2.8 Community security of indigenous peoples in the Barents Region Giuseppe Amatulli and Joëlle Klein This chapter addresses community security in the context of the Barents Region. Community security is one indicator that forms the broad concept of human security, and is closely interrelated with other aspects of human security, including environmental, political, economic, health and personal security. Given the geographic significance of indigenous groups in the northernmost part of the Barents Region, and the unique threats and oppor- tunities that existing global challenges such as globalisation and climate change pose for northern communities, this chapter will focus predominantly on community security as it relates to indigenous Sámi, Nenets and Veps peoples. 1Definition Community security aims to address threats to groups of people that result in the loss of collective relationships and values, or exacerbate tensions between communities that lead to sectarian and ethnic violence. The UNDP defines community security as ‘the capacity of people to derive their security through being active members of a group’ (UNDP 2009, 13). The collective belonging that comes from participation and identification within a community can serve as a source of values and traditions to support individual wellbeing, and is thereby vital to the promotion of cultural identity (UNDP 1994, 31). Moreover, it is useful to underline that the term ‘community’ does not refer only to the individuals that form it, but also to other actors (such as civil society organisations and local authorities) that may play a key role in ensuring the vitality of a specific community living in a certain area (UNDP 2009, 15–16). In this context, community security is directly linked to the realisation of human rights, which seek to ensure states and international actors meet their obligations to respect, protect and preserve the rights of individuals and communities. Furthermore, in communities where ethnic violence, terrorism or militarised armed force are not present, community security focuses on the social cohesion and positionality of marginalised or vulnerable groups within a group, or the positionality of a community in the dominant governance and 152 Giuseppe Amatulli & Joëlle Klein social structures. Under Human Rights law, minorities are guaranteed a form of community security through Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). At the time of its drafting, indigenous peoples were considered minorities under this framework. Therefore, the pro- visions outlined in Article 27 are also applicable to indigenous peoples. Article 27 of the ICCPR stipulates: In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language. (UN General Assembly 1966) The provisions enshrined in the above-mentioned article clearly indicate that states should not interfere with the rights that minorities are entitled to enjoy. According to the General Comment No. 31 issued by the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC), the treaty monitoring body under the ICCPR, negative obligations require states to abstain from violating the rights enshrined in the Convention. In addition, states must prove the need for enacting any restric- tions on the enjoyment of certain rights, and can only take such actions in the pursuit of legitimate aims (UNHRC 2004). Nevertheless, both positive and negative obligations must be considered. To this degree, General Comment No. 23 issued by the UNHRC has provided a comprehensive explanation of the provisions of Article 27. General Comment No. 23 establishes that negatives states’ obligations are not sufficient to guarantee the individual and collective rights of minorities, and therefore require positive actions on the part of the states. Specifically, in order to protect and ensure the rights of a certain community, positive legal measures are required, with the aim of guaranteeing the real and effective participation of community members in decision- making on issues that impact them (UNHRC 1994, para. 6.2, 7). The positive obligations that a state must implement to ensure the enjoyment of rights enshrined in the ICCPR are not limited to the actions of states’ agents, but also include protection against violations that private persons or an entity can commit. The legal obligations concerning the individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples have also been specified under ILO Convention 169 (ILO 1989), a treaty that has only been ratified by Norway in the Barents countries, and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted by an overwhelming vote of 163 states at the UN General Assembly in 2007, but for which Russia has abstained to vote. However, community security is not exclusively defined through legal collec- tive rights, and requires definition through the framework of human security. The principles of human security necessitate a people-centered approach, and therefore the definition of community security in relation to indigenous populations must also inherently be self-articulated (UNTFHS 2016, 6). In Community security in the Barents Region 153 stakeholder reports to the UN Human Rights Council presented by the Sámi Parliament and other indigenous groups, issues pertaining to language pre- servation, education in native languages and the impact of human activities on livelihood are articulated as issues vital to community security (HRC 2015, 8–10; HRC 2013, 10–11; HRC 2014, 8–10; HRC 2017, 6–8). Furthermore, the regional community security goals articulated by the Working Group on Indigenous Peoples in the Barents Euro-Arctic Region (hereafter WGIP) specify ‘The overall goal for the indigenous peoples’ cooperation in the Barents Euro-Arctic Region is to secure indigenous peoples’ rights, foundation for trade, society, culture and language … [and secure] solid health- and living conditions, as well as cultural continuity’ (WGIP 2017, 7). Therefore, a regional and community-based understanding of the protection of community security in the Barents includes ensuring that the development and preservation of collective indigenous identity, livelihood, language and culture is self- determined, protected within national borders or in transnational contexts, and respected by other actors and authorities. Furthermore, other minorities identified by gender, sexual orientation, (dis) ability, age and class exist within (and are important aspects of) the compo- sition and security of indigenous communities. The broad scope reflected in defining community security therefore requires a narrowing in order to assess aspects of security unique to the Barents Region. In this regard, community security can be understood to include both an ‘external component’, and an ‘internal component’, which differentiates cooperation and security in the relationships between indigenous communities and other minorities, from the relationships between indigenous communities and local, regional and national state authorities (WGIP 2017, 6). The external component is linked with the protection of the community’s ability to develop and promote its culture and traditions, and maintain and protect its collective rights. This is connected to the concept of self-determination, which seeks to preserve the autonomy of a community to participate in decision-making on issues that affect them. The internal component is linked to social cohesion within and between communities, addressing the presence of minorities within minorities, and the individual pressures and threats faced by community members by their own or co-existing communities. The latter component intersects with the concept of personal security, as discussed in Chapter 2.7, and additionally, analysis on the security of double minorities in the Barents Region would require a more in-depth and comprehensive study beyond the scope of this book. Therefore, this chapter will focus on the ‘external components’ to analyse and discuss threats to indigenous community security in the Barents Region. 2 Contextualisation The geographic boundaries of the Barents Region predominantly include the homelands of indigenous peoples. While diverse communities inhabit the Barents Region, only three are formally recognised as indigenous peoples by 154 Giuseppe Amatulli & Joëlle Klein their respective national governments. In the Nordic countries, the Sámi are recognised within the national framework of Finland, Norway and Sweden. In the Russian Federation, only the Nenets, Veps and Sámi are recognised as indigenous peoples, notwithstanding the presence of other indigenous com- munities living the Russian Federation (such as the Komi and Pomors) (Barentsinfo 2017). An assessment of the regional conditions of indigenous peoples living in the Barents needs to account for the considerable dissimilarities between the Northwest part of Russia and the Nordic countries. Such differences include the unique linguistic, cultural, political, economic and livelihood traditions amongst minorities and indigenous groups inhabiting the region (Zimmer- bauer 2013, 94). Furthermore, the federal legal definition of indigenous peoples in Russia differs from the definition utilised in the Nordic countries. In Russia, indigenous peoples are recognised in part by their population size; groups with less than 50000