| |
1.1 The authors of the
communication are Jouni E. Lansman, Eino A. Lansman, both Finish citizens,
and the Muotkatunturi Herdsmen's Committee (of which the two individual
authors are part). The authors allege to be victims of a violation by
Finland of article 27 of the Covenant. They are represented by counsel. The
Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party on 23 March 1976.
1.2 On 31 October 2002, under Rule 86 of its Rules of Procedure, the
Committee, acting through its Chairperson, requested the State party "to
refrain from conducting logging activities that would affect the exercise by
Mr. Jouni Lansman et al. of reindeer husbandry in the Angeli area, while
their case is under consideration by the Committee".
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2.1 On 30 October 1996, the Committee delivered its Views in Lansman et al.
v. Finland ("the earlier communication"). [FN1] The Committee found, on the
evidence then before it, no violation of the rights under article 27 of the
current two individual authors (and others) in the completed logging of some
250 hectares in Pyhajarvi and the proposed logging of some further 250
hectares in Kirkko-outa (both are in the Angeli area).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN1] Case no. 671/1995.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.2 The Committee went on to find:
10.6 As far as future logging activities are concerned, the Committee
observes that on the basis of the information available to it, the State
party's forestry authorities have approved logging on a scale which, while
resulting in additional work and extra expenses for the authors and other
reindeer herdsmen, does not appear to threaten the survival of reindeer
husbandry. That such husbandry is an activity of low economic profitability
is not, on the basis of the information available, a result of the
encouragement of other economic activities by the State party in the area in
question, but of other, external, economic factors.
10.7 The Committee considers that if logging plans were to be approved on a
scale larger than that already agreed to for future years in the area in
question or if it could be shown that the effects of logging already planned
were more serious than can be foreseen at present, then it may have to be
considered whether it would constitute a violation of the authors' right to
enjoy their own culture within the meaning of article 27. The Committee is
aware, on the basis of earlier communications, that other large-scale
exploitations touching upon the natural environment, such as quarrying, are
being planned and implemented in the area where the Sami people live. Even
though in the present communication the Committee has reached the conclusion
that the facts of the case do not reveal a violation of the rights of the
authors, the Committee deems it important to point out that the State party
must bear in mind when taking steps affecting the rights under article 27,
that though different activities in themselves may not constitute a
violation of this article, such activities, taken together, may erode the
rights of Sami people to enjoy their own culture.
2.3 By 1999, all 500 hectares of the two areas at issue in the earlier
communication had been logged. Moreover, in 1998, a further 110 hectares
were logged in the Paadarskaidi area of the Herdsmen's Committee (not part
of the areas covered by the earlier communication).
2.4 By the date of submission of the communication, yet another logging
operation in Paadarskaidi had been proposed, with minimal advance warning to
the Herdsmen's Committee and with an imminent commencement date. At that
point, the Herdsmen's Committee had yet to receive a written plan of the
nature and scope of the logging operation. The National Forest & Park
Service had indicated that it would send the plans to the Herdsmen's
Committee at a later date, having indicated in its previous plan that the
next logging operation would be due to take place only after a year and in a
different location.
THE COMPLAINT
3.1 The authors allege a violation of their rights as reindeer herders under
article 27 of the Covenant, both inasmuch as it relates to logging already
undertaken and to logging proposed. At the outset, they complain that since
the 1980s, some 1,600 hectares of the Herdsmen's Committee's grazing area in
Paadarskaidi have been logged, accounting for some 40 per cent of lichen
(utilized for feeding reindeer) in that specific area.
3.2 As to the effect of the logging on the author's herd, it is submitted
that reindeer tend to avoid areas being logged or prepared for logging. They
therefore stray to seek other pastures and thereby incur additional labour
for the herders. After logging, logging waste prevents reindeer grazing and
compacted snow hampers digging. The logging operations result in a complete
loss of lichen in the areas affected, allegedly lasting for hundreds of
years.
3.3 The authors recall that after heavy snows in 1997, herders had for the
first time to supply capital and labour intensive fodder for the reindeer
rather than rely on lichen. The ongoing and increasing logging of fine
lichen forests increases the necessity of providing fodder and threatens the
economic self-sustainability of reindeer husbandry, as husbandry depends on
the reindeer being able to sustain themselves.
3.4 The authors recall that the maximum number of reindeer that may be kept
by the Herdsmen's Committee is decided by the Ministry of Agriculture and
Forestry. The Ministry is charged by statute, in determining the maximum
number of reindeer, to ensure that the number of reindeer grazing in the
Herdsmen's Committee's area in the winter season does not exceed the
sustainable productive capacity of the Herdsmen's Committee's winter
pastures. Since the Committee's Views in the earlier communication, the
Ministry has twice reduced the Herdsmen's Committee's number of animals:
from 8,000 to 7,500 in 1998, and from 7,500 to 6,800 in 2000. In two
administrative decisions within two years, then, the Ministry considered
that the sustenance of winter pasture in Muotkatunturi was so low that the
sustainable number of reindeer should be reduced by 15%. The authors allege
that the principal cause of this decline in winter pastures, and
particularly of horsehair lichen pastures, are the logging operations.
3.5 Despite the recent reductions in reindeer herds, the National Forest &
Park Service continues to conduct logging operations, destroying the
Herdsmen's Committee's pastures, and further deteriorating husbandry
conditions. The authors contend that this situation violates article 27, in
that forestry operations are continuing and the effects are more serious
than first thought. At the same time that logging proceeds, reindeer numbers
have been reduced because the pastures still available cannot support the
previous number of reindeer.
3.6 The authors state that, in respect of logging at Kirkko-outa and
Pyhajarvi, all domestic remedies have been exhausted. As to the other areas,
the authors invoke the Committee's Views in the earlier communication for
the proposition that the domestic courts do not need to be seized afresh of
the matter. These elements are said to be satisfied, since the State party
itself recognizes that the effects have been more serious, while it
continues both to log and to plan further logging.
THE STATE PARTY'S ADMISSIBILITY SUBMISSIONS
4.1 On 31 December 2001, the State party supplied its observations on the
admissibility only of the communication. On 8 February 2002, the Committee,
acting through its Chairperson, decided to separate the consideration of the
admissibility and the merits of the case.
4.2 The State party informed the Committee that it "refrains from conducting
logging activities in the Angeli area (paragraph 10.1 [FN2] in the
Committee's Views in case no. 671/1995, 30 October 1996) that would affect
the exercise by the individual authors' reindeer husbandry while their
communication is under consideration by the Committee".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN2] Para 10.1 provides, as relevant: "The issue to be determined is
whether logging of forests in an area covering approximately 3,000 hectares
of the area of the Muotkatunturi Herdsmen's Committee (of which the authors
are members) - i.e. such logging as has already been carried out and future
logging - violates the authors' rights under article 27 of the Covenant."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.3 The State party notes that as far as the Paadarskaidi area is concerned,
the National Forest & Park Service carried out increment felling
(preparative cutting) totalling some 200-300 hectares between 1998 and 2000.
The distance between the Angeli area and the Paadarskaidi area is about 30
kilometres. It considers the communication inadmissible on three grounds:
lack of proper standing as to one complainant, lack of exhaustion of
domestic remedies, and for failure to substantiate the claims for purposes
of admissibility.
4.4 While accepting the status of the individual authors, the State party
rejects the ability of the Herdsmen's Committee to submit a communication.
It considers that the Herdsmen's Committee does not fall within the
entitlement of article 27 of the Covenant, nor is it an "individual" within
the meaning of article 2 of the Optional Protocol. Under the Reindeer
Herding Act, a Herdsmen's Committee consists of all herdsmen in a given area
and who are not personally responsible for the performance of the
Committee's duties; thus, any claim on the Herdsmen's Committee's behalf
amounts to an actio popularis.
4.5 The State party observes that domestic remedies remain available, as
shown by the decisions of the District Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme
Court in the earlier communication, the effectiveness of which has not been
contested. The authors did not initiate any proceedings regarding logging
operations planned or carried out in either the Angeli or Paadarskaidi areas
subsequent to the Committee's Views in the earlier communication.
4.6 The State party notes that in its Views on case 671/1995, the Committee
merely observed that, if the logging effects were more serious or further
plans were approved, it would have to be considered whether this would
constitute a violation of the authors' article 27 rights. The Committee did
not imply the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies could be done away
with in any further complaint. This is particularly applicable when an
assessment of a possible violation of article 27 requires an assessment of
the relevant evidence both by the domestic courts and in turn the Committee.
There is no proof that the effects of the earlier logging operations were
more serious than foreseen at the time. The Ministry's decisions to reduce
the Herdsmen's Committee's herd does not substantiate any claim of the
effects of individual logging operations. Nor may the reductions in reindeer
be considered a justification for not pursuing domestic remedies, where such
allegations would be examined.
4.7 Accordingly, the authors have neither exhausted domestic remedies
available to them, nor demonstrated any special circumstances which might
absolve them from doing so. Finally, the State party argues that the brief
communication lacks sufficient material basis, including basic evidence,
that would go beyond a mere allegation. Accordingly, the case is said not to
have been substantiated.
AUTHORS' COMMENTS
5.1 In comments dated 15 March 2002, the authors supplied comments,
restricted to the admissibility arguments of the State party.
5.2 As to the availability of domestic remedies in respect of the other
areas (not covered by the earlier communication), the authors contend that
the State party's suggestion of available remedies is misplaced. No court
action designed to prevent specific logging plans was successful, partly
because any concrete logging tract "is always only a seemingly modest part
of the overall lands [that] are used by the Sami for reindeer herding".
There is no indication that a case seeking positive protection for Sami
herders would be successful, and, in any event, the existing Supreme Court
ruling would be a further obstacle.
5.3 For the authors, the National Forest & Park Service has been too
restrictive in providing information on its logging activities affecting the
life of Angeli Sami. On the issue of substantiation of claims, the authors
argue that they have shown that the reductions of reindeer after the
Ministry's decisions was a direct consequence of the impact of logging on
pasture areas. They have detailed the State party's plans to continue
logging despite the Committee's earlier Views. The authors regard this as
sufficient substantiation.
5.4 Finally, the authors state that there are plans for further logging by
the National Forestry and Park Service within the area already subject to
court proceedings, an area known as the Kippalrova tract.
ISSUES AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
CONSIDERATION OF ADMISSIBILITY
6.1 During its 77th session, the Committee considered the admissibility of
the communication. On the contention that the Muotkatunturi Herdsmen's
Committee did not have standing to bring a claim under the Optional
Protocol, the Committee referred to its constant jurisprudence that legal
persons are not "individuals" able to bring such a claim. [FN3] Neither was
there an indication that individual members of the Muotkatunturi Herdsmen's
Committee had authorized it to bring a claim on their behalf, or that Jouni
and/or Eino Lansman were authorized to act on behalf of the Herdsmen's
Committee and its members. Accordingly, while it was uncontested that Jouni
and Eino Lansman had standing to bring the communication on their own
behalf, the Committee considered the communication inadmissible under
article 1 of the Optional Protocol insofar as it related to the
Muotkatunturi Herdsmen's Committee and/or its constituent members, other
than Jouni and Eino Lansman.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN3] See, for example, Hartikainen v. Finland, Case no. 40/1978, Decision
adopted on 9 April 1981, JT v. Canada, Case no. 104/1981, Decision adopted
on 6 April 1983, and Ominayak et al. v. Canada, op. cit.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.2 On the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee noted
that with the Supreme Court's decision of 22 June 1995 there were no further
avenues available to challenge the decision to undertake logging in the
Pyhajarvi and Kirkko-outa areas (the areas at issue in the earlier
communication). Accordingly, the Committee considered that the issue of
whether logging of these areas has had effects, in terms of article 27,
greater than anticipated by either the Finnish courts in those proceedings
or by the Committee in its Views on case No. 671/1995 is one that is
admissible.
6.3 Regarding the Kippalrova area in which logging was planned, the
Committee noted that this forest tract fell within the area covered by the
Supreme Court decision of 22 June 1995. Accordingly it did not appear that
further judicial review of this decision was possible. Accordingly, the
Committee held the issues arising from the proposal to log this area to be
admissible.
6.4 As to the 1998 logging in Paadarskaidi (outside the area covered by the
Supreme Court decision), the Committee noted that the domestic remedies to
which the State party points are all instances that have dealt, in terms of
article 27, with logging plans prior to those plans being executed. In such
circumstances, the decision on the anticipated future effects of logging is
by necessity speculative, with only subsequent events bearing out whether or
not the initial assessment was correct. The Committee observed that other
cases referred to by counsel have also been challenges to proposed logging
in advance. The Committee considered that the State party had not
demonstrated, on the information supplied, what domestic remedies might be
available to the authors seeking compensation or to obtain another
appropriate remedy for an alleged violation of article 27 by virtue of
logging that has already taken place. Accordingly, the Committee considered
that the question of the effects, in terms of article 27, of logging in the
Paadarskaidi already carried out was admissible.
6.5 On proposed further logging in Paadarskaidi, the Committee noted the
authors' contention that no claim before the Finnish courts seeking to
prevent logging taking place had been successful. While mindful of the need
to examine whether the judicial remedies in question were available and
effective in practical terms, the Committee had insufficient information
before it in terms of the numbers of actions brought, the arguments invoked
and their outcomes to conclude that the judicial remedies invoked by the
State party were ineffective. Accordingly, this portion of the communication
was considered inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional
Protocol.
6.6 Taking into account the authors' contention that they had suffered a
significant reduction in the number of reindeer that they are permitted to
raise in their herding areas, the Committee considered that the parts of the
communication that have not been found inadmissible for lack of standing or
failure to exhaust domestic remedies had been substantiated, for purposes of
admissibility.
6.7 On 1 April 2003, the Committee declared the communication admissible
insofar as it relates to the cumulative effects on the exercise by Jouni and
Eino Lansman of their rights under article 27 of the Covenant arising from
the logging that had taken place in the Pyhajarvi, Kirkko-outa and
Paadarskaidi areas, along with the proposed logging in Kippalrova.
THE STATE PARTY'S MERITS SUBMISSION
7.1 On 1 October 2003, the State party submitted comments on the merits and
requested the Committee to review its previous decision on admissibility for
failure to exhaust domestic remedies. It recalls that complex questions such
as the issue of the alleged effects of logging proceedings in the present
case must and can be thoroughly investigated, for example through expert and
witness testimonies, on-site inspections and specific information on local
circumstances. It is unlikely that all the necessary information could be
obtained outside national court proceedings. The present case does not show
any special circumstances which might have absolved the authors from the
requirement of exhausting the domestic remedies at their disposal. The
authors could take a civil action for damages against the State in a
District Court at first instance, if necessary, on appeal in the Court of
Appeal, and subject to leave to appeal in the Supreme Court.
7.2 On the merits, the State party acknowledges that the Sami community is
an ethnic community within the meaning of article 27, and that the authors,
as members of that community, are entitled to protection under this
provision. It reviews the Committee's jurisprudence on article 27 of the
Covenant. [FN4] and concedes that the concept of "culture" within the
meaning of article 27 covers reindeer husbandry, as an essential component
of the Sami culture.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN4] Views on Cases Nos. 167/1984 (B. Ominayak and members of the Lubicon
Lake Band v. Canada), 197/1985 (Kitok v. Sweden) and 511/1992 (I. Lansman v.
Finland).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.3 The State party admits that "culture" within the meaning of article 27
provides for protection of the traditional means of livelihood for national
minorities, in so far as they are essential to the culture and necessary for
its survival. Not every measure or its consequences, which in some way
modify the previous conditions, can be construed as a prohibited
interference with the right of minorities to enjoy their own culture. The
State party refers to General Comment on article 27, adopted in April 1994,
which acknowledges that the protection of rights under article 27 is
directed to ensuring "the survival and continued development of the
cultural, religious and social identity of the minorities concerned"
(paragraph 9). It invokes the ratio decidendi of the Committee's Views in I.
Lansman et al. v. Finland, [FN5] where the Committee held that States
parties may wish to encourage economic development and allow economic
activity, and that measures which have a certain limited impact on the way
of life of persons belonging to a minority do not necessarily violate
article 27.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN5] Supra
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.4 The State party notes that the areas referred to in the communication is
owned by the State and under the administration of the National Forestry and
Park Service which is entitled, inter alia, to log forests and construct
roads at its discretion - with due regard to the relevant provisions of
national legislation and international treaties. In the State party's view,
due care was exercised for all logging operations carried out in State-owned
forests in northern Finland. In the past few years, logging operations have
mainly been carried out for the purposes of thinning forests to ensure
proper growth.
7.5 The State party points out that the size of the territory administered
by the Muotkatunturi Herdsmen's Committee is relevant. The surface of the
land area administered by the Herdsmen's Committee is approximately 248,000
hectares, of which some 16,100 hectares of forests (about 6 per cent of the
land areas administered by the Committee) are used for the purposes of
forestry on State-owned lands. In fact, there have been very few logging
operations in the area, the surface of the lands subject to logging
amounting to approximately 1.2 per cent of the area administered by the
Committee. The operations carried out in this territory between 1983 and
2001 amounted to 152 hectares per year, whereas the planned logging
operations to take place between 2003 and 2012 would amount to 115 hectares
per year. In view of the total surface of forest areas, both the logging
operations carried out and the planned ones are less extensive than those
carried out in private forests in the area. While reindeer owners have
required the National Forest and Park Service to terminate forestry
activities in the land areas administered by the Committee, they did not
reduce their own logging operations.
7.6 The State party denies that any new logging operations have been planned
for the Angeli area (Pyhajarvi and Kirkko-outa), nor have any such
operations been carried out in or planned for the area of Kippalrova. The
State party observes that as far as the admissible part of the complaint
with regard to the Paadarskaidi area is concerned, the National Forest and
Park Service mainly carried out increment felling (preparative cutting), in
the area, amounting to approximately 110 hectares in 1998.
7.7 The logging operations in Pyhajarvi in 1996 (170 hectares) and in 1999
(regeneration fellings over 60 hectares), as well as operations in
Kirkko-outa in 1998 (regeneration fellings amounting to 70 hectares and
thinning amounting to 200 hectares) were already taken into account by the
Human Rights Committee on 22 November 1996. The Committee had considered the
logging operations which had been carried out by the date of the decision,
as well as planned future operations in the Angeli area. According to the
decision, there was no violation of article 27 of the Covenant. It observes
that the regeneration fellings (300 hectares) in the Angeli area constitute
0.8 percent and the thinning logging operations (200 hectares) constitute
0.5 percent of the forest, administered by the Muotkatunturi Herdsmen's
Committee.
7.8 As to the effects of logging on reindeer herding, the State party notes
that it has not been shown that the effects of the earlier logging
operations were more than anticipated. Nor was it shown that logging
operations would create long-lasting harm preventing the authors from
continuing reindeer herding in the area at its present extent. It observes
that the effects of forestry should not be examined in the short term or in
respect of individual logging sites, but from a wider perspective. According
to a statement given by the Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute on
31 January 2002, the operations referred to in the communication do not have
any significant additional adverse effects on reindeer herding in the long
term if the numbers of reindeer are maintained approximately at their
present level. In view of the state of winter herding areas, the present
number of reindeer is high.
7.9 The State party notes that because of the severe conditions of nature in
the area administered by the Herdsmen's Committee, provisions for the
purposes of preserving nature and the environment are included, among
others, in section 21 of the Reindeer Herding Act, which provides that the
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry shall determine the maximum number of
reindeer that the Herdsmen's Committee may keep in their herds, as well as
the number of reindeer that may be owned by individual Committee members. In
the determination of the maximum numbers of reindeer, the principle
enshrined in section 21, subsection 2, is applied according to which the
number of reindeer in the herds on the lands administered by the Committee
may not exceed the sustainable productive capacity of the winter pastures.
7.10 Even after the reductions of the maximum number of reindeer by the
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in 1998/1999 and 2000/2001, the maximum
number of reindeer allowed is more than three times the numbers allowed in
the 1970s. In 1973, the number was no more than 1,051, whereas the highest
number in 1990 was 10,398. The State party argues that the significant
increase in the number of reindeer kept in herds in the 1980s and 1990s had
adverse effects on the state of winter herding pastures. The high numbers of
reindeer kept by the Herdsmen's Committee in their herds and the resulting
adverse effects on herding lands, increase the need for additional feeding,
thereby harming the reindeer husbandry. The State party adds that apart from
the number of reindeers per herd, the difficulties of reindeer herdsmen and
the poor state of herding lands are not so much affected by forestry as they
are by other forms of forest use. For the State party, the Ministry's
decision on the permitted number of reindeer does not alone constitute any
substantiated evidence of the effects of certain individual loggings, but
rather of the effects of the high numbers of reindeer kept in herds.
7.11 The State party submits that there has been regular contact between the
authorities and the Herdsmen's Committee in the form of letters,
negotiations and even various on-site visits. It notes that irrespective of
whether the owner is the State or an individual citizen, the possible
restrictions resulting from the right of the Sami, other Finns or nationals
of other European Economic Area countries, to carry out reindeer herding
cannot entirely deprive landowners of their own rights. It is also observed
that reindeer herdsmen's committees within the Sami often have a mixed
composition of both Sami and other Finns as their members. The relevant
provisions of the Finnish Constitution are based on the principle that both
population groups have, as performers of professional activities, equal
status before the law and neither group may be placed in a more favourable
position than the other, not even in respect of reindeer herding.
AUTHORS' COMMENTS
8.1 On 5 December 2003, the authors commented on the State party's
submission. They dispute the claim that they may institute civil proceedings
for damages against the State party. According to section 1 of chapter 5 of
the Finnish Damages and Tort Liability Act of 1974, "damages shall
constitute compensation for the personal injury and damage to property.
Where the injury or damage has been caused by an act punishable by law or in
the exercise of public authority, or in other cases, where there are
especially weighty reasons for the same, damages shall also constitute
compensation for economic loss that is not connected to personal injury or
damage to property." The National Forest and Park Service, which caused the
damage, does not exercise public authority and the logging operations are
not a criminal offence. Thus, compensation for financial damage could arise
under the Act only if there are "especially weighty reasons". The
application of the concept of "especially weighty reasons" in Finnish case
law has caused problems of interpretation, and "it is by no means clear that
the provision could be applied to the damage to the authors". In any event,
such a process of litigation would be laborious, onerous and the costs
prohibitive. The litigation would take several years to complete.
8.2 The authors contest the State party's denial that it intends to carry
out logging in Kippalrova and provides a map which it purports to prove
otherwise. In October 2003 the National Forest and Park Service announced
that it was preparing a further logging plan in Paadarskaidi.
8.3 As to the logging operations undertaken in the entire territory, the
authors submit that the territory covered by the Herdsmen's Committee is not
homogeneous forest but is made up of different types of grazing land. Even
though the National Forest and Park Service engages in forestry in only part
of the area administered by the Committee, 35 per cent of the forest
pastures in the winter grazing area and 48 percent of those in the summer
grazing area are subject to forestry operations by the State and private
owners. According to the current land demarcation for forestry and
statements made by the National Forest and Park Service, the area in
question will sooner or later be absorbed into the felling cycle. The
felling cycle involves a wide range of measures, even the least invasive of
which cause harm to reindeer husbandry. 9 per cent of the entire territory
of the Committee is privately owned, and the owners are not subject to the
same obligations as the State with respect to reindeer husbandry.
8.4 The National Forest and Park Service invited the Herdsmen's Committee on
two field trips in Kippalvaara and Kippalrova in September 2001 and
Savonvaara-Pontikkamaki in January 2002, at which herdsmen expressed their
opposition to the logging proposals. Nevertheless, the operations started in
the Savonvaara-Pontikkamaki region (not part of the current communication)
in the early spring of 2002. In October 2003, the National Forest and Park
Service announced that logging will take place there in the near future.
8.5 On the issue of participation of the Herdsmen's Committee, while the
National Forest and Park Service arranged a hearing which the Committee
members and other interested groups could attend, this hearing was, in
practice, merely an exercise in opinion gathering. In the authors' view, the
National Forest and Park Service determines the principles, strategies and
objectives of its forestry operations exclusively according to its own
needs; as its decisions are not open to appeal, this fails to ensure
effective participation.
8.6 As to the effects of logging, the authors refer to several
investigations, studies and Committee reports which have been prepared since
the previous Lansman case, and which purportedly attest to the substantial
damage caused by the logging operations. An inventory of Alectoria lichen
was conducted in the territory of the Lapland Herdsman's Committee in 1999
to 2000, in which it confirmed that the incidence of Alectoria lichen in the
logged forest areas is very low, and that logging operations cause
considerable harm to reindeer husbandry. Similar results were found in other
reports, including various Swedish studies published in 1998 and 2000. In
addition, the Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, in considering
the maximum permissible population of reindeer per herd, acknowledged the
importance and availability of winter nutrition for reindeer - Lichenes,
Alectoria and Deschampsia - and that logging has reduced stocks of the
former two foods.
8.7 It is submitted that after logging, as reindeer do not remain grazing on
managed areas, grazing pressure comes to bear on the remaining territory.
This means that the effects of logging also extend beyond the areas that are
actually managed. The authors argue that the impact of logging operations
are long-term, practically permanent, and that the measures employed create
new damage, exacerbate existing damage, and extent the area affected by
logging. Since the logging operations, the access of reindeer to winter food
has become more susceptible to other variations in the Pyhajarvi, and
Kirkko-outa areas, including those arising from natural phenomena, such as
heavy snow cover, delays in the arrival of spring and an increase in
predators, especially wolves.
8.8 On the State party's argument that according to the Finnish Game and
Fisheries Research Institute, "the loggings referred to in the communication
do not have significant additional adverse effects on reindeer herding in
the long term if the numbers of reindeer are maintained approximately at
their same level", the authors submit that the State party omitted the last
line of the opinion "….and the deterioration in pastures is compensated by
feeding. If, on the other hand, the aim is to engage in reindeer husbandry
based purely on natural pastures, then loggings - even those notified as
relatively mild - will be of greater significance for reindeer husbandry
that is already in difficulties for other reasons". The authors refer to the
view of the Lapland and Kemin-Sompio Herdsmen Committee's who have
previously stated that artificial feeding causes inequalities and disputes
within the Herdsmen's Committee, and is regarded as a threat to the old Sami
tradition and culture of reindeer husbandry. In recent years, because of the
lack of natural winter food, the authors have had to rely on artificial
reindeer food which requires additional income from sources other than
reindeer husbandry, thereby impacting on the profitability of this form of
livelihood.
8.9 The authors acknowledge that over the last two years, conditions have
been favourable from the point of view of securing natural food supplies,
resulting in a substantial reduction in expenses for additional feeding and
the survival rate of reindeer beyond expectation. Despite these conditions,
the profitability of reindeer husbandry has not improved, as the companies
buying reindeer meat have reduced their prices by up to 30 per cent and have
purchased less. In addition, the State collects a penalty fee if the
Herdsmen's Committee exceeds its quota of reindeer per herd on account of
failure to sell.
REVIEW OF ADMISSIBILITY
9.1 The Human Rights Committee has examined the communication in light of
all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided for in
article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol.
9.2 As to the State party's request to review admissibility on the grounds
that the authors did not take a civil action for damages and thus did not
exhaust domestic remedies, the Committee considers that in the present case
where the issue is the effect of past logging, the State party has not
demonstrated that an action for damages would be an effective remedy to
address all relevant aspects of the State party's responsibility under
article 27 of the Covenant to protect the right of minorities to enjoy their
own culture and with respect to a claim that this culture has been or is
being destroyed. For this reason, the Committee does not intend to
reconsider its admissibility decision.
9.3 As to the claim, that the negative effects of the proposed logging in
Kippalrova would interfere with their rights under article 27, the Committee
recognises the commitment of the State party, expressed in its submission on
the merits, not to proceed to logging in this area and therefore finds it
unnecessary to consider the possibility of future logging, by the State, in
this area any further.
9.4 The Committee proceeds to a consideration of the merits of the claims
relating to the effects of past logging in the Pyhajarvi, Kirkko-outa and
Paadarskaidi areas.
CONSIDERATION OF THE MERITS
10.1 As to the claims relating to the effects of logging in the Pyhajarvi,
Kirkko-outa and Paadarskaidi areas of the territory administered by the
Muotkatunturi Herdsmen's Committee, the Committee notes that it is
undisputed that the authors are members of a minority within the meaning of
article 27 of the Covenant and as such have the right to enjoy their own
culture. It is also undisputed that reindeer husbandry is an essential
element of their culture and that economic activities may come within the
ambit of article 27, if they are an essential element of the culture of an
ethnic community. [FN6] Article 27 requires that a member of a minority
shall not be denied the right to enjoy his culture. Measures whose impact
amounts to a denial of the right are incompatible with the obligations under
article 27. As noted by the Committee in its Views on case no. 511/1992 of
Lansman et al. v. Finland, however, measures with only a limited impact on
the way of life and livelihood of persons belonging to a minority will not
necessarily amount to a denial of the rights under article 27.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN6] Views on case no. 197/1985 (Kitok v. Sweden), Views adopted 27 July
1988, para. 9.2; on case No. 511/1992 (I. Lansman et al. v. Finland),
adopted 26 October 1994, paragraph 9.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.2 The Committee recalls that in the earlier case no. 511/1992, which
related to the Pyhajarvi and Kirkko-outa areas, it did not find a violation
of article 27, but stated that if logging to be carried out was approved on
a larger scale than that already envisaged or if it could be shown that the
effects of logging already planned were more serious than can be foreseen at
present, then it may have to be considered whether it would constitute a
violation of article 27. In weighing the effects of logging, or indeed any
other measures taken by a State party which has an impact on a minority's
culture, the Committee notes that the infringement of a minority's right to
enjoy their own culture, as provided for in article 27, may result from the
combined effects of a series of actions or measures taken by a State party
over a period of time and in more than one area of the State occupied by
that minority. Thus, the Committee must consider the overall effects of such
measures on the ability of the minority concerned to continue to enjoy their
culture. In the present case, and taking into account the specific elements
brought to its attention, it must consider the effects of these measures not
at one particular point in time - either immediately before or after the
measures are carried out - but the effects of past, present and planned
future logging on the authors' ability to enjoy their culture in community
with other members of their group.
10.3 The authors and the State party disagree on the effects of the logging
in the areas in question. Both express divergent views on all developments
that have taken place since the logging in these areas, including the
reasons behind the Minister's decision to reduce the number of reindeer kept
per herd: while the authors attribute the reduction to the logging, the
State party invoke the overall increase in reindeer threatening the
sustainability of reindeer husbandry generally. While the Committee notes
the reference made by the authors to a report by the Finish Game and
Fisheries Research Institute that "loggings - even those notified as
relatively mild - will be of greater significance for reindeer husbandry" if
such husbandry is based on natural pastures only (supra 8.8), it also takes
note of the fact that not only this report but also numerous other
references in the material in front of it mention other factors explaining
why reindeer husbandry remains of low economic profitability. It also takes
into consideration that despite difficulties the overall number of reindeers
still remains relatively high. For these reasons, the Committee concludes
that the effects of logging carried out in the Pyhajarvi, Kirkko-outa and
Paadarskaidi areas have not been shown to be serious enough as to amount to
a denial of the authors' right to enjoy their own culture in community with
other members of their group under article 27 of the Covenant.
11. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, is of the view that the facts before the Committee do not reveal a
breach of article 27 of the Covenant.
_______________________
[Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original
version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as
part of the Committee's annual report to the General Assembly.] |
|
