydberg, 2011). Again, the focus is on the relationships between all of these aspects. Indigenous thinking is informed by the lands, other living entities (trees, mountains, birds etc.) and by the specific environmental features (Wildcat, 2005). I also understand the relational and holistic perspectives of place in relation to what Massey (2005) discusses as a “global sense of place” where you see the relational aspects of place on different levels where local understandings are connected to global ones. The place-based planning framework must be understood “against the colonial backdrop of misappropriation” (Matunga, 2013, p. 17). He makes it clear that the understanding of place is not only based on the little amount of land that from a legal perspective belongs to indigenous people but also to all that has been stolen (and keeps on being stolen) through colonisation. Thus understandings, framings and conceptualisations of the same place have consequences for how planning should be done and in what way.

Histories and stories in general are important to understand place, and in turn in planning (Jojola, 2008; Matunga, 2013). History as in past tense is very much a part of the way place is constructed and related to, and is in itself a way to create history (Basso, 1996). Knowledges are transferred from generation to generation through stories and shared experiences (Jojola, Walker & Natcher, 2013; see also Jojola,

18 Sandström (2017) uses ”we speak earth” a Sami climate justice activist group as an example, and I think she clarify very nicely the idea with relational logic; we communicate with earth, or we can hear each other. It is about listening and being in dialogue with ”earth” (”we speak earth” is a translation of Sami ”Gulahallat Eatnamiin”) (pp. 76-79).

22 2008).19 I want to mention history writing briefly. History is a practice, not something that just is. It is a reconstruction that consists of a variety of parallel and different stories. In mainstream history writing it is certain events, stories, memories and experiences are privileged in relation to other (Southgate, 2009). Mainstream writing of history is based on white, western men’s experiences (Öhman & Wyld, 2014; see also Qwul’sih’yah’maht & Thomas, 2005; Southgate, 2009). Telling of one’s experiences and histories can then itself be an act of resistance. When people and knowledges gets marginalized you can create space and make yourself a subject through describing your reality, your identity and naming your history (hooks, 1989; Öhman & Wyld, 2014; see also Biolisi, 2005; Fur, 2006; Qwul’sih’yah’maht & Thomas, 2005).

Knowledge production is then to be seen as intertwined with place, you embody place and knowledges (Beck & Sommerville, 2002). This embodiment refers to lived experiences, practises, interactions and everyday life with the natural environment that becomes knowledge (e.g. Calbucura, 2014; Kuokkanen, 2000; Matunga, 2013). This kind of knowledge production is often described as “traditional” knowledge, the word “tradition” seems to give the idea of something that is being static and frozen in time. That is not the case, like all knowledges it is continually updated and changed (Kuokkanen, 2000; see also, Moreton-Robinson, 2016). This idea of static and fro- zenness relating to indigenous knowledges is many times a racist colonial understanding due to associations with ”unmodern” and ”uncivilized” (e.g. Kuokkanen, 2000; Moreton-Robinson, 2016; Said, 1978). Kuokkanen (2000) means that indigenous knowledge production becomes un-understandable within western framework due to the inability to understand indigenous worldviews. Indigenous knowledges cannot always be translated within western ways of thinking (e.g. hooks, 1992; Moosa-Mitha, 2005).

Strategies Matunga (2013) talks about the need to be strategic, creative and reflexible. The exposing of colonial and racist ideas within western planning can be seen as a strategy (Matunga, 2013). You should not be consumed by western planning due to all the exposing (Matunga, 2013). Another strategy could be to have the skill to operate the western planning framework; laws, regulation and policies (Matunga, 2013). To have the ability to use the western legal process and existing rights, often against the state and “its” national, regional, and district planning systems could be understood as another strategy (Matunga, 2013). To (re)act against planning decisions through activism can also be seen as a strategy (Hausam, 2013; Matunga, 2013). Planning can thus be emancipatory as well (e.g. Ugarte, 2014).

19 It is pointed out that the focus on stories as an important aspects of planning framework is also discussed within western/mainstream planning frameworks (see for instance Sandercock (2003)). This “new” aspect of planning does not reference or talk about how stories have been integrated in planning practices by indigenous communities since for ever (Jojola, Walker & Natcher, 2013; see also Jojola, 2008; Matunga, 2013).

23 METHODOLOGY AND RESPECTFUL RE- SEARCH

I will go through some reflections on being guided by indigenous and decolonial methodologies (and some post-colonial methodology as well). Tuhiwai Smith (1999) points out how, I cannot myself carry it out because of my position as non- indigenous.20 Moreton-Robinson (2016) use feminist arguments to exemplify of how (cis)men can use feminism as an analytical tool but they do not experience or know the world from the position as a (cis)woman (2016).21

Location

To show from where I am talking is an important part of indigenous and decolonial methodologies (Absolon & Willie, 2005). I want to highlight some aspects in relation to my location. First I am non-indigenous, I am not a Sami person. I have no experience of colonialism in the sense of being in the position of having land, language, culture and knowledges stolen from me. I am a white Swedish person, I am a part of the oppressive colonial (on-going) history of Sápmi. I am in a position of privilege. In relation to acknowledging my privilege position I have read and discussed the (not everything that is written) the critiques of this position in order to try not to reproduce “us” and “them” (e.g. hooks 1992; Kovach, 2005; 2009; Spivak, 2006; Tuhiwai Smith, 1999). I have for the greater part of my adult life been working with norm critique and with challenging existing power relations and structures in the society. I have also been guided of and done research from queer-, feminist-, anti-racist-, crip-, post- colonial experiences and theories. This does not mean that I can say I understand experiences that I do not have, but I hopefully have some tools to expose and challenge power relations in this context too. Without going any deeper into exactly what I have been working with I just want to point out that when analysing, writing and thinking I use my “embodied knowledge” or “silent knowledge” from all these years. I see it as a requirement to write with responsibility (Noxolo, Raghuram & Madge, 2009). What I strive to do and to be is an “allied other” (Mutua & Swadener 2004).

I have been listening to what Kovach (2005) says about how to be an ally of indigenous research: ”embrace the political nature of research” (p. 33). One way of doing this has been to listen to Kuokkanen (2000) who points out that ”minds conditioned in the Eurocentric ways of knowing” has to change this narrative to include indigenous knowledges and to challenge ideas of “objectivity” and “facts” (p. 417; see also e.g. Absolon & Willie, 2005; Chilisa, 2012; hooks, 1992; Kovach, 2005; 2010; Monture- Okanee, 1995; Qwul’sih’yah’maht & Thomas 2005; Sium & Ritskes, 2013; Tuhiwai Smith, 1999; Öhman & Wyld, 2014). I have for instance tried to use as little as possible of white western thinkers to avoid reproducing western knowledge (Tuhiwai Smith, 1999). As a non-indigenous person, I can create space for indigenous re-

20 It should also be pointed out that several indigenous researchers mean that decolonisation should be initiated by indigenous peoples (e.g. Corntassel 2008; Tuhiwai Smith 1999). 21 I added the prefix cis myself to point to the fact that some men have actually experienced the position as a woman since people can change both gender identity and gender expression. Cis is a person who follows the norms when it comes to gender, while trans is a person who breaks the norms when it comes to gender (Rasmusson & Nyberg, 2016).

24 search and frameworks within the academy (e.g. Kovach 2010; Tuhiwai Smith 1999; Chilisa 2012).

As mentioned in the introduction I have been inspired by Kovach (2005) ways of describing indigenous ways of constructing knowledge: ”fluid, non-linear, and relational” (p. 27). Knowledge, as mentioned, is transferred through stories and she points out a few things to be guided of when doing research; experience as a legitimate way of knowing, telling of stories as a legitimate way of sharing knowledge and how knowledge is something that is created collectively. Telling of stories should be understood as conceptualizing, analysing and theorizing around lived experiences (Kuokkanen, 2000; Öhman & Wyld, 2014). I have also thought quite a lot about Mar- acle’s (1992) discussion of how much effort that is put into deleting emotions and self in order to ”dehumanize story into theory” (pp. 88-89).

I have also discussed this thesis with a few Sami people in my extended network who in one way or another is practicing activism in relation to the on-going colonialism of Sápmi. Regarding my position of being an ally it is very important to contribute to exposing and dismantling Sweden as a colonial power. To expose how capitalisation, economisation and binary thinking are not the only understandings of land, nature and natural resources that counts. One person talked about the importance of this not being “only” a “Sami” issue, but very much an issue for the majority-society. These ideas have guided me as well.

Yarning and the interview process

First, I will say some words about the process of finding people to talk to. Then I will give you a short presentation of the three people who I talked with. I have asked all three of them to write a short presentation themselves. After that I will discuss Yarn- ing and some general thoughts about the interview process. I want to highlight that the stories and experiences centred in this thesis are three out of plenty of stories, there is never one single story or one single “truth” (e.g. Ramazanoglu, 1993).

Finding people to talk to I reached out to people who I knew were critical towards mining, who I knew had some kind of activist position and who had been outspoken about the on-going exploitation of Sápmi. I wanted to centre people who identified as Sami since the majority of the mines and minerals are found in Sápmi. I also wanted to highlight how and in what ways the Swedish planning framework for mining establishments is a continuation of the colonisation of Sápmi. To me, in order to do that you talk with people who have own experiences relating to this. There is an extreme imbalance of power when it comes to Sami people in relation to mining companies, the state and legislation. As already discussed I see it as my responsibility as a non-indigenous Swede to question, challenge and expose this imbalance. Therefor I chose to give space to stories that question, challenge, expose, reformulate and reimagine this imbalance. In traditional qualitative research language, this is called strategic selection (Bryman, 2011). All the people who I reached out to did not want to participate as interviewee persons, but many gave me helpful insights and guided me in directions to other people who might wanted to participate. This technique of getting a hold of partici-

25 pants is also known as the snowball-process (Bryman, 2011).

All the three interviews were made on the phone and lasted approximately one hour each, they were done late spring 2017. The questions I had as a base for the conversations can be found in appendix.

Hanna Sofie Mother, North Sami, political engaged primarily within Sami politics and Sami rights since her youth. Participated actively during the protests in Gállok/Kallak 2013. She thinks that the Mineral Act ought to change.

Matti Mining activist, politician, president of a Sameby and with his own words “an unedu- cated philosopher”.

Sarakka Actor from Sápmi. Grew up in Oslo, has her heart in theatre, nature and Sami issues. Has acted in ”Dagbrott” a play that deals with the mining issues regarding work opportunities, environmental effects and Sami rights. She has also acted in ”CO2lonialNATION” a documentary form of play that works as a truth commission and that deals with the relations between the Sámi people and its colonizing states.22

Yarning Yarning is one of several emerging indigenous forms of “data collection” (Bessarab and Ng’andu 2010). I have used yarning as an inspiration, but have not practiced it fully. Bessarab & Ng’andu (2010) say that yarning is a semi-structured interview method that is more like a relaxed and informal conversation where both me as the researcher and the participant journey together discussing topics of interest in relation to the study (Bessarab & Ng’andu, 2010). It is a conversation where I as a researcher actively participate. It can be put in relation to traditional qualitative interview methods where the participant is supposed to be the main speaker and the researcher only a passive listener (e.g. Ely et al., 1993). Yarning is a tool that builds relationships with the participants, rather than only extracting and taking information and stories from the participants (Bessarab & Ng’andu 2010, p. 38; see also Kovach, 2010). I have tried to hold a position of an active learner and listener; a “not-knower” but one who ”[…] through the act of empathetic imagination and by possessing critical self-consciousness, comes to gain a sense of what the other people knows” (Moosa-Mitha, 2005, p.67).

Knowledge is seen as something that is created through this journey of topics (Bes- sarab and Ng’andu 2010). 23 Through these informal conversations we navigated through different topics, it could maybe be described as associative mapping of the topics. We talked about the importance of letting your mind wander away, to see

22 ”Dagbrott” is a production by Riksteatern, is an idea based cultural organization. 23 Similar ways of thinking about interviews and conversation is discussed by for instance Kvale (1997). But I have chosen, as mentioned earlier, to focus as much as possible on indigenous, decolonial and to some extent post-colonial thinkers.

26 where it led us. I think that using a freer associative interview method opened up the conversations and the fact that I did not see the interviews as primarily “data collection” but as way to build understandings was helpful (Kovach, 2005). Hanna Sofie said “you associate, and think. That is important when having a conversation”. When talking to Matti I said that I was not exactly sure if I had asked the questions that I intended. I added that I think that is how a conversation works though; that you brainstorm together. Matti said “yes, that’s how we'll get somewhere. That's is what is going to take us somewhere”.

Building relationships and other thoughts about the interview process. Building relationships between me and the participants is an important part of being guided by indigenous and decolonial methodologies (Kovach, 2005). I tried to do that with being clear about my position as a non-indigenous but as a person who for plenty of years has been working with challenging power relations both professionally and through activism. I think that due to the fact that I wanted to expose existing colonial patterns within existing planning frameworks, talk about decolonial strategies where I saw (and see) the participants as experts was helpful. I have also listened to ideas of creating space for co-ownership, therefore I have sent a draft of the thesis to the participants to read, to comment, to add, to say whatever they wanted to about what I had written.

I want to emphasise some thoughts that I had about the interview process. One thought concerns the multidimensional aspect of translation. I did the interviews in Swedish, which is a colonial language and can thus be limiting when it comes to ex- pressing experiences. The people who I ended up talking to all had different dialects than me; one spoke in “svorsk” (swedenification of norweigan) and two in dialects derived from the Kiruna area and Jokkmokk area whilst my dialect derives from the Örebro area. The point is that we have some differences when it comes to express ourselves, but the main issue for me was to translate this into English. The dialectic expression was many times, at least to me, impossible to translate which then has as an effect of understandings being lost in translation. Regarding being lost in translation, some knowledges and understandings were also difficult to express in Swedish or to put into words at all. I have also thought quite a lot of my position when translat- ing and interpreting since I am very much raised in a western way of understanding the world and even though I have centred indigenous and decolonial thinking frameworks it will probably shine through what knowledge tradition I have been socialised into.

Method – Listening and give space to stories

In accordance with indigenous and decolonial methodology I decided to centre experiences through stories. I have already written quite a lot about stories and knowledges. I will highlight some aspects when it comes to listen and give space to stories.

Stories can be seen as frames of understanding. Listening to the participants’ stories is a way of listening to how they make the world understandable (Absolon & Willie, 2005; Qwul’sih’yah’maht & Thomas, 2005). Stories are not constructed in a vacuum

27 they related to different social, historical and political contexts (Sandström, 2017). They describe and relate to power relations in the society, they can expose assumptions and understandings of the “reality” that is perceived as “neutral” or “natural” where some stories of the “reality” becomes “strange”, “weird” or not understandable (e.g. Absolon & Willie, 2005; Kovach, 2005; Qwul’sih’yah’maht & Thomas, 2005; Ramazanoglu, 1993; Spivak, 2006, Said, 1978). Through stories subject positions unravel as well as your agency both individually and collectively (Tuhiwai Smith 1999). Our space for agency depends on how our experiences, knowledges and identities are understood and how the context in which we act are constructed and understood (e.g. Ramazanoglu, 1993; Kovach, 2005; Said, 1978; Spivak, 2006). Power should be understood from an everyday perspective; the possibilities to affect your every-day life, the possibilities to access societal functions for instance. These possibilities are affected by colonialism, racism and heteronormativity to mention a few hindering aspects. Power is not only repressive, through different strategies, tools, methods you can create empowered spaces.

Centring stories can be described as an emancipatory form of analysis method since it can give space to voices that many times are not listened to or ignored in mainstream conversations (e.g. Kohler Riessman, 2008; Lemley & Mitchell 2012).

Questions to navigate through their stories Through previous research, indigenous and decolonial theories and methodologies I have navigated and posed different questions to the stories. To me it is interesting to investigate how framings, understandings and conceptualisation of land, nature and place affects what space you have to influence; what is your space for agency?24 Here are some further examples of questions that I have used: What space for being knowledgeable is there? What understandings of Sápmi and place are being told? What perception of land, nature and natural resources are there? How can these perceptions be understood from ideas of binaries and fragmentation vs. relational and holistic thinking? What strategies are used when operating within the planning framework? How is space being created for oneself? How is the colonial history visible?

This process led me to different themes: Colonial views on Sápmi, Centring own views of Sápmi and land usage, Historical perspectives on planning, Navigating within planning framework, Strategies and Thinking outside the (colonial) box.

Reflections on the research process in general

Writing a thesis is a process; it is not only about the actual writing. It is everything from when starting to think about a subject and handing in your thesis and how all

24 I want to comment language differences in relation to “place” and “space”. In Swedish, I would use “plats” (place) to speak of both relational ideas to a geographic area and also regarding if you and/or your opinions are included in for example consultation situations. But in English I use “space” to talk about if you as a person and/or your opinions are included in for example consultation situations. I use ”place” to talk about relational ideas about a geographic area. To me both are anyhow relational con- structs.

28 these new understandings becomes a part of you. It is a process where purpose, questions, angels and understandings change along the way (Kovach, 2005; Mitha- Moosa, 2005). Something that is highlighted within indigenous and decolonial methodology is emotionality and feelings, and to include this in research and to let yourself be emotional and feel things. To let yourself be emotional and to be exposed to different values and knowledges that makes you question how you relate and understand the world. To me the general ignorance of colonial issues in the majority- society became even more obvious. My own knowledges have been rather shallow in comparison to now. I did not have an in-depth understanding of the extreme consequences that mining has in Sápmi. I want to acknowledge this since it is a part of the problem.

29 EXPOSING, CHALLENGING AND MOVING BE- YOND COLONIAL PLANNING

Through previous research, indigenous and decolonial methodologies I navigated through Sarakka, Matti and Hanna Sofie’s stories. This process led me to six themes: Colonial views on Sápmi, Centring own views of Sápmi and land usage, Historical perspectives on planning, Navigating within planning framework, Strategies and Thinking outside the (colonial) box.

I want to comment on my use of quotes and quotation marks. Since the conversations were in Swedish and have been translated into English none of the quotes presented here is exactly what they said. I have used quotes anyway as a way to emphasise their own way of reasoning and own way of telling their stories. Another aspect of my usage of quotation marks is to visualise, problematize and deconstruct words or concepts that can be understood as neutral (like “co-existence” or “primitive”) in a colonial and racist context.

Colonial views of Sápmi

When talking about existing planning framework for mining establishments in Sápmi, we had quite lengthy discussions concerning different understandings of Sápmi. They talk about an economization and capitalisation of Sápmi that is in collision with their understandings of Sápmi. We discuss these differences and talk about what effects it has on the planning framework.

Matti talks about how Sweden through laws and legislation has built this mining paradise in Sápmi, he states that it is “such a liberal legislation”. He continues by stating that an investor only provides with capital “but for us it’s not only about the god damn money. We invest our livelihoods, our culture and our future for these mining projects. It's a huge investment and a huge power imbalance. The gods will know that capitalism and colonialism is intertwined”. Similar ideas are expressed by Sarakka who talks about how different her view of Sápmi is in relation to both mining companies and the state. She means that Sápmi is understood from a capitalist perspective; a place where you can start mines. She says that the “[…] nature and land and mountains, lakes. All that is turned into economy and money […]”.

Hanna Sofie talks about the perception of “need”. If you read regional and national mineral strategies they are talking about “the need” for minerals, like there is a need for continued consumption and growth. The focus is on making money and that seem to be the goal for the state and mining companies, Hanna Sofie says. She says that we already have all the minerals we “need” from the ground, we do not need to take up any more. She means that there is such short-sightedness. Similar is expressed by Matti, we have all the minerals we need but it does not really matter since the predominant norms and values are “short-term, growth and economics”. He gives an example: “they plan to build a mine here, it will provide work opportunities for 50 years ahead for perhaps 100 people. And then I ask myself, yes, and then what?

30 What about after those 50 years? What will happen then? What should we do then?”. He continues, “our rights to exist are being erased. I do not understand that”. Matti talks about that he does not understand this way of reasoning where a mine is worth more than “a people’s way of living, our traditions, cultures and so on” and “during such a limited period of time”. “That equation does not add up to me. I do not think that's right”, he says.

We also talk about how the state and mining companies are trying to spread an image of “co-existence”. Sarakka is talking about LKAB’s (Luossavaara-Kiirunavaara Aktiebolag, a mining company owned by the Swedish State) “propaganda video”. From a historic perspective, they paint a picture of how the Sami people and the mining industry have lived side by side in “co-existence” and “peace”. She states very clearly that “it is not true”. Hanna Sofie explains that “you can’t run or talk about a reindeer herding-friendly mine. Because they stand for different things”. Hanna Sofie talks about how this idea of “co-existence” is connected to all the “un-touched” nature and the “vastness” of Sápmi. You do not see the cumulative aspects, “a mine here does not matter, because it's in Tärnaby and it is not related to the fact that we have mines in Kiruna too”, she says. This is probably a “strategy to be able to say yes to more mines and hydropower”, she continues. Hanna Sofie connects the image of co- existence to the long historic tradition of making Sami people adjust, and how this idea of adjustment is still very much present. She argues that “it has always been like that, it’s not like maybe we have to abandon the plan for this mine?” She talks about a “come on just a little bit”-attitude where they should adjust just a little bit more. This attitude is everywhere and according to her it has been enough with the adjustments for a very very long time now. “Sometimes it feels like if we have to make one more adjustments we are torn apart”, Hanna Sofie says. Matti also talks about how “the pressure on our land is increasing all the time, there are more and more interests to be squeezed in to smaller and smaller areas”. He argues that in the end it is nature that is most affected and in turn reindeer herding. We also talk about how this view of Sápmi is related to “the bigger picture” or a global perspective. Matti describes how he recently was listening to a researcher from Swe- dish Defence Research Agency who talked about Nordkalotten’s25 (which Matti adds was the researcher’s expression of that area) strategic value. Matti says that the researcher pointed out how the significance of Nordkalotten will increase in line with climate change. The ices are melting, the permafrost is melting and this will make natural resources like minerals more easily accessible. The transports across the Polar Regions will shorten today’s distances. Matti says that “giant multinational mining companies dream about transportation across the Arctic as soon as the ice has melted”. This is an example of how “the colonial grip will tighten around us” where “the Swedish state will not want to let go of its power over Sápmi” because of economic and strategic reasons. Matti says that “it will always be valued higher than Sami rights to land, and our way of thinking”. Sarakka is also pointing to an “international system of profit” since many mining companies are multinational ones. She also highlights that we should understand that everything is connected; the view of Sápmi, the mining establishments, melting ices and environmental change in general. She talks about the dangers of colonial and capitalist ways of understanding the

25 Nordkalotten is an area located north of the northern polar circle.

31 world: “the world is being torn apart”. This dis-connectedness needs to be challenged. All three of them are exposing colonial and capitalist ways of understanding Sápmi and its resources (e.g. Matunga, 2013; Nyström, 2014). This can be connected to how previous research discusses how Sápmi has been seen (and still is seen) as a “depot” of natural resources just waiting to be taken advantage of (e.g. Baer, 1982). Their ways of arguing could also be seen as a way to expose temporal and corporate ideas of land usage in western planning practices, where value of land is judged from a capital valuation (Matunga, 2013). It also put the finger on the devastating consequences of western planning practices where the Sami could be “planned out of existence” (Aubin, 2013, p. xvi). The lack of understanding of reindeer herding relating to ideas of “vastness” and “co-existence” is highlighted by Lawrence and Åhrén (2017) (see also Länsstyrelsen i Norrbottens län och Sweco, 2015). Lawrence and Åhrén describes co-existence” as a strategy for continued exploitation (Lawrence & Åhrén, 2017). Previous research has discussed how mining establishments prioritis- es growth instead of Sami livelihoods and rights (e.g. Haikola & Anshelm, 2016; Law- rence & Åhrén, 2017; Ojala & Nordin, 2015). The connection of Sápmi to international systems of profit, climate change and general ideas of how the planet is in great danger could be understood as a way of showing how everything is interrelated rather than fragmented (e.g. Basso, 1996; Matunga; 2013; Sandström, 2017; see also Massey, 2005).

Centring own views of Sápmi and land usage

When I asked them about decolonisation of planning frameworks for mining establishments, and how they understood indigenous planning all three of them highlighted that their understandings should be seen as one of many different understandings. Matti says for instance “there are certainly as many opinions as there are people”. There is not one Sami perspective of how to decolonise existing planning frameworks or how one should understand indigenous planning. This could be seen as an example of challenging the idea of that there is no single “truth” but rather point to how there always are several stories, perspectives and knowledges (e.g. Ramazanoglu, 1993).

As already mentioned they talk about how the economisation and capitalisation of Sápmi is in collision with their understandings of Sápmi. Sarakka talks about the Sami view of Sápmi and land usage. She says that it is about respecting and sustain- ing nature, and this respect of nature is the key for the future. She talks about her relation to Sápmi from the perspective of how her whole family comes from a reindeer herding background where you live in and from nature, and how you have a relationship with nature. She also describes how this relationship is filled with spiritual aspects of how mountains, trees and lakes are living entities. Hanna Sofie is also talking about what she describes as a Sami way of thinking where everything is holy or sacred. Sarakka describes how generation after generation are being taught to only take what you need from nature “and nothing more than that”. You should not pressure nature she describes this relationship as “use it but not abuse it”. She also highlights the dependency of nature and how this dependency of nature becomes obvious when you fish for food, when you pick your berries and have what she de-

32 scribes as “traditional activities” in nature. Weaving stories of the past, present and the future together is something that is highlighted within the indigenous planning framework (Matunga, 2013). Planning should be able to last far beyond a person’s lifetime (Jojola, 2008).

Both Matti and Hanna Sofie is talking about how the western food production industry is a proof of how everything has become disconnected. “You do not even know where the milk comes from” as Matti argues. Hanna Sofie points out that “we can not only grab what you want, you have to reconsider if you really need this fish? Or this tree?” She continues with saying that you just do not take things from nature just for the fun of it, “you only borrow from nature”. She describes this understanding as a knowledge, and like Sarakka she points out the generational aspects of how it is transferred. Hanna Sofie connects this to reciprocity and how we are dependent on nature, you should leave this in return as thanks: “maybe some coffee in the fire as a way of saying thanks for the warmth”. Matti is also talking about respect, about relationship with nature and generational thinking. He points to the fact that the Sami have lived, worked and been a part of Sápmi for thousands of years. He says that there are some basic sets of Sami values where you have respect and reverence for everything in nature, and he talks about the importance of understanding “our place in this system”. Matti says that “if you look at how our society today…it’s very few that have a relationship with nature and understand our linkage with nature. You don’t know how it works”. He continues, “humans do almost have some kind of emotional defect” as to describe this disconnection from these feelings of how everything is interrelated. Like Hanna Sofie he talks about how this way of understanding nature and how to use the land, is to be seen as a knowledge. Matti says that you need this generational knowledge for maintenance of reindeer herding. He also talks about the difficulties of trying to put into words or describe Sami understandings of land usage since it so much that you just know and cannot really describe. This can be related to how embodied knowledges or knowledges learnt in other languages than the colonial language is not always translatable (e.g. Calbucura, 2014; hooks, 1992; Matunga, 2013; Moosa-Mitha, 2005).

We get back to talk about how this way of thinking collides with the Swedish planning frameworks for mining establishments. Hanna Sofie says that there is no reciprocity or "I'm leaving this in return [for what I have borrowed]", or "do I really need this?". It is only "up, up, up". Hanna Sofie talks about urban mining26 as a way to make use of what we already have extracted. But she also points out that there will not be the same profit or growth from urban mining as in regular mining, and that is a hindrance in the majority-society. Matti says that we need to understand how the rules and regulations concerning Swedish planning framework for mining impedes on the Sámi perspectives on planning; on how to use the land and understanding the land. We come back to their long-term perspective versus the short-term focus on growth. “We have a slightly different perspective when it comes to sustainability and the long-term of thinking”, Matti says. In relation to this we talk about ideas of wealth and success. Wealth is not something that can be measured in money, Hanna Sofie says. She

26 Under cities millions of tons of unused and forgotten cables, for instance, are to found. The ground below the city can actually be regarded as a mine, and calculations show that only in Sweden there are deposits of aluminium, copper and lead that are worth several tens of billions of dollars (Miljönytta, 2011).

33 gives a few examples. “Wealth can be that you have had a good winter with the reindeers, you may sleep a little better in the nights”, or “our history is a kind of wealth…it is important with relatives and stories, and we know and learn so much from our relatives. And that cannot be economized either. And the way we are linked with our land is also a wealth”. This way of understanding wealth and valuation does not fit in a capitalist framework since “it does not give a plus in the national treasury”, Hanna Sofie says. This is also something that Matti and Sarakka also talks about; how success or what is perceived as valuable in general is economized and measured in money in the west, and how this cannot really be measured or bought. Hanna Sofie talks about how their ways of thinking are not really seen as worthy or true in the majority-society. She talks about experiences of being patronised. Sarakka also talks about this and how it sometimes can feel like a naïve way of thinking, or that she is supposed to feel like it is a naïve way of thinking. She means that the dependency of mines and how we ought to feel like we need them gets a lot of space in the majority- society. Hanna Sofie describes the predominant way of thinking as “black and white thinking” and how this way of understanding the world is everywhere. She gives an example of ideas of “fixing nature” or “fixing the damages” caused by mining. This cannot be done, she says, since it is a permanent damage and it will never be the same.

When Sarakka, Matti and Hanna Sofie describes their view on Sápmi and how land should be used there is a focus on relational and holistic perspectives (e.g. Kovach, 2005, 2009; Matunga, 2013; Sandström, 2017). From this perspective humans are just one part in a continuous relation to everything else and therefore you need to take responsibility (e.g. Chilisa, 2012; Kovach, 2009; Kuokkanen, 2000). Nature is not perceived as “the other” as an object owned by man, rather as a living source to respect. This perspective challenges and disrupts capitalist and colonial binary thinking (e.g. Balto and Kuhmunen, 2014; Sandström, 2017). They relate their thinking to the fragmented and binary understandings of western and colonial thinking that seem to serve as base in western and Swedish planning frameworks. This may also be connected to how telling of stories is a way to conceptualise, analyse and theorise around lived experiences like when they describe how their understandings become “weird” (Absolon & Willie, 2005; Kuokkanen, 2000; Qwul’sih’yah’maht & Thomas, 2005; Öhman & Wyld, 2014). This is also something that tends to happen within western planning frameworks, indigenous knowledges are marginalised (Matunga, 2013). This can also be connected to how indigenous planning is place-based (Matunga, 2013). Experiences, histories, language, knowledges, emotions, values and worldviews are created in relation to specific parts of land and nature (e.g. Bas- so, 1996; Rydberg, 2011). Their stories can be seen as a way to challenge the colonial and capitalist framings of Sápmi (Basso, 1996).

Historical perspectives on planning

Hanna Sofie talks about the importance of understanding history in relation to todays planning framework. In the past, it was not really a problem with the Sami ways of using and managing their land. “It was quite a generous attitude towards us, a more okay this is Sami land” she says. She continues, “it was when the state realized the values of Sápmi that things changed”. This is something that Matti talks about too, if

34 it has not been for Sápmi’s natural resources like minerals they would not have been colonized. That is obvious to him. Both Matti and Hanna Sofie highlight how mining laid the base for Sweden’s welfare system. The same is pointed out by previous research (e.g. Lantto, 2010; Lawrence & Åhrén, 2017; Lundmark, 2008; Sehlin Mac- Neil, 2017;).

Before the Sami people were forced into national states and before being forced into the Swedish planning frameworks they organized themselves within Siidor, Hanna Sofie says. In this smaller community based on a few families they decided together on how to use the land; how to organize reindeer husbandry, the fishing and who could fish in which lake and so on. It was a collective self-determination where their focus was on making the community work and where they could practice their respected for the surroundings, Hanna Sofie says. Their way of planning was not understandable in the eyes of the Swedish rational ways of planning and it was disrupt- ed. “[…] Everybody saw the reindeer herding and also learnt to cooperate with nature, the children grew up with it”, Hanna Sofie says. She asks herself what if their planning system had been left alone? Instead it had to fit into this “us and them” way of thinking, where you understand the world in “ones and zeroes”.

Hanna Sofie talks about the consequences of colonial Swedish planning practices through legislation and policies. Not all Sami have the same rights to land and waters due to these legislations and policies. They were divided into different categories, or classes where the reindeer herders were the “the real Sami” and they got all the rights to land. Sarakka also talks about this idea of “the real Sami” and how this is an on-going “wild discussion” and she thinks it might be “some sort of colonised way of thinking as well”. Hanna Sofie describes how the Siida-system was “replaced” by the Sameby-system something that Hanna Sofie describes as a result of the Swedish planning framework. “Those who became excluded could not even fish in their traditional lakes”, Hanna Sofie says. She talks about how it seems to be an idea of that you can do whatever you want to with the Sami, “we are such an adjustable people they seem to think”. She relates this to the forced relocations and ignorance within the county administrative board:

You have been displaced and forced to move several times. And then you have come into other [Sami] people's lands. And the county administrative board has said that there are no Sami people here, no reindeer husbandries and that lead to conflict [since there already were reindeer husbandries there]. And these conflicts are still on-going today in some places […] today our planning is also so heavily influenced by the Swedish rules and regulations since we had to adapt. It is constant adjustment. And you are quite fed-up with that now. We have almost been adapting the life out of us.

This could be connected to a few things. Sami land usage could not be understood within the Swedish planning framework (the county administrative board in this case) and therefore you did not understand that people were living in specific places (e.g. Larsson, 2014; see also Matunga, 2013). It could also be due to ideas of Sami people as “inferior” where they could not really plan their land usage “properly” and therefore the state could make them move, or plan whatever they want to over the head of the Sami in order to exploit natural resources (e.g. Allard 2006; Lantto 2010; 2012; 2014; Lundmark, 2008; Löf 2014; Mörkenstam, 1999; Sehlin MacNeil 2017;

35 Össbo, 2104). Indigenous planning could not be understood and the erasing of their planning practices was a fact (Matunga, 2013). Kuokkanen (2011) also argues that the some sort of self-governing performed by the Sameby is shaped by a capitalist economic model. It could also be put in relation to how we should recognize and acknowledge the fact that indigenous planning has always existed and predates “western” or “modern” planning practices (Walker & Matunga, 2013). Rational and top-down approaches to land and resources has been a tool for dispossession, oppression and marginalisation of indigenous peoples (Matunga, 2013).

Hanna Sofie talks about how the state has been forging history in order to displace and force people to move. She is referring to Maarainen’s (e.g. 1997) research that argues that the Swedish state falsified papers about the Sami people signing docu- ments confirming that they wanted to move voluntarily. Hanna Sofie continues with saying “[…] but the Sami at that time could not write…their signatures, we had our own marking system, it was not Swedish or Western letters. It was another system. This is just like a hundred years ago”. By then pointing to how history has been written you can re-write and re-create histories of Sápmi. History is a reconstruction that consists of a variety of parallel and different stories, but in mainstream writing of history it is certain events, stories, memories and experiences there are privileged in relation to other (Southgate, 2009; see also Qwul’sih’yah’maht & Thomas, 2005; Öhman & Wyld, 2014). Hanna Sofie says that there are too many people who believe in what the state has created for them “that you have to belong to a Sameby to have the right to land and yadayada and a lot of other bullshit”. It would be so much better if they had decisive rights so they could plan land usage in relation to how they want, Hanna Sofie states. This can be connected to how minds get colonized (e.g. Kovach, 2009; Kuokkanen, 2000). Hanna Sofie’s way of reasoning could be connected to previous research pointing to how analysing and interpreting decisions taken by the state is put it in a historical perspective to expose colonial histories (Åhrén, 2014).

Another aspect that we discussed was how laws, regulations and policies regarding how Sami people should use their land resulted in gendered consequences like divisions of labour (e.g. Kuokkonen, 2009). One example is how the law stated how women who married a non-reindeer herder would lose their right to practice reindeer herding, this law was taken away 1971 but it still has effects (Liliequist, 2017). Hanna Sofie talks about that you within the western society talk about “double work”, she argues that for her and many Sami women it is more like “triple work”. You work within reindeer herding, regular work and unfortunately you take care of the home to a greater extent than men. Hanna Sofie talks about how one has been forced to accept patriarchal structures of the majority-society. Matti talks about a gendered separation of labour. Men were supposed to do certain kinds of labour and women another kind. Except from laws, regulations and policies regarding land usage this was something you were taught trough the Swedish educational systems and religion (Christianity, my note) according to Matti. These ideas are still very much present. This could be related to the colonial system of dividing everything into binary oppositional categories like man/woman and how these are valued through hierarchical understandings, which are in themselves oppressive because they require domination and submission (Said, 1978; Sandström, 2017; Spivak, 2006).

Sarakka talks about how women have a strong position in Sápmi both in relation to a goddess-dominated spiritual thinking but also when it comes to reindeer herding and “all these other traditional livelihoods”. According to her it is an inbuilt feminism where

36 women runs everything. This is something that is discussed by previous research as well, even if different policies tried to weaken the position of Sami women they unofficially remained strong (e.g. Fur, 2006; Kuokkanen, 2009; 2011; Ryd, 2013). It could also be put in relation to what Fur (2006) discusses, how white male colonizers have written away Sami women’s experiences.

We continue to talk a bit more about history and how certain stories are made invisible in relation to other stories, (hi)stories are an important part of indigenous planning (e.g. Jojola, 2008; Matunga, 2013). Hanna Sofie is discussing colonial effects on ideas of gender and sexuality and says “[…] there is nothing written down anywhere, the only ones who could write at that time were priests and missionaries”. She thinks that binary norms regarding gender and sexuality might also be a colonial heritage. Chris- tian missionaries’ ideas of “man+woman=marriage” became predominant, Sarakka says.27 Both Hanna Sofie and Sarakka talks about how it is sometimes difficult to know what was before colonisation since their histories was written down by someone else “[…] What did we have before that? How can we know? And it is very interesting. Very interesting”, Sarakka says. Hanna Sofie talks about the effect of how Sami (hi)stories are pretty much excluded from mainstream Swedish history, the Swedenified history writing. She thinks that it can make you “[…] feel disunified, or that your identity is torn apart”. Many Sami people have not read a single sentence about their history in any book and she says “[…] and if you don’t have any older relatives who can tell or talk about it, all of your histories can disappear or is erased quickly”. Hanna Sofie talks about the need of massive history teaching efforts for everyone both Sami people and Swedish people. If the colonisation of Sápmi is some kind of parenthesis in Swedish history “we as a people a parenthesis as well”, Hanna Sofie says. Previous research highlight how Sami histories are marginalised over and over again (e.g. Larsson, 2014; Omma 2013; Sehlin MacNeil & Lawrence, 2017; Sköld, 2005). This can also be related to how telling your experiences and histories can itself be an act of resistance, an act to create space and make yourself a subject (e.g. hooks, 1989; Öhman & Wyld, 2014). It could also be put in relation to the importance to explore how colonialism also came with ideas regarding sexuality, gender and gender identities and what effects it had (and has) (e.g. Driskill et al., 2011).

Navigating within the planning framework

Now I will focus on how their stories navigates in what I understand as colonial spaces such as negotiations, consultations, legislation and trying to be understood in general in a planning framework that is not set up by you. What effects does it have?

I ask them if they know of a planning situation relating to mining where Sami knowledges, perspectives and values have been given an equal space in relation to Swe- dish planning framework. Hanna Sofie answers immediately with “no, no”. She says there is rather an absence of being able to plan based on your own knowledges and on “our common heritage and our ideas of the future…we are a part of the majority- society but we do not really have any influence”. She talks about how they have to relate to the majority-society’s ways and they do not “[…] even ask us how we could

27 Sarakka tells me that there is no “he” or “she” in her Sami language; they have only one word “son”. If you want to read more about queer Sami people and norms in today’s Sápmi: Queering Sápmi (2013).

37 be included in the planning”. Hanna Sofie continues “[…] it’s like, we can’t listen to this kind of weird thinking…It’s only ones and zeros that works”. She talks about how they never been able to say no, or rather how they have never been allowed to say no to mining establishments. She argues that as soon as you point out how “this does not work anymore” they are not really seen as parties you want to include in the planning process. “We are only allowed to participate if we can say ok or we can do it this way”, Hanna Sofie says. She makes fun of these participation possibilities where she questions the so called democratic ideals since:

The majority-society still can decide over the people who were already using the land and living off the land. It is not democracy. It is impossible to talk about democracy when it comes to Sami and the majority-society. It is colonialism. We are not supposed to get any power, we are not supposed to be able to decide for ourselves how we want to plan out societies. They know that we will say ‘no, stop now, it's enough’

So you are put in a position where you are not listened to, Hanna Sofie says. Matti too talks about how he does not know of any planning situation where they have been given an equal space.

Both Matti and Hanna Sofie relate this to how laws, policies and strategies are formulated. Hanna Sofie talks about how you must be aware of who has passed the laws, she states ”it is not us”. Matti talks about the problem with how the Mineral Act stands above all other legislation. Mining companies can just choose to ignore the knowledges and opinions from the Sameby. Matti talks about his last experience from negotiations at the Land and Environmental court: “the counterparty just left the negotiations, in the middle of the negotiations, in the middle of the hearing. Because they did not even think it was worth listening to. And that was the state's own mining company”. He talks about another example as well: consultations. He states that they are “bullshit” and he continues “[…] it’s not even worth the paper it's written upon. There is no consultation anywhere anytime that has led to the fact that a Sameby has gotten their opinions and their knowledges respected. There are always other things that are valued higher”. Matti also points to the fact that you do not even have to have consultations, it is a voluntary aspect of the planning framework. He talks about how your Sameby can get invited to a consultation and the only thing you can agree on is that “[…] we are so extremely in disagreement with each other. We do not agree on one single thing”. After the consultation, you can read in the mining company’s environmental impact assessment that they have consulted the affected Samey “and that is the end of discussion”, Matti says. He continues, “it looks good on paper, in writing that you had a ‘consultation’”. Matti keeps on talking on how the environmental act is totally without no teeth when it comes to the mining industry. He discusses the so called “interests” in relation to ideas of “common good”, a mine that might provide work opportunities for 50 years is considered to be more “common good” than an infinite sustainable reindeer herding. I ask him what he thinks is “common good” and he answers “the opposite is common good to me…that we care and preserve the planet and our relationship with the planet. And a truly sustainable food production chains that can continue to work forever. Provided that you still have your land that is”.

Sami rights has been transformed into “interests”. An “interest” among others such as minerals, and within the Swedish planning framework “minerals” = “growth” = “com-

38 mon good” and in that equation Sami “interests” are left out (e.g. Haikola & Anshelm, 2016; Lawrence & Åhrén, 2017). Western planning sees it as reasonable for indigenous people to give up their land for “the common good” (e.g. Jojola, 2008; Matunga, 2013; Mukthar-Landgren, 2012). Sami people does not really have any influence over if and how mining is going to take place on their lands, which is a colonial legacy re-shaped trough laws, policies and regulations where Sami people were seen as “unfit” to take care of their own matters (e.g. Baer, 1982; Lundmark, 2008; Mörken- stam, 1999; Päiviö, 2012; Össbo, 2014). Even in the deliberative turn in planning indigenous knowledges is seen as “the other” and colonial oppression can continue (e.g. Hibbard, Lane & Rasmussen, 2008; Jojola, Walker & Natcher, 2013; Porter, 2010; Ugarte, 2014; Walker & Matunga, 2013). Let us talk about another example of “interest” concerning what is being seen as worthy to preserve regarding natural and cultural values. Matti says that “[…] experts and biologists that are trained to see traces of human activity, they find it difficult to find traces from us”. He talks about how they have not left behind “anything like Colosseum” and it seems impossible for these “experts” to understand Sami traces due to western ideas of what “civilisation” is or not. “[…] We have another view on what is worth preserving”. Matti relates this to perceptions of knowledge within the Swedish planning framework. “[…] We have a whole other way of thinking. It’s like some kind of conflict in worldviews. The Western society, everything needs to be academically documented before it's considered a truth or a real knowledge. And our methods for knowledge acquisition and/or methods of ‘knowledge-storage’ is not done in that way. This makes it difficult to absorb our knowledge”.28 This can be related to how you are not really supposed to leave traces in the western sense due to an understanding of nature that is based on respect (e.g. Jojola, 2008; Matunga, 2013). It could also relate to how knowledge production is intertwined with place, you embody place and knowledges (Beck & Som- merville, 2002). This embodiment refers to lived experiences, practise, interactions and everyday behaviour with the natural environment that becomes knowledge (e.g. Calbucura, 2014; Kuokkanen, 2000; Matunga, 2013). This is not something that is understandable within the western way of thinking since it does not leave “proof” of presence (e.g. Kuokkanen, 2000; Larsson, 2014).

Matti continues to talk about the difficulty to be understood, he takes another example from a legal process at the Land and Environmental court. The case concerned a mining work plan in a sensitive area within their Sameby. He says, “we do not really have a common set of values, or our common sets of values differs from each other”. He says that he tried to explain to the sitting committee why this little low flat mountain was so important to them. Matti says that for the committee, it was only a hill with some birches on it without any specific value at all. “And after quite a few ifs and buts I explained, and when I was done the judge said: oh, how well you explained. Now we understand how you are thinking and how it works for you. But our legal system does not take that into account’”. “Our way of thinking is not built into the legal system, it’s just as simple as that”, Matti says.

28 Matti thinks Sweden is lagging behind when it comes to indigenous and decolonial methodologies within the academy, he talks about the need to change this.

39 He continues:

And right there we get to the core issue, or the core to the problems. We have a colonial interest that has established the laws. Based on their needs. And that goes without saying. They look after their needs first and foremost. And lacks total insight and knowledge of the Sami system and our ways of thinking and our values. And then it’s rather tricky.

This can be related to how colonial ideas of “the other” creates colonial spaces where Sami knowledges become un-knowledgeable, excluded and affect who is seen to have agency or not (e.g. Loomba, 2015; Said, 1978). It could also be related to previous research that points to the fact that the legal system is poorly adjusted to Sami understandings of land usage, social and cultural practices (Åhrén, 2004; Allard, 2006). It can also be related to the critical questions Matunga (2013) urge us to ask: whose future? Who decides? Whose analysis? Who makes the decisions? Based on what worldviews and what methods? We talk quite a lot about the multiple layers of colonialism and racism relating to reindeer herding and mining. Hanna Sofie talks about how there is a lack of understanding of the reindeer herding’s migration routes for instance, it is like the planning framework cannot understand how it works. She says that “they’re like…maybe you can just move them by a car because you are already doing that today”, she continues with saying that the reason for moving the reindeers by car is due to the fact that their routes have been cut off already. “That's nothing you want to do…it's something you've been forced to do”, Hanna Sofie says. She also draws a parallel to how the Sami can be criticised for using “modern things” like scooters when reindeer herding and connects this to colonial and racial ways of thinking where they themselves are not able to decide on what kind of development they want. She says “it is a racist way of thinking that we are not smart enough to decide what kind of development we want in our society. Very colonialist way of thinking”. We wander off to talk a bit about experiences of racism in general. Hanna Sofie says “[…] we must always think all the time…you are going down town, should I wear these [traditional] shoes or not? No, can’t stand any more conflict today”. She describes that the racism Sami people experience is many times understood as “not that dan- gerous” so it is not acted upon since it “can’t be understood by a white man in a position of power what it is all about…and they do not listen to our experiences”. Sarakka is also talking about how racism is a “very big issue. Very big issue”. Hanna Sofie is also discussing racism in relation to what she describes as “ancestral melancholia” where experiences of colonialism are transferred from generation to generation (“Simma et al., 2017). The combination of this in relation to how mines destroy reindeer herding are showing in suicidal statistics, Hanna Sofie argues. Previous research discusses how Colonial and racial structures has led to a specific psychological health problem among the Swedish Sámi population in comparison to the Swe- dish population (Lönn, 2014; Omma, 2013; Simma et al., 2017; Stoor, 2016).

We get back to different issues regarding mining and reindeer herding. Sarakka talks about complexities and paradoxes for the reindeer herders due to manipulative strategies used by the mining companies: “you Sámi are dependent on us, you are working here. We give you salary so that you can buy your scoters, so you can work with reindeer herding”. Sarakka argues that mining companies are creating this image of

40 how mines are a necessity for the continued existence of reindeer herding. Many who work within the reindeer husbandries also work in the mines, which she describes as “very much a paradox and a complexity. You work in the mines one day, and the next day you help your reindeers out from sludge from the mines”. This is also something Hanna Sofie talks about but from a little different angle “[…] if we had been able to decide there had been no mines…but the mines are here now and if someone has to work in the mines I don’t think there should be an extra burden for them since the money should be going to us anyways”. Previous research highlights the problems with the non-existing monetary compensation for the damage caused on Sami land (e.g. Lawrence & Åhrén, 2017). It could also be understood as how the planning framework severely limits Sami peoples space for action; you do not have the position to influence mining establishments, you should not “complain” about them since they are a “necessity” for you. It can be an example of how you space for agency depends on how your experiences are understood in the context you act. It shows how their possibilities to affect every-day life is many times affected by the framework set by mining companies and the state (e.g. Kovach, 2005; Ramazanoglu, 1993; Said, 1978; Spivak, 2006). It is also a way of challenging and exposing these frameworks and these “truths” by pointing to them and how they work (e.g. hooks, 1989; Matunga, 2013; Öhman & Wyld, 2014).

Sarakka says that the states do not take the responsibility that they ought to take regarding how to plan to make “our cultures survive”, where reindeer herding is an important aspect. She is not particularly convinced that the planning framework can be decolonised in the way that it looks to today, and in the way that is needed. She says “you may just hope. Really. But it does not look very bright”.

Strategies Matunga (2013) talks about the need to be strategic, creative and reflexible. Sarakka, Matti and Hanna Sofie talked about quite a few things that can be described as strategies. They are amongst other things talking about demanding economic compensation, to use their rights, to use the legal system and go to court and of the necessity to fight.

Demand economic compensation Hanna Sofie talks about how even if it is not possible to replace damages done to the nature nor the reindeer migration routes with economic compensation, it can still be understood as a strategy to gain some kind of justice. She talks about how demanding economic compensation could be a way to highlight all the different problems that exists when it comes to mining establishments. Hanna Sofie points to the fact that economic compensation is also a way of practicing short-term perspectives where you think everything can be valued in money. “A compensation what is that? Maybe it lasts for 10 years? What should the next generation live on then?”, she asks herself. Again, we come back to an economized understanding of nature, of place and of what is understood as valuable. Hanna Sofie talks about the fact that there are pretty much no money at all that goes back to Sami communities in the form of taxes, revenues or royalties. She continues with arguing that they should definitely be compen- sated for all the damages that the mining industry causes in Sápmi. This is some-

41 thing that Matti talks about too. Matti argues that “[…] I realise that yes, okay, we may have to deal with some exploitations in the future as well for the so called public good or whatever we want to call it. But then, the Sami community must receive some of the revenues from those mining establishments”. Matti talks about that today they stand with cap in hand and beg, and describes it as a horrible position to be in. They both get back to how the entire Swedish welfare system is built on natural resources from Sápmi, and then nothing goes back to Sápmi or Sami communities. They point out the historical link between today’s planning framework for mining and that natural resources are being exploited in similar manners as when colonisation begun (e.g. Lundmark, 1998; Lantto, 2010, Baer, 1982). They also show how the Sami people continuously become “the other” since instead of getting any compensation they are marginalized and excluded (e.g. Lawrence & Åhrén, 2017). Previous research has, as mentioned, problematized the issue of the lack of economic compensation to the Sami (Haikola & Anshelm, 2016; Müller, 2013; Ojala & Nordin, 2015).

I ask Hanna Sofie how this money could be used if it was not taken from them. She talks about visionary ideas of how the money might be a possibility to actually plan and design their own societies; they could invest in education since “we have been dispossessed from our own language, land and history […] several generation lost their languages”, they could invest in research on nature and environmental issues from their perspectives. She talks about the need to start re-possessive processes where space is created for own knowledge systems. This could be connected to (re)- claiming how knowledge production takes place in a relational chain, to centre the experience based and embodied knowledges. To re-write history so it contains events, stories, memories and experiences that are non-colonial (hooks, 1989; Fur, 2006; Kuokkanen, 2000; Qwul’sih’yah’maht, 2005; Öhman & Wyld, 2014).

Using your rights29 Matti says that “[…] we have quite a lot of rights if you look at international and legal texts and the UNs Indigenous Convention. European Convention. There is quite a lot to fall back on”. This can be put in relation to previous research that shows that there are quite a few UN conventions and declarations that concerns the Sami’s rights to land, water and self-determination (Svonni, 2010). It is pointed out that there is limited knowledge among people who are working within the planning framework when it comes to international laws and conventions that concerns the Sami (Svonni, 2010). “It can sometimes feel like rights only exist on paper, but it also depends on how you use these rights”, Matti says. He continues, “you have to rise up and take the fight”. Hanna Sofie also points to the fact that they have all these rights, but how they are not really practiced today. She says that through them they have a greater possibility to be able to plan and use the land in the way they think is reasonable and sustainable. Hanna Sofie, like Matti, argues how they “should take and be given our rightful place” when it comes to their rights to land. To know (and learn) how to oper-

29 I just want to point out that rights are not given by anyone to someone, rights are always fought for. As discussed in the contextualisation, regarding the historic perspective on the colonisation of Sápmi, organisation, mobilisation, activism and resistance have always been parallel stories to oppression. Sami resistance have worked at local, national and international levels to highlight and strengthen rights to land, to identities, languages, cultures, world-views and self-determination (e.g. Lantto & Mörkerstam (2008; 2015), see also Liliequist (2017) who writes specifically about women within Sami rights movements).

42 ate within the western planning framework may be seen as a possibility to create a space for influence (Matunga, 2013).

Sarakka talks about the need for Sweden to ratify ILO 169 since it requires that the land rights that already exist will be recognized and respected. She argues that it is possible that the Swedish state does not want to sign since the convention empow- ers the Sami’s rights to their land and water, it gets in conflict with other values like economic growth and money. Hanna Sofie argues that Sweden has to start to listen to the UN at some point and set things straight, “[…] ah shit we’ve colonized a whole land area. Oops! We might have to make this right, and to back off. And to recognize the rights we have, we do have human rights”. She continues to talk about how Swe- den is very good at criticizing other countries and pointing the finger at wrong doings in other places, but the United Nations has criticized Sweden over and over again for human rights violations, among other things concerning the Sami community”. This is pointed out by previous research as well (e.g. Anaya, 2011; Lawrence & Åhrén, 2017). Hanna Sofie talks about how the Swedish state does not really understand what needs to done, “[…] Sweden thinks it's enough to get a place-name sign somewhere in some municipality, because they do not know that we need to plan for our existence”. This can be related to how previous research point to how the Swedish state’s official position is that Sápmi was never subject to colonisation (Fur 2013; Jo- hansson 2008; Össbo 2014). It could also serve as an example of how history is a political tool where, in this case, the Swedish state construct a (hi)story where they erase certain events, stories, memories and experiences (e.g. Öhman & Wyld, 2014; see also Qwul’sih’yah’maht & Thomas, 2005; Southgate, 2009). The Swedish version of history is then being challenged here.

When Sarakka and I talk about using rights to claim land she says:

[…] from an Indigenous planning perspective, you can think about who owns the land? We do not either, no-one does. So, I do not want to like ‘this is my earth’", this is mine because it's not. It's me who borrows from nature. So, I do not want to claim so much in that way.

Sarakka says that she does not want to go around being angry at the state(s), she does not want to reproduce this “us against them”-mentality nor “we do not want anything do to with you”-thinking. She says that she does not believe in that. This can be understood as a critique against the colonial ideas where man becomes in charge of nature due to the binary and hierarchical system of understanding the world (e.g. Sandström, 2017; Said, 1978). It can further be an example of a reconnection with each other and where this reconnection includes earth (e.g. Walia, 2012). It could also be an example of transformation focusing on emancipation and resistance where power imbalances are to be wiped out and is replaced with the implementation of relational logic (Sandström, 2017).

Sarakka also highlights that she definitely sees the claiming of land, to use their rights, as an important strategy in order to determine your own life and your own relationship to land, in order to gain self-determination. This can be put in relation to how the struggles for rights to land and water is a struggle to have the right and the possibility to define and determine one’s own life and one’s own relationship to land (Matunga, 2013).

43 Stressing the system and going to court The skill and ability to use the Western legal processes, often against the state and “its” national, regional, and district planning systems can be used as a strategy (Matunga, 2013). When I ask Matti how he thinks you could change the Swedish planning framework he talks about conflict as a way forward, he talks about pushing the issues to come to a head where you really can put a finger on the problem. He says that “you have to punish the system so it shows its weak sides…so its flaws are shown and it leaks and starts to break”. Matti talks about taking issues to court as a strategy to show “enough is enough” and how they do not accept decisions taken by the state. He continues with arguing how you have to be strategically smart, and to put pressure on a process. You have to stress the mining companies for instance. He says that:

I want it to be clear for the other party that they don’t give a shit about you. They wrap it in a lot of nice words. I think it should be spelled out by the state in planning processes and court processes; we couldn’t care less about you, we couldn’t care less about reindeer herding. It is not interesting from a common good-perspective, we intend to put you and reindeer herding down. It's better to say it straight like it is, than to make changes behind your back.

Matti talks about how stressing can make them say something foul, which he argues is something that they are bound to say sooner or later. He takes the Girjas case30 as an example where they [the state] said “a bunch of foul things, it was very good”. Matti talks about how obvious it was during the Girjas process that both the legislation and the Swedish history in general are colonial and racist. He explains how a piece of evidence submitted by the state described the construction of the Sameby or “lappbyar” 31 as they were called before, he says. “The state lawyer read directly from the text […]and then he skipped a piece”, Matti says. Matti found the paragraph that the lawyer skipped. “The paragraph said that “Lappbyar” are to be compared with other lower-standing primates' domains”, Matti explains. This piece of “evidence” was then handed in in writing to the district court, and Matti states “[…] and that's how we were perceived by the colonizers, and apparently, that idea is still alive today”. Matti puts this in relation to the fact that there is a general ignorance of the colonial and racist history in Sweden. Matti also points out how it became evident how the state viewed research and science about Sami issues: “it was described as partial, subjec- tive and not to be trusted”.

Matti’s example of the Girjas case could be put in relation to quite a few things. One thing is how it exposes that colonial and racist ideas are a part of western planning framework (Matunga, 2013; Walker & Matunga, 2013). It is a way of showing how both the Swedish legal system and state lawyers are reproducing racial and colonial stereotypes in their struggle to claim and keep control over Sápmi where their stories (re)construct the Sami as “the other” (e.g. Said, 1978). It can also be put in relation to how the hierarchic, binary and colonial way of thinking many times frame indigenous

30 Girjas Sameby and SSR (Swedish Sami Association) filed a lawsuit against the Swedish state in 2009. This was done to have it tried in court who has the right to manage the small game hunting and fishing in the Sameby’s pasture area in the mountains. In May 2015 negotiations began on February 3, 2016, the verdict came; Girjas Sameby won against the state. The state is going to appeal this decision (Sametinget, 2016d). 31 I want again to point out that ”lapp” is a racist term used on the Sami.

44 knowledges as “primitive”, “unsophisticated” or “inferior” but also as not “objective” or “neutral” (e.g. Absolon & Willie, 2005; Chilisa, 2012; Kovach, 2010; Monture-Okanee, 1995; Tuhiwai Smith, 1999; Öhman & Wyld, 2014). It may also be seen as an example of how telling your experiences and histories can itself be an act of resistance. When people and knowledges gets marginalized you can become a subject through describing your reality and tell your history (hooks, 1989; Öhman & Wyld, 2014; see also Fur, 2006; Qwul’sih’yah’maht, 2005).

When it comes to running legal processes both Matti and Hanna talks about how resource-intensive it is. Sarakka says that it is hard to be a human fighting against these systems, it is really difficult. Not every Sameby knows everything about running legal processes in order to claim their rights, doing all the paperwork that is needed and above all “who has the economics to do so?” Sarakka asks. Matti also talks about how it is a matter of resources; these processes are very expensive. “[…] Therefore, we have to choose which processes are of fundamental importance, even if they all are really”, he says. Sarakka also points out that “[…] maybe not everyone wants to do that either. Be activists, maybe they just want to live their lives and exist”.

Practicing reciprocity Sarakka talks about different strategies or methods than can be practiced within existing planning framework and she gives an example of what was done when building the Sami university (which is located in Kautokeino/Guovdageaidnu, Finnmark, Nor- way). “A little detail that Sami entrepreneurs do when building a new building, you ask for permission first”, Sarakka says. She describes how the initiators of the project had asked for permission; the architects and the planners had slept one night where the school was to be built as a way of asking for permission to settle and to build there. “It's a nice thing I think. As a positive example in relation to planning that one asks the earth, especially if there has been a reindeer migration route there, if you are allowed to settle down”, Sarakka says. This can be put in relation to what is highlighted within indigenous and decolonial planning (and in indigenous and decolonial studies and research in general), that you practice ideas of reciprocity, relational and holistic thinking (Matunga, 2013). It can be understood as a way of showing your respect, a way of practicing a non-hierarchical way of relating to place and to nature. Nature is not yours to take, you and the ecosystems are interwoven and therefore you should practice reciprocity (e.g. Balto and Kuhmunen, 2014; Matunga, 2013).

The necessity to fight This necessity to fight is something that is obvious when listening to Sarakka, Matti and Hanna Sofie. I am not sure it could be seen as a strategy, or maybe it can be seen as a survival strategy.

Sarakka talks about how the capitalist profit perspective on Sápmi has made nature into to politics for her, “it has become political and I think that's a bit sad”. She argues that this relationship and connectedness with Sápmi and its nature might be why many young Sami people today think so much about mining establishments, environmental issues and what is sustainable and not. Sarakka means that this “is something that you worry about and think of quite a lot”, she is guessing that young Sami

45 people think more about these issues than “average youth” or those who are non- indigenous. She makes it clear that there is also this exotifying and colonial idea of how all Sami are “nature lovers”, how indigenous people are portrayed as being pretty much a part of nature or equals nature. This is something that Hanna Sofie talks about too. It can be an example of how you have to navigate in colonial (hi)stories in order to create space for yourself, to have the prerogative to self-identification and self-decision (e.g. hooks, 1989; Qwul’sih’yah’maht & Thomas, 2005; Öhman & Wyld, 2014). Sarakka continues to say:

[…] and all of this, of being politically committed, in colonization and all our issues and the whole struggle. And if I could have chosen myself, I would have liked to think that I did not need to do it. But I feel that I owe it both to the future and the past to do it. To take responsibility.

Hanna Sofie also talks about the persistent struggle, the persistent fight and how it is a must and not really something voluntary. She says that ”[…] the easiest way would have been to just disappear into Swedishness. If I had just forgotten my Sami heritage and my identity then my life would have been so much easier. I would have been freed from my weeks of depression, I would not have been forced to make the phone call to ensure that my daughter is being taught in Sami in her school […]”. Hanna Sofie says that there has to be “an all areas fight” to ensure that her future grandchil- dren would have a Sami future. She argues that “there is no Sami person who can only care about themselves today […] we have to always look ahead into the future”, Hanna Sofie says. With emphasis, she says to me:

I want you to understand, so people understand how tough it is to be a Sami in today’s society. We cannot choose not to engage, not to fight. Be- cause then it's over. No one can choose not to engage, or to fight.

When I ask Sarakka if she has a vision when it comes to changing the existing planning framework she says that in order […]to plan in an indigenous way of thinking, it would have been nice for us to practice traditional knowledge and the skills that are in our bodies without having to struggle every day”. Hanna Sofie and Sarakka’s experiences could be put in relation to a few things. One aspect is how their understandings of Sápmi shows the interrelation of place, identities, knowledges, worldviews and intergenerational thinking (e.g. Kuokkonen, 2000; Rydberg, 2011; Utsi, 2007). It can be understood as a way to challenge how colonialism interlinked with capitalism tries to undo these relationships through its binary fragmental logic, it is “[…] fundamentally invested in undoing those relationships to place and imposing new, extractive structures in their stead” (Moreton-Robinson, 2016, p. 22). Previous research points out how mining and its environmental effects has a very strong connection to social, historical and cultural effects in the local Sami community due to the relational perspective with specific places and nature (e.g. An- dersson & Cocq, 2016; Grahn, 2011; Haikola & Anshelm, 2016; Lawrence & Klocker Larsen, 2017; Sehlin MacNeil, 2017; Svonni, 2011). Due to the relational understanding of the world, humans are just one part in a continuous relation to everything else. Therefor it is of great importance to take responsibility for this interlinked process (Chilisa, 2012; Kovach, 2009; Kuokkanen, 2000). It could also be put in relation to

46 how indigenous planning has a “strong tradition of resistance”, due to colonialist oppression, aiming to improve indigenous peoples’ lives and environments with a focus on rights and self-determination (Matunga, 2013, p. 5).

Think outside the (colonial) box

What we also talked about was how you can create space outside or beyond this framework; where you do not adjust to the framework both on a personal level and a collective level.

On a personal level Sarakka talks about how she has actively chosen to not be a victim in life:

[…] not in any context or sense I want to be seen as a victim. I have chosen not to live the trauma. I chose to every day to not live as a colonized human being, or as a minority as a homosexual. I do not want it.

This can be put in relation to how you on an individual level can re-write, resist and challenge colonial histories where you create space and put yourself in a position of agency (e.g. hooks, 1989; Öhman & Wyld, 2014; see also Biolisi, 2005; Fur, 2006; Qwul’sih’yah’maht & Thomas, 2005). It can also be seen as to not confirm to the position as “the other” (Said, 1978). It highlights how different experiences (and power relations) concerning your position as indigenous work together with experiences concerning gender and sexuality for instance (e.g. Driskill et al., 2011). It could be seen as a way to construct other/different stories about Sápmi. Histories (and stories in general) are important to understand place and is a part of how a place is constructed and related to (Basso, 1996). If you re-write the history of yourself it might be seen as a way to re-write the histories of Sápmi.

A practical thing you could do as a Sami person to reclaim planning and decolonise is to “move back, come home again”, Sarakka says. She continues “[…] move to Sápmi, establish and use nature and reclaim your space and take back language. Practice every day, and use what we still have. I think that's the best thing you can do”. She talks about how this is happening in Sápmi right now. This can be put in relation to how indigenous planning is about ”reformulation, reconstruction, reimagination” of planning so it is based on your worldviews (Jojola, Walker & Natcher, 2013; see also Jojola, 2008). These ideas of “reformulation, reconstruction and reimagination” could also be out in relation to what both Matti and Sarakka is talking about. They mean that art in different ways can create spaces to envision and practice your needs, rights, dreams and wishes. Sarakka talks about how far away Swe- den is from truth and reconciliation work. She talks about how they try to do it themselves with their play [CO2lonialNATION]. Matti says that art can be a space where you can raise awareness and discussion. He continues by saying that plays can be a great way to access and discuss issues that feels taboo. This can be related to how creating space for your stories are very important within indigenous and decolonial planning (Jojola, 2008; Matunga, 2013). It could be put in relation to how telling of stories (in different ways) is a legitimate way of sharing knowledge and how knowledge is something that is created collectively. It can be seen as a way of conceptualizing, analysing and theorizing around lived experiences (Kovach, 2005; Kuokkanen, 2000; Öhman & Wyld, 2014).

Matti too talks about what can be done on a personal level, to me it sounds like some kind of self-reflexive approach to decolonise your own mind. He says that there is a need of a holistic approach regarding yourself and your existence where you should focus on your own values. He talks about how you need to step out of the colonial box, he says how he “[…] sometimes feel that we ourselves can get a little…we are so colonized and assimilated. We ourselves are a part of it. We need to step out of it. Try to see it from another perspective sometimes”. Matti talks about this as a process in relation to how Sápmi, to a greater extent than today, needs to rise and say “enough is enough”. Where they listen to themselves and take own initiatives and resist to conform to colonial and racist planning processes for instance. He talks about a “take it or leave it”-attitude, if they are not listened to they should just take it to court. This could be put in relation to how indigenous planning should be practiced in relation to indigenous worldviews, methods and also by indigenous people (Matunga, 2013).

Hanna Sofie talks about how young Sami people does not accept the planning framework that has been set up for them, instead they are claiming space as was done in Gállok 2013. You fought against the mining industry and the state, and for nature’s rights and your rights to land. She talks about that there are still too many who have respect for the authorities. Matti says that when the mineral boom was at its worst, something happened. It was like a little alarm clock went off and became a start of what we see today. “[…] We have started to take space ourselves, we cannot wait for someone to offer us space”, he says. Matti continues by saying that it sometimes feels as if you just go along with what the state offers like negotiations and similar opportunities but then it stays the same anyway. Speaking of negotiations and similar spaces of “possibilities” to influence like consultations, Matti talks about saying no as a decolonial strategy. “You should just say no”, he continues, “you should say no. We will not be part of any damn consultation”. Matti says that his Sameby has not “entered into a single damn consultation” and he states that they have no intention of doing that either since they will not be used as an alibi in the decision- making. Matti thinks that they [the state, mining companies etc.] will finally have to accept their terms. It is a strategy for change and to show how “the words of the Sami society should weigh as heavy as the words of an Australian mining exploiter’s word, or of a Swedish mining exploiter's word”, Matti argues. The Sameby must have the right to say no to exploitation that already is proven to change reindeer husbandry, or where reindeer herding sometimes even has been wiped out. This is something that Hanna Sofie talks about too. Previous research discusses this too, that Same- byar should have the right to veto (Lawrence & Klocker Larsen, 2017). It is also ar- gued that the conflict of “interest” between Samebyar and mining establishments cannot be solved through existing systems of dialogue (Länsstyrelsen i Norrbottens län och Sweco, 2015). It could also be connected to demands in accordance with Free, Prior and Informed Consent where indigenous people should not be forced to accept mining (for instance) on their land, and where there is bottom up participation of the concerned indigenous group preceding the beginning of a development on indigenous land (e.g. Svonni, 2010; Anaya, 2004). It is about the right to self- determination and self-governance.

48 Matti says that in order to get things done we need to, in accordance with holistic practice, connect activism, politics and legislation. “We have to work together at all levels […] activism can change the opinion, and opinion can put pressure on politicians and politicians can change legislation. It is connected”, he says. Matti talks about how there is too much trust in the planning framework but this interconnected- ness can force negotiations to happen. There is a need for more activism, more resistance. Matti says that they cannot sit in “these damn consultations. When one party has the entire legislation system in their back and the other party knows that they will lose in any case”, he continues:

We cannot just sit in negotiations, because then we will negotiate us to death. Up on the barricades! That is what planning is all about.

Matti talks about how they should make their own legislation and see how the state responds to it, “[…] they may put us in jail or whatever they want to do” he says. If we look historically on significant change that have occurred when it comes to minority groups, groups that have been made marginalized and indigenous groups “it is not at the negotiating tables that it has started. It's on the streets”, Matti says. He continues, “the entire civil rights movements in the United States started on the streets, anti- apartheid in South Africa started on the streets. It's on the street where movements start. Then it has led to negotiations”. He talks about how the Alta uprising32 raised awareness within the majority-societies and how it may have helped to change legislation in Norway, “it might have made it easier for them to ratify the ILO convention” Matti argues. Then he takes Standing Rock33 as an example where you got a temporary stop, but “then they [the US] got a new crazy president”. He continues with saying that “we cannot continue to negotiate with various ministers on their terms. We will have conversations, but it must be on our terms. A little more radicalism”.

To (re)act against existing planning framework through activism and resistance can also be seen as a way to practice planning (Hausam, 2013; Matunga, 2013). As pointed out, indigenous planning has a “strong tradition of resistance” (Matunga, 2013, p. 5). This can be an example of how planning can be a tool for transformation and emancipation. Or if we put it in relation to how Waziyatawin and Yellow Bird (2012) defines decolonisation:

32 The Alta revolt lasted between 1979 and 1981, and involved the construction of a hydroelectric power station and power plant dam in Altaälven, in the parts of Sápmi that lies within the borders of Norway. 33 The Dakota Access Pipeline (Northern parts of the US) would cross through traditional and ancestral land and the construction of the pipeline jeopardizes many sacred places. “In honour of our future generations, we fight this pipeline to protect our water, our sacred places, and all living beings”. The Dakota Access Pipeline protests, has drawn international attention and have been said to be reshaping the national conversation for any environmental project that would cross the Native American land (Standing rock, 2017).

49 CONCLUSION, FINAL THOUGHTS AND FU- TURE STUDIES

This thesis set out to centre three people’s stories, their experiences and understandings of the Swedish planning framework for mining establishments. Hanna Sofie, Matti and Sarakka are all Sami people whom in different ways exposes, questions, challenges and changes the diverse expressions of colonialism, racism and capitalism within this framework. Except this they also reformulate, reconstruct and reimagine planning where non-hierarchical and relational thinking is centred. This thesis, like all stories, is not in any way complete. It should be seen as one part of many stories that are exposing colonial planning practices within the Swedish planning framework for mining establishments. One part of creating more space for stories, experiences and practices relating to indigenous planning and decolonial planning.

The questions that I posed in the beginning of this thesis were as follows:

The answers are merged into each other, they are interlinked and intertwined. Since stories are fluid, non-linear and associative we moved through a bunch of different experiences, thoughts and topics. If we understand their stories with the image of a mind map where “planning + mining” is in the centre, we see the relations between legislation, participation, gender roles, sexuality, identity, nature, place, racism, discrimination, psychological health, history writing, reindeer herding, knowledges, generational perspectives, local and global environmental issues et cetera. Stories are complex and interrelated since they reflect our realities.

To be a bit clearer. One key issue is the different understandings of Sápmi, of place, and the following consequences. On the one hand, you have a non-hierarchical, reciprocal and respectful relationship with nature (and place). On the other hand, you have the idea of humans owning and controlling land and resources. There is an enormous power imbalance of these ways of relating and defining Sápmi due to colonialism, capitalism and neoliberalism. Hanna Sofie, Matti and Sarakka expose how Sápmi is judged from a capital valuation perspective where short-term thinking and growth is in focus. They point out this power imbalance and how their knowledges, experiences and rights are being downplayed in order to continue an expansion of mining establishments.

Their experiences and exposing of power imbalances are directly related to his- tor/y/ies. They weave their stories about today’s images of Sápmi with the past. You have to understand the current planning framework from a historical perspective where Sápmi was colonised due to its natural resources. The Sami were seen as “an inferior race” unsuitable to manage their own land, and their planning systems could not be understood in the eyes of the Swedish rational planning framework (and how it also was hindering exploitation). To not be understood and ideas of being unsuitable to manage their own land is something that we see clear traces of regarding “possi-

50 bilities” to influence. Consultations, negotiations and similar spaces for influence are colonial spaces. Or as Matti says:

There is no consultation anywhere anytime that has led to the fact that a Sameby has gotten their opinions and their knowledges respected.

They show how Samebyar and the Sami in general are excluded from actual decision-making. Their knowledges are understood as non-relevant/non-important. This is a colonial reproduction and a continuation where a neoliberal state facilitates exploitation by both state and multinational companies on land that is not theirs to take.

How Hanna Sofie, Matti and Sarakka expose colonial, capitalist and racist planning traditions is partly answering the question of how indigenous and decolonial planning described, experienced and practiced? One key aspect to decolonise planning is to expose its inbuilt power hierarchies. Their stories relating to descriptions, experiences and practices of indigenous and decolonial planning is directly connected to ideas of reformulation, reconstruction and reimagination of planning. Decolonisation of planning is about a commitment to change politically, socially, economically and envi- ronmentally. It is to practice resistance in different ways. They use different strategies to create space and to challenge, question and change this framework. They demand economic compensation due to damages made on their lands and they use their rights and run legal processes. To have the skills to operate the western planning framework; to use laws, regulation and policies are another part of how to practice decolonial planning. They also talk about the necessity to fight and how it is not a voluntary fight. Sarakka says: “I feel that I owe it both to the future and the past to do it. To take responsibility” and Hanna Sofie says “we cannot choose not to engage, not to fight. Because then it's over”.

They talk about creating space outside or beyond this colonial, racist and capitalist framework. They talk about not adjusting both on a personal level and a collective level. About choosing to not be a colonial victim, to say no to consultations –to not being used as an alibi in the decision-making, how art can be a visionary place, how Sami people could move back home to Sápmi as a way to reclaim planning. And how it is on the barricades where planning should take place. This can be seen as examples of reformulation, reconstruction and reimagination of planning so it recognises Sami worldviews, but also how re-action against planning decisions through activism is also a way to practice planning.

There is not one singular way forward, as there is not only one single strategy that will take us there. Even if economic compensation never will balance out or replace all the damages that are done to the nature, it should nevertheless exist and be fair. It is disgraceful the royalty fees are pretty much non-existent. I think that the Sameby should have the right to veto, have the right to say no to mining establishments on their land. Like Matti, Sarakka and Hanna Sofie point out: all the minerals we need have been taken up all ready. The historical and on-going ignorance when it comes to the colonisation of Sápmi must end, it should have ended ages ago. It is of great importance to understand the profound impacts that colonisation, capitalism and racism have on the whole societal system where planning framework for mining is just one aspect. Concepts such as indigenous planning and decolonial planning has not gained any particular attention in the majority society, and I think that there is a great need to discuss and acknowledge these concepts in order to change existing plan-

51 ning frameworks. These concepts continue to challenge ideas of “the expert”, what knowledge is understood as the Knowledge and whose version of the reality, whose stories, serves as basis for decision-making. We all need to remember that capitalism, for instance, is just a hegemonic story and not an inevitable way of organising our society.

There are quite a few different aspects that would be of interest to continue to study. If looking at the planning profession, what kind of representation do we have when it comes to Sami people? Do the concepts and practices of indigenous planning and decolonial planning mean anything if looking at local, regional and national levels of the planning profession? When talking about Sami representation it could also be of interest to discuss it in relation to the legislative body, what consequences do the lack of Sami representation have? Another aspect is to continue to study civil diso- bedience, resistance and activism as planning practices in relation to decolonial planning.

52 REFERENCES

Non-printed sources

Bergstaten (2017) ”Sammanfattning av regelsystemet” https://www.sgu.se/bergsstaten/lagstiftning/sammanfattning-av-regelsystemet/. Ac- cess: 2017-06-28.

Miljönytta (2011). “Staden som framtidens gruva”. http://miljonytta.se/arbetsplatser/staden-som-framtidens-gruva/. Access: 2017-06-29

Reindeer Herding – A virtual guide to reindeer and the people who herd them (2017). http://reindeerherding.org/. Access: 2017-06-28.

Sametinget (2016a). “The right to land and water” https://www.sametinget.se/10175 Updated: 2016-05-02.

Sametinget (2016b). “Sami self-determination” https://www.sametinget.se/10169. Updated: 2016-05-02.

Sametinget (2016c). “Samerna i Sverige”. https://www.sametinget.se/samer. Upda- ted: 2016-05-11.

Sametinget (2016d).” Girjasmålet – rättsprocessen”. http://www.samer.se/4997. Up- dated: 2016-02-03.

Sametinget (2017a). “Renen och Samisk kultur”. http://www.samer.se/1094. Access: 2017-06-25.

Sametinget (2017b). “Rennäringen I Sverige” https://www.sametinget.se/rennaring_sverige. Updated: 2017-02-23

Simma, Åsa, Berg, Matti, Siviken, Anne and Haetta, Kenneth (2017). “Demokratiska Helande Samtal. 2017-05-04.

Standing with Standing Rock (2017). http://standwithstandingrock.net/. Access: 2017- 07-25.

Sveriges Radio (2017) “Vi lyfter berättelser om vardagsrasism mot samer”. Pub- lished: 2017-03-28.

Unsettlingamerica (2015) “Call for submissions: Gender, sexuality & decolonization” https://unsettlingamerica.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/call-for-submissions-gender- sexuality-decolonization/.

Printed sources

Absolon, Kathy and Wille, Cam (2005). “Putting Ourselves Forward: Location in Abo- riginal Research” in, Brown, Leslie and Strega, Susan (eds.) Research as Resistance

53 - Critical, Indigenous, and Anti-Oppressive Approaches. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.

Alarik, Oscar (2014). Gruvor. Bakgrund och Förslag. Naturskyddsföreningen.

Allard, Christina (2006). Two Sides of the Coin: Rights and Duties: The Interface between Environmental Law and Sami Law in a Comparison with Aoteoaroa/New Zea- land and Canada. Luleå: Luleå Tekniska Universitet.

Amft, Andrea (2000). Sápmi i förändringens tid: en studie av svenska samers lev- nadsvillkor under 1900-talet ur ett genus- och etnicitetsperspektiv. Umeå : Umeå universitet.

Anaya, James (2004). Indigenous Peoples in International Law. Oxford: Oxford university press.

Anaya, James (2011). “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, James Anaya. The Situation of the Sami People in the Sápmi Region in Norway. Sweden and Finland”.

Andersson, Daniel and Cocq, Coppélie (2016). ”Från kolonisation till gruvexploate- ring. Nyttoperspektiv på naturen i Sápmi förr och nu” in, Kulturella Perspektiv – svensk etnologisk tidskrift. No 1: 40–47.

Alfred, Taiaiake (2009) Wasáse: Indigenous Pathways of Action and Freedom. To- ronto: University of Toronto Press.

Aubin, Aaron (2013). “Foreword” in, Jojola, Ted, Walker, Ryan and Natcher, David (eds) Reclaiming Indigenous Planning Reclaiming Indigenous Planning. Montreal: McGills-Queen’s University Press.

Baer, L.A (1982). “The Sami – An indigenous people in their own land” in, The Sami: National Minority in Sweden. Rättsfonden Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell Internation- al.

Baer, L. A. (2008). “Samisk forskning – i en postkolonial diskurs” in, Sköld, Peter (ed.) Människor i norr: samisk forskning på nya vägar. Umeå Universitet.

Balto, Asta and Kuhmunen, Gudrun (2014). Máhttáhit - Omskola dem och oss! -samisk självbestämmande och samiskt ledarskap. Kárášjohka-Karasjok: Čálli- idLágádus

Basso, Keith. H (1996). Wisdom Sits in Places: Landscape and Language Among the Western Apache. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Beard, A. Victoria (2003). ”Learning radical planning” in, Planning Theory. No 1: 13–35.

Beck, Wendy and Somerville, Margaret (2002). “Embodied places in indigenous eco- tourism: The Yarrawarra research project” in, Australian Aboriginal Studies. No 2: 4– 13.

Beebeejaun, Yasminah (2004). “What's in a nation? Constructing ethnicity in the British planning system”, in Planning Theory & Practice, 5:4, 437-451.

Beland Lindahl. K, Zachrisson. A, Wiklund. R, Matti. S and Fjellborg. D (2016). Konflikter om gruvetablering. Lokalsamhällets aktörer och vägar till hållbarhet. Länsstyrelsens Rap- portserie, nr. 2.

Bergman, Elfrida and Lindquist, Sara (2013). Queering Sápmi: Samiska berättelser bortanför normen. Umeå: Qub förlag

Berke, P. R. Ericksen, N. Crawford, J and Dixon, J (2002). “Planning and Indigenous People - Human Rights and Environmental Protection in New Zealand” in, Journal of Planning Education and Research.

Bessarab, Dawn & Ng’andu, Bridget (2010). “Yarning - about Yarning as a Legitimate Method” in Indigenous Research in, International Journal of Critical Indigenous Stud- ies. No 1: 37–50.

Biolisi, Thomas (2005). “Imagined geographies: Sovereignty, indigenous space, and American Indian struggle” in, American ethnologist, Journal of the American Ethno- logical Society. No 2: 239–259.

Booth, Annie and Muir, Bruce (2011). “Environmental and Land-Use Planning Ap- proaches of Indigenous Groups in Canada: An Overview” in, Journal of Environmen- tal Policy and Planning. No 4: 421-442.

Bryman, Alan (2011). Samhällsvetenskapliga metoder. Malmö: Liber.

Burayadi, M. A. (2003). “The multicultural city as planners’ enigma” in, Planning Theory and Practice. No 3: 259–273.

Butler, Judith and Athanasio, Athena (2013). Dispossessions: the performative in the political. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Brown, Leslie and Strega, Susan (2005). “Trangressive Possibilities” in, Brown, Leslie and Strega, Susan (eds). Research As Resistance - Critical, Indigenous, and Anti-Oppressive Approaches. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press

Brännlund, Isabelle (2015). Histories of reindeer husbandry resilience: land use and social networks of reindeer husbandry in Swedish Sápmi 1740-1920. Umeå Universi- ty.

Calbucura, J. (2014). “The decolonisation of knowledge and being indigenous people in Chile” in, Gärdebo, Johan, Öhman, May-Britt and Maruyama, Hiroshi (eds.) RE: MINDINGS Co-Constituting Indigenous / Academic / Artistic Knowledges. Stockholm: Vulkan.

Cannella G. S., & Manuelito, K. D. (2008). “Feminisms from unthought locations: Indigenous worldviews, marginalized feminisms, and revisioning anticolonial social science” in, N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln and L. T. Smith (eds.) Handbook of

55 critical and indigenous methodologies. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Chilisa, Bagele (2012). Indigenous Research Methodologies. London: Sage.

Cocq, Coppélie (2014) ”Kampen om Gállok: Platsskapande och synliggörande” in, Kulturella perspektiv—Svensk etnologisk tidskrift. No 1: 5–12.

Coombes, Brad, Johnson, Jay T and Howitt, Richard (2012). “Indigenous Geogra- phies I. Mere resource conflicts? The complexities in Indigenous land and environmental claims” in, Progress in Human Geography.

Corntassel, Jeff (2008). “Toward Sustainable Self Determination: Rethinking the Con- temporary Indigenous-Rights Discourse.” in, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political. No: 1: 105–32.

Crenshaw, Kimberlé (1991). “De-marginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics” in, K.T. Bartle and R. Kennedy (Eds.) Feminist legal theory. Boulder: Westview Press.

Diskrimineringsombudsmannen (2008). “Diskriminering av samer. Samers rättigheter ur ett diskrimineringsperspektiv”.

Driskill, Qwo-Li, Brian Joseph, Gilley, Morgensen, Lauria, Finely, Chris (eds.) (2011). Queer Indigenous Studies - Critical Interventions in Theory, Politics, and Literature. Arizona: The University of Arizona Press.

Ely, M, Anzul, Margaret, Friedman, Teri, Garner, Daiane and Steinmetz, Ann (1993). Kvalitativ Forskningsmetodik i praktiken – cirklar inom cirklar. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Fainstein, Susan and DeFilippis, James (eds.) (2016). Readings in Planning Theory (Fourth edition). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Fur, Gunlög (2006). “Reading Margins: Colonial Encounters in Sápmi and Le- napehoking in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries” in, Feminist Studies. No 2: 491-521.

Fur, Gunlög (2013). “Colonialism and Swedish History: Unthinkable Connections?” In Naum, Magdalena and Nordin, Jonas M (eds.) Scandinavian Colonialism and the Rise of Modernity: Small Time Agents in a Global Arena. New York: Springer.

Gaski, Lina (2008). ”Sami Identity as a Discursive Formation: Essentialism and Am- bivalence” in, Minde, Henry, Gaski, Harald, Jentoft, Svein and Midré, Georges (eds.) Indigenous Peoples: Self-Determination, Knowledge, Indigeneity. Delft: Eburon Pub- lishers.

Grahn, Linnea (2011). Fysisk planering i Sápmi. Blekinge Tekniska Högskola.

56 Gärdebo, Johan, Öhman, May-Britt and Maruyama, Hiroshi (2014). “Introduction” in, Gärdebo, Johan, Öhman, May-Britt & Maruyama, Hiroshi (eds.) RE: MINDINGS Co- Constituting Indigenous / Academic / Artistic Knowledges. Stockholm: Vulkan.

Haikola, Simon & Anshelm, Jonas (2016). “Mineral policy at a crossroads? Critical reflections on the challenges with expanding Sweden’s mining sector” in The Extrac- tive Industries and Society. No 3: 508–516.

Hall, Stuart (1992). “The West and the Rest: Discourse and Power” in, Hall, Stuart and Gieben, Bran (eds.) Formations of Modernity. Cambridge & Oxford: Polity Press in association with the Open University.

Hall, Stuart (1996). “When Was ‘the Post-Colonial’? Thinking at the Limit” in, Cham- bers, Iain and Lidia Curti (eds) The Post-Colonial Question. Common Skies, Divided Horizons. London & New York: Routledge.

Haraway, Donna. (1988). ”Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective” in Feminist Studies. No 3: 575–599.

Hausam, Sharon (2013). “Maybe, Maybe not: Native American Participation in Re- gional Planning”, in Jojola, Ted, Walker, Ryan and Natcher, David (eds.) Reclaiming Indigenous Planning. Montreal: McGills-Queen’s University Press.

Healey, Patsy (1997). Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.

Hibbard, M., and M. B. Lane (2004). “By the seat of your pants: Indigenous action and state response” in, Planning Theory and Practice. No 1: 95–102.

Hibbard, M., Lane, M. B., and Rasmussen, K. (2008). “The split personality of planning: Indigenous Peoples and planning for land and resource management” in Jour- nal of Planning Literature. No 2: 136–151. hooks, bell (1992). Black Looks: Race and Representation. Toronto: Between the Lines. hooks, bell (1989). Talking Back. Thinking Feminist, Thinking Black. Boston: South End Press.

Howitt, R., and R. Lawrence (2008) “Indigenous Peoples, Corporate Social Respon- sibility, and the Fragility of the Interpersonal Domain.” in, C. O’Faircheallaigh and S. Ali (eds.) Earth Matters: Indigenous Peoples, the Extractive Industries and Corporate Social Responsibility. Sheffield: Greenleaf.

Huning, Sandra (2014). “Deconstructing space and gender? Options for ‘gender planning’” in, Les cahiers du CEDREF.

Irazabal, Clara and Huerta, Claudia (2015). “Intersectionality and planning at the margins: LGBTQ youth of color in New York”, in Gender, Place and Cultur. A Journal of Feminist Geography. No. 5: 714-732.

Jernsletten, Nils (1993). “Sami language communities and the conflict between Sami and Norwegian” In Jahr, Ernst H. (ed.) Language Conflict and Language Planning, ed. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Johansson, Ulf Dahre (2008). “The Politics of Human Rights: Indigenous Peoples and the Conflict on Collective Human Rights” in, The International Journal of Human Rights. No 1: 41-52.

Jojola, Ted (2008). ”Indigenous Planning—An Emerging Context”, in Canadian Journal of Urban Research. No 1: 37-47.

Jojola, Ted, Walker, Ryan and Natcher, David (2013). “Preface”, in Jojola, Ted, Walker, Ryan and Natcher, David Reclaiming Indigenous Planning. Montreal: McGills-Queen’s University Press

Knobblock, Ina and Kuokkanen, Rauna (2015). “Decolonizing Feminism in the North: A Conversation with Rauna Kuokkanen”, in NORA - Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research. No 4: 275-281.

Kohler Riessman, Catherine (2008). Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences. New York: SAGE Publications.

Koivuroa, T (2015). “Legal protection of Sami traditional livelihoods from the adverse impacts of mining: a comparison of the level of protection enjoyed by Sami in their four home states” in, Arctic Review on Law and Politics.

Korpijaakko-Labba, Kaisa (2005). Om samernas rättsliga ställning i Sverige- Finland: en rättshistorisk utredning av markanvändningsförhållanden och -rättigheter i Västerbottens lappmark före mitten av 1700-talet. Helsingfors: Juristförbundets för- lag.

Kovach, Margaret (2005). “Emerging from the Margins: Indigenous Methodologies” in Brown, Leslie and Strega, Susan (eds). Research as Resistance - Critical, Indige- nous, and Anti-Oppressive Approaches. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.

Kovach, Margaret. (2009). “Being Indigenous in within the academy – Creating Space for Indigenous scholars” in, Timpson, A. (ed.) First Nations First Thoughts – New Challenges. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Kovach, Margaret (2010). Indigenous Methodologies: Characteristics, Conversations and Contexts. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Kuokkanen, Rauna (2000). “Towards an ‘Indigenous Paradigm’ from a Sami Per- spective.” In, The Canadian Journal of Native Studies. No 2: 411-36.

Kuokkanen, Rauna (2006). “From Research as Colonialism to Reclaiming Autonomy: Toward a Research Ethics Framework in Sápmi.” in, Ethics in Sámi and Indigenous Research. Report from a Seminar in Kárášjohka, Norway, Nov. 23-24. Kautokeino: Sami Institute.

Kuokkanen, Rauna (2007). Reshaping the University: Responsibility, Indigenous Epistemes, and the Logic of the Gift. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Kuokkanen, Rauna (2009). “Indigenous Women in Traditional Economies – The Case of Sami Reindeer Herding.” in, Signs, Journal of Women in Culture and Socie- ty. No 3: 499-503.

Kuokkanen, Rauna (2011). “From Indigenous Economies to Market-Based Self- Governance: A Feminist Political Economy Analysis.” in, Canadian Journal of Politi- cal Science. No 2: 275–97.

Kvale, Steinar (1997). Den Kvalitativa Forskningsintervjun. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Lane, Marcus B., and S. Cowell (2001). “Land and resource planning and indigenous interests: Reproducing or transforming the social relations of resource use” in, O. Yiftachel, J. Little, D. Hedgcock, and I. Alexander (eds.) The power of planning: Spaces of control and transformation. London:Kluwer Academic.

Lane, Marcus B., and Michael Hibbard (2005). “Doing it for themselves: Transforma- tive planning by indigenous peoples” in, Journal of Planning Education and Re- search. No 2: 172–84.

Lane, Marcus. B., and T. Corbett (2005). “The tyranny of localism: Indigenous participation in community based environmental management” in, Journal of Environmen- tal Planning & Policy. No 2: 142–49.

Lantto, Patrik and Sköld, Peter (2000). Den komplexa kontinenten: staterna på Nord- kalotten och samerna i ett historiskt perspektiv. Umeå: Umeå universitet.

Lantto, Patrik and Mörkerstam, Ulf (2007). “Samerörelsen och offentlig svensk samepolitik” in, Darvishpour, Mehrdad and Westin, Charles (eds) Migration och etnici- tet: Perspektiv på ett mångkulturellt Sverige. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Lantto, Patrik and Mörkenstam, Ulf (2008). ”Sami Rights and Sami Challenges: The Modernization Process and the Swedish Sami Movement, 1886-2006” in, Scandina- vian Journal of History. No. 1: 26-51.

Lantto, Patrik (2010). “Borders, citizenship and change: the case of the Sami people, 1751–2008” in, Citizenship Studies. No 5: 543-556.

Lantto, Patrik (2012). Lappväsendet: Tillämpningen av svensk samepolitik 1885– 1971. Umeå: Centrum för Samisk forskning

Lantto, Patrik (2014). “The Consequences of State Intervention: Forced Relocation and Sámi Rights in Sweden, 1919-2012” in, Journal of Ethnology and Folkloristics., No. 2: 53-73.

Lantto, Patrik and Mörkenstam, Ulf (2015). “Action, organisation and confrontation: strategies of the Sámi movement in Sweden during the twentieth century” in Berg-

59 Nordlie, Mikkel, Saglie, Jo and Sullivan, Ann (eds.) Indigenous politics: institutions, representation, mobilisation. Colchester: ECPR Press.

Lantz, Johanna (2014). I vems intresse? Om riksintresse, allmänintresse och särin- tresse vid planering av vindkraft på samisk mark. Lunds Universitet, Statsvetenskap- liga institutionen.

Lawrence, Rebecca and Mörkenstam, Ulf (2012) "Självbestämmande genom myn- dighetsutövning? Sametingets dubbla roller” in, Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift.

Lawrence, Rebecca (2014) "Internal colonisation and indigenous resource sovereignty: wind power developments on traditional Saami lands” in, Environment and Plan- ning D: Society and Space. No 6: 1036-1053.

Lawrence, Rebecca and Rasmus Kløcker Larsen (2017). “The politics of planning: assessing the impacts of mining on Sami lands” in, Third World Quarterly. No 5: 1164-1180.

Lawrence, Rebecca and Åhrén, Mattias (2017). “Mining as Colonisation: The need for Restorative Justice” in, Head, Lesley, Saltzman, Katarina, Setten, Gunhild and Stenseke, Marie (eds.) Holding on and letting go: nature, temporality and environmental management. New York: Routledge

Lawrence, Rebecca and Sehlin MacNeil, Kristina (2017). “Samiska Frågor i gruvde- batten 2013 – Nya Utrymmen för ohörda kunskaper” in, Liliequist, Marianne and Cocq, Coppélie (eds.) Samisk Kamp: Kulturförmedling och Rättviserörelse. Umeå: Bokförlaget h:ström.

Larsen, R. K., K. Raitio, P. Sandström, A. Skarin, M. Stinnerbom, J. Wik-Karlsson, S. Sandström, C. Österlin, Y. Buhot (2016). “Kumulativa effekter av exploateringar på renskötseln - vad behöver göras inom tillståndsprocesser? ” Vindval report¸ Swedish, EPA.

Larsson, Gunilla (2014). “Protecting Our Memory from Being Blasted Away. Archaeo- logical Supradisciplinary Research Retracing Sámi History in Gállok/Kallak” in, Gärdebo, Johan, Öhman, May-Britt and Maruyama, Hiroshi (eds.) RE: MINDINGS Co-Constituting Indigenous / Academic / Artistic Knowledges. Stockholm: Vulkan.

Lemley, Christine K. & Mitchell, Roland W (2012). ”Narrative Inquiry: Stories Lived, Stories Told” in, S. D. Lapan, M. T. Quartaroli & F. J. Riemer (eds.) Qualitative Research: An Intro- duction to Methods and Designs. San Fransisco CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lindmark, Daniel and Sundström, Olle (eds.) (2016). De historiska relaitonerna mellan svenska kyrkan och samerna. Skellefteå: Artos & Norma Bokförlag.

Liliequist, Marianne & Cocq, Coppélie (2014). “Samisk Kamp för Kulturell Överlev- nad” in, Kulturella Perspektiv – Svensk etnologisk tidskrift. Nr 1: 2-4.

Liliequist, Marianne & Cocq, Coppélie (2017). “Inledning” in, Liliequist, Marianne and Cocq, Coppélie (eds.) Samisk Kamp: Kulturförmedling och Rättviserörelse. Umeå: Bokförlaget h:ström.

Liliequist, Marianne (2017). “Dekoloniseringsstrategier. Porträtt av kvinnliga eldsjälar inom den samiska rättighetsrörelsen” in, Liliequist, Marianne and Cocq, Coppélie (eds.) Samisk Kamp: Kulturförmedling och Rättviserörelse. Umeå: Bokförlaget h:ström.

Loomba, Ania (2015). Colonialism/Postcolonialism (Third Edition). London & New York: Routledge.

Lundmark, Lennart (1998). Så länge vi har marker – Samerna och staten under sex- hundra år. Falun: Rabén Prisma.

Lundmark, Lennart (2008). Stulet land: svensk makt på samisk mark. Stockholm: Ordfront.

Länsstyrelsen i Norrbottens län och Sweco (2015). “Ökad samverkan mellan rennä- ring och gruvnäring. Rapport till Näringsdepartementet.”

Löf, A (2014). Challenging Adaptability. Analysing the Governance of Reindeer Hus- bandry in Sweden. Umeå: Umeå Universitet.

Lönn, Eva J:son (2014). “Varför ska de få? Vardagsrasism mot samer i läsarkom- mentarer på tre svenska nyhetssajter” in, Kulturella Perspektiv – Svensk etnologisk tidskrift. Nr 1: 41–49.

Manning Thomas, June (2016). “The Minority-Race Planner in the Quest for a Just City” in Fainstein, Susan and DeFilippis, James (eds.) Readings in Planning Theory (Fourth edition). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell

Maracle, Lee (1992). Oratory: Coming to Theory. Give Back. First Nations PersPec- tives on Cultural Practice. Vancouver: Gallerie Publications.

Marainen, Johannes (1997). Karesuando samesläkter. Umeå: Svenska samernas riksförbund.

Massey, Doreen (2004). “Geographies of responsibility” in, Geografiska Annaler. No 1: 5–18.

Matunga, Hirini (2013). “Theorizing Indigenous Planning” in, Jojola, Ted, Walker, Ryan and Natcher, David Reclaiming Indigenous Planning. Montreal: McGills- Queen’s University Press.

Moreton-Robinson, Aileen (2016). “Introduction – Locations of Engagement in The First World” in, Critical Indigenous Studies: Engagements in First World Locations. Tuscon: The University of Arizona Press.

Miraftab, Faranak (2016). “Insurgent Planning: Situating Radical Planning in the Global South” in, Fainstein, Susan and DeFilippis, James (eds.) Readings in Planning Theory (Fourth edition). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Moosa-Mitha, Mehmoona (2005). “Situating Anti-Oppressive Theories within

61 Critical and Difference-Centered Perspectives”, in Brown, Leslie and Strega, Susan (eds). Research As Resistance - Critical, Indigenous, and Anti-Oppressive Ap- proaches. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.

Monture-Okanee, P. (1995). "Myths and revolution: Thoughts on moving justice forward in Aboriginal communities." in, P. Monture-Angus (ed.) Thunder in my soul: A Mohawk woman speaks. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing.

Mukhtar-Landgren, Dalia (2012). Planering för framsteg och gemenskap: om den kommunala utvecklingsplaneringens idémässiga förutsättningar. Lund: Lunds Uni- versitet.

Mutua, Kagendo and Swadener, Beth Blue (2004). “Introduction” in, Mutua, K. and Swadener, B. B (eds.) Decolonizing Research in Cross-cultural Contexts: Critical Personal Narratives. New York: SUNY Press.

Müller, Arne (2013). Smutsiga miljarder: Gruvboomens baksida. Skellefteå: Ord & visor.

Mörkerstam, Ulf (1999). Om ”Lapparnas privilegier”. Föreställningar om samiskhet i svensk samepolitik 1883–1997. Stockholm: Stockholm Studies in Politics.

Mörkerstam, Ulf (2005). “Indigenous Peoples and the Right to Self-Determination: The Case of the Swedish Sami People” in, Canadian Journal of Native Studies/Le Revue Canadienne Des Etudes Autochtones. No 2: 433-461.

Noxolo, Patricia, Raghuram P. and Madge, C (2009). “Rethinking responsibility and care for a postcolonial world” in, Geoforum. No 1: 5-13.

Nyström, Markus (2014). “In Defence of the Intolerable Condition of Prevailing Dark- ness Places that Matter – Uppsala, Syter Valley, Rönnbäck, Gállok” in, Gärdebo, Jo- han, Öhman, May-Britt and Maruyama, Hiroshi (eds.) RE: MINDINGS Co- Constituting Indigenous / Academic / Artistic Knowledges. Stockholm: Vulkan.

Näsman, Rut (2014). Planering av vindkraft i Sápmi – Ett steg mot en hållbar energi- produktion eller en postkolonial maktutövning på samiska marker? SLU: Fakulteten för landskapsarkitektur, trädgårds- och växtproduktionsvetenskap.

O'Faircheallaigh, C and Corbett, T (2005). “Indigenous Participation in Environmental Management of Mining Projects: The Role of Negotiated Agreements” in, Environ- mental Politics. No. 5: 629-47.

Ojala, Carl-Gösta and Nordin, Jonas. M (2015). “Mining Sápmi: Colonial Histories, Sámi Archaeology, and the Exploitation of Natural Resources in Northern Sweden”in, Arctic Anthropology. No 2: 6-21.

Omma, Lotta (2013). Ung same I Sverige: Livsvillkor, självvärdering och hälsa. Umeå: Umeå Universitet.

Porter, Libby (2006). “Planning in (Post)Colonial Settings: Challenges for Theory and Practice”, in Planning Theory & Practice. No 4: 383-396.

Porter, Libby (2010). Unlearning the Colonial Cultures of Planning. London & New York: Routledge.

Päiviö, Nils-Johan (2011). Från skattemannarätt till nyttjanderätt: en rättshistorisk studie av utvecklingen av samernas rättigheter från slutet 1500-talet till 1886 års ren- beteslag. Uppsala: Uppsala universitet.

Qwul’sih’yah’maht and Thomas, Robina Anne (2005). “Honouring the Oral Traditions Of My Ancestors Through Storytelling” in, Brown, Leslie and Strega, Su- san (eds.). Research as Resistance - Critical, Indigenous, and Anti-Oppressive Ap- proaches. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.

Ramazanoglu, Caroline (ed.) (1993). Up Against Foucault. New York: Routledge.

Rasmusson, Emma and Nyberg, Johanna (2016). Hbtq-Handboken. RFSL

Roy, Ananya (2006). “Praxis in the time of empire” in, Planning Theory. No 51: 7–29.

Reimerson, Elsa (2016). “Sami space for agency in the management of the Laponia World Heritage site” in, Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability. No 7: 808-826.

Reimerson, Elsa (2015). Nature, culture, rights: exploring space for indigenous agency in protected area discourses. Umeå: Samhällsvetenskapliga fakulteten, Statsve- tenskapliga institutionen.

Ryd, Lilian (2013). Renskötarkvinnor och livet i de sista rajderna. Skellefteå: Ord och inga visor

Rydberg, Tomas (2011) Landskap, territorium och identitet i Sapmié – exemplet Handölsdalens sameby. Uppsala: Kulturgeografiska institutionen.

Said, Edward (1978). Orientalism. London: Routledge.

Sametinget (2014). ”Sametingets syn på gruvor och mineraler i Sápmi”.

Sandercock, Leonie (ed.) (1998). Making the invisible visible: A multicultural planning history. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Sandström, Moa (2017). “DeCo2onising Artivism”, in Liliequist, Marianne and Cocq, Coppélie (eds). Samisk Kamp: Kulturförmedling och Rättviserörelse. Umeå: Bokför- laget h:ström.

Sehlin MacNeil, Kristina (2015). “Shafted: a case of cultural and structural violence in the power relations between a Sami community and a mining company in northern Sweden” in, Ethnologia Scandinavica. 45: 73-88.

SGU (2013). Vägledning för prövning av gruvverksamhet.

63 Sium, Aman and Ritskes, Eric (2013). “Speaking truth to power: Indigenous storytelling as an act of living resistance” in, Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Socie- ty. No 1: I–X.

Sköld, Peter (2005). “Samisk forskning in i framtiden” in, Sköld, Peter and Axelsson, Per (eds) Igår, idag, imorgon: samerna, politiken och vetenskapen. Umeå: Centrum för samisk forskning, Umeå universitet.

Southgate, Beverly (2009). History meets fiction. Harlow: Longman

Spiliopoulou Åkermark, S and Talah, M (2007). Samernas rätt till deltagande och samråd Fysisk planering och infrastruktur. Stockholm: Internationella juristkommiss- ionen, svenska avdelningen.

Spivak, Chakravorty Gayatri (2006). ”Can the subaltern speak?” in, Ashcroft, Bill, Griffiths, Gareth and Tiffin, Helen (eds.) The Post-Colonial Studies Reader (2nd edition). London & New York: Routledge

Stammler, Florian and Ivanova, Aitalina (2016). “Confrontation, coexistence or co- ignorance? Negotiating human-resource relations in two Russian regions”, in The Extractive Industries and Society. No 3: 60–72.

Stedman, R.C (2003). “Is It Really Just a Social Construction? The Construction of the physical environment to the Sense of Place” in, Society & Natural Resources. An International Journal. No 8: 671-685.

Stoor, Petter (2016). Kunskapssammanställning om samers psykosociala ohälsa. Sametinget.

Svonni, Charlotta (2015). “At the Margin of Educational Policy: Sámi/Indigenous Peoples in the Swedish National Curriculum 2011” in, Creative Education. No 9: 898–906.

Svonni, Ragnhild (2010). Samisk markanvändning och MKB. Svenska Samernas Riksförbund.

Tarras-Wahlberg, N. H (2014). “Social License to Mine in Sweden: Do Companies Go the Extra Mile to Gain Community Acceptance?” in, Mineral Economics. Nr 27:143–147.

Thomasson, Fredrik (2013) ”32 piskrapp vid quatre piquets. Svensk rättvisa och slav- lagar på Saint-Barthélemy” in, Historielärarnas förenings årsskrift: 7–29

Tuhiwai Smith, Linda (1999). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London: Zed Books Ltd.

Ugarte, Magdalena (2014). “Ethics, Discourse, or Rights? A Discussion about a De- colonizing Project in Planning” in, Journal of Planning Literature, No 4: 403-414.

64 Utsi, Per Mikael (2007). Traditionell kunskap och sedvänjor inom den samiska kul- turen – relaterat till bevarande och hållbart nyttjande av biologisk mångfald. Kiruna: Sametinget & Uppsala: Centrum för biologiskt mångfalds (CBM) skriftserie nr. 18

Walia, Harsha (2012). “Moving Beyond a Politics of Solidarity Toward a Practice of Decolonisation” in, Choudry, Aziz, Hanely, Jill and Shragge, Eric (eds), Organize! Building from The Local for Global Justice. Oakland: PM Press.

Walker, Bryan and Matunga, Hirini (2013). “Re-Situating Indigenous Planning in The City” in, Indigenizing planning. No 2: 15-17.

Waziyatawin and Yellow Bird, Michael (2012). “Introduction Decolonizing Our Minds And Actions”, in For indigenous minds only. A decolonization handbook. Santa Fee: School for advanced research press.

Wildcat, Daniel R (2005). ”Indigenizing the Future: Why We Must Think Spatially in the Twenty-first Century”, in American Studies, 46:3/4 (Fall-Winter 2005): 417-440

Windsor, J. E and McVey, J. A (2005). “Annihilation of both place and sense of place: the experience of the Cheslatta T’En Canadian First Nation within the context of largescale environmental projects” in, The Geographical Journal, No 2: 146-165

Åhrén, Mattias (2004). “Indigenous Peoples’ Culture, Customs, and Traditions and Customary Law – The Saami People’s Perspective, in Arizona Journal of Internation- al & Comparative Law. Vol 21, No. 1

Åhrén, Christina (2014). ”En samebys strategi för överlevnad” in, Liliequist, Marianne & Cocq, Coppélie (eds). Kulturella Perspektiv – Svensk etnologisk tidskrift. Nr 1: 23.

Öhman, May-Britt (2009). ”’Grön el’ och kolonisationen av Sápmi” in, Genus i norr- sken, Luleå: Luleå tekniska universitet. Nr 2: 3–8

Öhman, May-Britt and Wyld, Frances (2014). “Lands of Fire and Ice; from Hi-Story to History in the Lands of Fire and Ice: Our stories and embodiment as Indigenous in a colonised hemisphere” in, V. Castejon, A. Cole, O. Haag, and K. Hughes, (eds.) Ngapartji Ngapartji Reciprocal Engagement: Ego-Histoire, Europe and Indigenous Australia. Canberra: Australian National University E Press

Össmo, Åsa (2014). Nya vatten, dunkla speglingar. Umeå: Print och media, Umeå universitet.

65 APPENDIX

Map over Sápmi

66 Rights relating to indigenous people

• UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) • UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) • UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965) • UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) • Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (1995) • European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (1992) • UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007) • EU Council Directive 2000/43 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin • Nordic Sámi Convention (still being drafted) • ILO Convention No. 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples (not ratified by Sweden)

67 The mining establishment process

Source: SGU

The “possibilities” to influence by law are very limited. Formally, no consultation with affected actors is required until different environmental impacts is to be investigated. By then a permission to exploitation concession has already been approved (Beland Lindahl et al, 2016).

68 Interview questions

Vad är planering?

(jag beskriver kortfattat både planering och urfolks-och dekoloniseringsplanering, även om du sen innan har stenkoll bara för att vara så transparant som möjligt).

Det kan beskrivas lite vagt på akademiska som en handling som har en intention att ändra/förändra någonting i samhället, och ofta kopplas det ihop med förbättring och att tjäna det gemensamma. Även om det återkommande påpekas att planering inte på något sätt är neutral utan just snarare bygger på en massa värderingar, normer och strukturer så finns det en tendens att den ändå ses som neutral och det behöver kontinuerligt ifrågasättas.

Om vi kollar på det som på engelska kallas indigenous planning (urfolksplanering är den översättning som jag själv gör) så handlar det om att synliggöra det koloniala i planering, och bryta ner det och ifrågasätta utifrån vad som beskrivs som traditionell kunskap, holistiskt tän- kande och en dekoloniserad världsbild. Man lyfter fram hur planering har hängt ihop med värderingar, kunskap och makt och att detta måste brytas ner och vad det finns för alternativ.

Här kommer lite frågor, dom kan ses som ett sätt att få igång tankar och diskussioner. Frå- gorna får också såklart ifrågasättas eller skrivas om J

Ha gärna gruvnäringen och dina egna erfarenheter i bakhuvudet när du resonerar.

Frågor

• Vad tänker du att urfolksplanering och dekolonisering av planering kan vara? Hur tänker du på det utifrån dina tankar och erfarenheter?

• Utifrån hur du resonerar kring urfolksplanering och dekolonisering av planering – går det ihop med planering av gruvor? Beskriv gärna hur du resonerar.

• Hur och på vilket sätt är urfolksplanering och en dekolonisering av planering en kritik mot svenska/storsamhällets planering?

• Hur tänker du att gruvnäringen och kolonialismen hänger ihop med andra förtryckarstrukturer som kapitalismen, heteropatriarkatet osv?

• Hur skulle en dekoloniserande planering se ut? Om du vill använd gruvnäring som exempel, men spåna gärna vidare och tänk så fritt som det går.

• Har du något konkret exempel på urfolks- och dekoloniseringsplanering som du skulle vilja lyfta fram?

• Har du något exempel på en planeringssituation med exempelvis kommun, landsting eller an- nan storsamhälle-institution där samer, samiska värderingar har få ta likvärdig plats som svenska/storsamhälle?