On the study

2.5 Choosing a sample

The sample criteria for this study was that you had to be over 18 years old and had to identify yourself as Coastal Sámi and live in immediate closeness to the South-East Barents Sea. To be part of this study it was however not a requirement to have either in depth knowledge on how oil reacts in ice cover water, or other natural science related backgrounds. Their answers are therefor the sum of experiences and observations based on knowledge connected to their home environment. It can not be excluded that some informants may have additional knowledge on the environmental processes that could happen if an oil spill were to occur, but it was not a formal requirement. 

2.6 Conducting the case study

The case study was done in two sessions, before and after the main holiday in Norway. When I planned the interviews, I was hoping that after sending out invitations answers would easily come back in so high numbers that it was easier to travel North and interview Coastal Sámi one by one over a short period of time. This turned out to not be the case. It ended up being conducted in two parts, first two interviews before the main holiday, and then the seven other interviews were done through an online questionnaire after the main holiday. The questions were the same for both set of interviews.  

2.7 Methodological challenges

When contact was made through several links with participants willing to be part of the case study, very few were left, and as only two interviews were made before the main holiday, these were done via e-mail, as this was the preferred method of my informants. 

A few of the Coastal Sámi who responded reported that they were Coastal Sámi themselves, but they knew someone who was even better suited to answer, so they would pass the request onwards. A lot of these interviews never happened. Some informants reported that even though they personally agreed that the oil concern was a genuine threat towards their community, it was not on the public agenda in the news in Northern Norway anymore. One informant hinted that a reason as to why participants had been so hard to gather was a response to Norway’s history of assimilation policy with the Sámi population that officially through directives lasted up until 1965, and a large part of the Sámi population remembers this well. Whereas another informant said that ‘it was not that the Coastal Sámi were not there, it was just that they did not want to be found..’ In addition I came in contact with many reindeer Sámi and Sámi who did not live close enough to the sea, so their response was that they did not feel qualified to participate. 

After the main holiday I contacted the higher education institutions of the High North again, namely University of Tromsø, University of Nordland and Sámi University College and asked the lecturers who taught Sámi related subjects if they could pass on an online survey I had now made, as I was hoping for a larger number of participants to improve the validity of this study. After considering, University of Tromsø concluded that even though I was not one of their students my chosen field of writing ‘belonged’ to them, so they would help me pass the survey on. 

2.7.1 Reliability

As all the informants fulfilled the necessary criteria, and all the participants only spoke on behalf of themselves, and not as spokespersons for any organization they might represent, the reliability was deemed good. One informant who worked for the Sámi Parliament informed me how he had worked a great deal on issues surrounding oil exploration in the Barents Sea, but the informant made it clear that even though he had in depth knowledge on the topic, the answers came on behalf of being a member of the Coastal Sámi population. 

2.7.2 Validity

As this case study wanted a broad set of answers within the Coastal Sámi population, based merely on their belonging to the Coastal Sámi community and how they lived close to the South-East Barents Sea, it was concluded that the sample was valid for this purpose. 

2.7.3 Generalization 

Based on the answers from the in total 9 interviews that were conducted, some generalizations can be made: The only questions everyone answered the same on were question number 5 ‘Has anyone informed specifically about the risks of an oil spill for you who live close to the South-East Barents Sea?’ To this every participants answered ‘No’, even the two who were more on the positive side of oil exploration, and question number 9 ‘Are you familiar with the oil spill recovery situation of an oil spill where you live, and how long it would take from the oil spill until the emergency action was operative?’ where the answer was also ‘No’.

2.8 Treating the collected data

As interviews were starting to get back, I started to realize that even though my attempt at making the questions open-ended, many of the informants chose to answer fairly concisely. Simultaneously as I was corresponding to get more interview arrangements, I was working on the literature review that needed to have a proportionally large part of this dissertation, as it regards a fairly narrow topic in a country that is likely to be at least not entirely familiar to the examiners.

Answers from the Coastal Sámi part 2

5. Has anyone informed specifically about the risks of an oil spill for you who live close to the South-East Barents Sea?

This was the one of two questions where the answers were unanimously ‘No’  with the most elaborate being ‘No, I miss information about this. It is we who have to live with the consequences.’ This single question can possibly be the greatest finding of this study, as for any nation wishing to do activities in a territory known to be inhabited by an indigenous population, The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN DRIPS 2008) states how the ‘Principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent’ should be applied. That information is not given directly to any of the 9 informants of this study can be explained with that information was given to the Sámi Parliament. However, what this dissertation argues is that it can not possibly be an informed consent at this stage, as

1. There is no known way today on how to safely remove oil from ice covered waters. As the decision of regardless of this opening an Arctic area, the South-East Barents Sea, for oil recovery, an area that borders permanent ice, is therefore an uninformed decision, as the inhabitants cannot be given proper information on what might happen to their nature if an accident were to happen due to opening their territory to the oil sector. 
2. The marine bottom of the South-East Barents Sea is currently being mapped as part of the impact assessment done on the area, and this process is not estimated to be finished before 2020 (Mareano 2007). The decision to open the area up for oil exploration was still made, even though the Sámi populations heavily depends on what the findings might say on how the marine life is changing in population size or behavioral patterns. 

As facts were missing in both cases, it can be argued that Norway breaks the international treaty they have signed in order to protect their indigenous population. 

6. What thoughts do you have around a coexistence between the fishing industry and the oil industry; is it realistic?

The range of these answers came from a concern on how the oil industry might take over what was already there of the fishing industry;‘It is not realistic as long as there is a race towards getting the oil up.’ and ‘If the oil industry continues to grow it is NOT realistic. One should count less on the oil industry and more on the fishing industry. Let all of us in Norway come closer to nature!’ to the optimistic for coexistence ‘One has to adapt to everyday life. Cooperation and dialogue is key.’ The more specific answers were on the topic of seismic activity. One informant answered ‘The sound waves of seismic shooting when they search for oil scare the fish in a radius up to 34 kilometers from the area it is shooting in. And an oil spill would be a catastrophe. In the North there is a lot of bad weather, this can not possibly end well.’ On the same matter another informant replied ‘It is very problematic in my view. Not only does the frequent seismic shooting disturb the fish, but an eventual oil spill would be catastrophic.’  Both these concerns highlights how both the safe practice of doing oil searching activities may cause harm, but also how the overhanging threat of an oil spill would be severely detrimental for the fishing industry. 

7. If repeated oil spills were to occur in your close environment, would this be a reason to move?

These answers showed a variety from the ones who did not see moving as a possibility; ‘No. My home is way to close to my heart. Besides, someone has to stay here and protest against the oil industry.’ and ‘Not for me and my family, but for many others. And if it was not a reason to move it would still reduce the life quality of many.’ to the ones willing ‘Of course, one does not wish to live in an environment that is contaminated.’ and ‘Yes, it would reduce the wellbeing of living in my close environment.’ but the answer that highlighted this debate the most was the informant who raised the very relevant question‘Yes, but where can one move? It is one thing to think that you can just move if the nature surrounding you is destroyed, but if all the world’s population gets their areas destroyed of modern non-renewable and capitalist driven industry were to move it would be total chaos.’  As more people have become refugees due to the changing climate than there currently are refugees caused by war (Regjeringen 2013), these are alarming prospects that the informant raise. 

8. Do you experience a great awareness in your local community around what an oil spill would mean for your close environment?

The tendencies from the answers points towards that the environmental concerns are known but not discussed in the public debates on oil in the Barents Sea. ‘Yes, but this does not show in the public debate. It is only characterized by the hope of growth and prosperity.’ and ‘There exists a conscience about the consequences. But one does not talk about it.’ There was also one informant who replied that there was a lack of awareness, and instead of this there were hopes that the oil industry might bring more workplaces than what already exists; ‘No, people think that there will be more workplaces. They don’t think about the ones who are likely to lose their workplaces, such as the fishers.’ 

9. Are you familiar with the oil spill recovery situation of an oil spill where you live, and how long it would take from the oil spill until the emergency action was operative?

This was the other question where the unanimous answer was ‘No’, with one informant adding the concern on the technology available today: ‘No, I have no knowledge on this. Except that it works very poorly today.’

10. Have you participated politically in the relation to the oil drilling in the South-East Barents Sea? 

This question caused many answers along the line of ‘In no way.’ except for two of the informants who replied ‘I am a local politician. But if there are plans of a demonstration towards the oil industry, of course I will join.’ and ‘I stood on a list under the last Sámi Parliament election. I am a member of ‘Nature and Youth’(Environmentalist organization). That only 2 out of 9 informants had participated politically against oil drilling may have a variety of factors, one of them being, based on the answers in question number 8 on awareness, that this is currently not a political matter. 

11. In your opinion, what would you say weighs more heavily in your local community: The ecosystem of the ocean, or a possible financial growth due to the oil recovery? 

The majority of the informants answered that a healthy ecosystem in the ocean is the main factor in their close environment‘To preserve the ecosystem intact is the most important factor.’, however informants were worried that this was not always the case for the political decisions‘The ecosystem in the ocean should weigh the heaviest. The fish would give work to many more. Sadly it doesn’t due to political reasons, or political weakness.’ or the majority of the inhabitants ‘For me it is the ecosystem, but I think for the majority it will be financial growth.’ An important question was raised when one informant asked ‘The ecosystem in the ocean. As long as the fish exist we will always have food. Isn’t our economy good enough?’  Is the economic need for oil of greater value than securing the fishery industry, an industry which in 2010 contributed with 46,5 billions NOK (Sintef 2010) to Norway’s GDP?

12. Are you familiar with the problems connected to gathering oil in ice covered waters, as next to the Ice Edge and the Polar Front? 

The majority answered negatively ‘No.’  to this question except for one informant who was familiar with the problematic nature of oil near the Ice Edge and Polar Front‘Yes, it is unique and vulnerable nature and animal life there. Sea scientists and environmental experts warn against it.’Another informant contributed by stating what is the general consensus on oil recovery in ice covered waters ‘Yes. I am familiar with it and know that it is near impossible.’

13. Is there anything else about oil recovery in the South-East Barents Sea that engages you that has not been raise in the earlier questions?

One informant had a valuable point on food security that had not been directly addressed in the previous questions‘I fish all year around to collect food. If the fishing had been equally as good as it was 20 years ago, I would have made fishing my life stock. There are few who eats more fish than me. I never buy fish or meat in the store. The most important fish species in quantity here is the cod. It is mostly fjord and coastal cod, but also arctic cod. If a bigger oil spill were to occur an entire year of arctic cod could be extinct. That affects my opportunity to collect food. As of today the consequences would not be that big, but in 10-20 years time, when I am sure that the food prices will have risen, then a decrease in the cod population will have a major impact for me. The time perspective for the food security needs to be longer than the foreseeable future , and this informant addressed how an oil spill could possibly make an entire year of arctic cod become extinct due to pollution. 

The exiting one with responses from the Coastal Sámi

2.4 Interviews

1. What do the coast and the ocean mean for you and your livelihood?

‘The ocean means I always have access to food. My ancestors were poor, but people along the shore have never been starving, because they could go out at sea and fish.’ 

The aspect this informant highlights draws attention to how the people of the North do not only eat fish as a supplement to their diet, but how fishing both traditionally and today are the main source of food. Any insecurities around the food security are therefore of a great concern to the inhabitants with direct access to the Barents Sea. 

‘The coast means incredibly much to me as a Costal Sámi. The ocean and the coast are the very foundation for Sea Sámi Culture. Without the coast and the ocean it is hard for the traditions to have a continuity.’ When discussing land and sea resources when indigenous communities are involved it is not the same question as discussing relocations for non-indigenous, although it is of course problematic for anyone who would needed to be relocated due to changes happening in their home environment. For the Coastal Sámi in particular, the closeness to the sea is one of the last remaining aspects of their cultural identity, as one informant informed me the Norwegian assimilation process were particularly hard on the Coastal Sámi.  

‘Without the ocean, where should we get fish? If I live away from the ocean too long, I miss it. There is something missing. I did not understand this when I was a child, when my mum said she could not live away from the ocean, but when I moved to the inland for a year I understood it.’ Both the food aspect and the identity dependency on the ocean are equally strong components for this informant in the relationship to the ocean. 

‘I grew up by a fjord, and have learned how to walk there and use the resources that exist in the ocean. Fishing is important both as food gathering and recreation. And I have a strong place belonging to the fjord. Here have my ancestors lived, and it feels right that me and my children use these same areas and to harvest what the ocean gives.’ This bond to their nature and the generation aspect of why this place in particular is important is one of the ways indigenous communities as the Coastal Sámi explains how they are un-separable from their nature, because who they are is so intertwined with who their ancestors were due to where they lived and were shaped by nature. 

‘It is a very important part of my everyday and my life.’ Simply put but very efficiently this quotation says how the ocean is something that plays a significant part both on an everyday scale, but also for the more long term perspective.  

‘For the immediate livelihood the coast and the ocean not so much. But I have grandparents who subsist of what the ocean have to offer, with both sea salmon fishing, cod fishing etc. But, for one who is raised by the coast, I need the ocean on another level. I can not imagine living a place where I do not have immediate access to the coast and ocean.’  This informant does not make her livelihood of the ocean, but is equally tied to it. This ‘another level’ she speaks of is an indicator to what the ocean has to say for how her identity is so closely linked to the ocean that living another place is not thinkable. 

2. Have you been following the debate regarding Norwegian oil exploration in the Arctic (recently around ‘Bjørnøya’=Bear Island)

The answers ranged from five ‘Yes’ to four ‘No’, with the most elaborative answers explained ‘That I have. That they even plan a new drilling in the Arctic is frightening.’  This remark shows the concern of the informant, and implies an awareness of why Arctic oil drilling is problematic. Another concerned positive answer was ‘Yes, that debate I have been following. Not only because I work with Sámi issues and land and resource rights, but also because I am concerned about protecting a healthy coastal line.’  This indicates that the informant thinks oil exploration could interfere with a healthy coastal line. 

3. What is your view on oil recovery in the South-East Barents Sea?

This informants show a precautionary attitude towards oil recovery due to the protection on the known values as a clean environment and the fish.‘I am very skeptical of oil recovery in the Barents Sea. I fear that the environmental consequences can be large. Is there a hurry to get the oil up? After all, it does not disappear. Oil is a one time resource. The cod is renewable.’ 

Both these two informants seem to have the climate change impacts in mind when considering if oil recovery in the Barents Sea is necessary, as burning of fossil fuels is a documented source of contributing to global heating (Nasa). ’One has to try to develop another alternative to oil and gas. There is no future for our planet if the recovery of all these fossil fuels continues.’ and ‘It should be completely unacceptable both because of the danger for the nature and because oil and gas production ought to diminish, not increase.’

‘I do not see why we should take the risk. The consequences of an oil spill would be catastrophic for the fragile environment of the North. I think we should save the none renewable resources to a time when we maybe really need them, and rather count on finding more and better renewable ways of getting energy.’ The precaution this informant advocates goes along the line of what environmental agencies of the Arctic recommends, as WWF’s recommendations on Arctic oil and gas is to leave it be (WWF). 

Another perspective is that of bringing the financial growth Norway’s oil history has undeniably brought the country more localized to the Northern part of the county where this oil would be extracted: ‘The oil industry has good ripple effects on the business and the infrastructure.’

One informant chose to not take a definite stand on whether they were for or against, but showed a concern for how the oil recovery might interfere with this highly adapted nature. ‘I can’t say I am either pro or against. But, I have great concerns about a possible oil recovery in such a climate exposed area.’  The term ‘climate exposed’ refers to how the Arctic, although hostile with its extremely low temperatures is actually a highly fragile environment and one of the places on Earth that most easily would be affected by human interference (GRID 2014).

‘I am against oil recovery in the Barents Sea for as long time as the relationship to the Sámi rights and Sámi interest in the area is not clarified.’ This statement stands for the protection of Sámi rights, as discussions on how to distribute areas where Coastal Sámi people have traditionally lived has not yet begun. 

4. What consequences would an oil spill have for you and your close environment?

This informant describes how her everyday activities connected with food gathering, especially from the sea, will suffer if oil was spilt in her close environment. ‘It would have great consequences. We use nearly all the animals in the sea and along the coast. We fish all year around and in the spring we go out on the islands and collect seagull eggs. In the late summer we pick all sorts of berries on the islands. An oil spill would have caused a break in our living traditions.’

The holistic approach to oil spills can be seen in the two following answers; ‘It would have enormous consequences for the areas I stay in for most of the year. For the animal and birdlife, for the fish, for the humans and the entire ecosystem. These are frightening perspectives.’  and ‘It would be catastrophic for those who live of the fish and the animal life.’ Both answers stand as a testimony to the uncertainty that surrounds Arctic oil spills, as neither the industry or environmental agencies can produce a definite answer as of today on how to safely remove oil from ice covered waters (WWF Canada 2011). 

This answer is more concrete and describes what the informant think will happen when the oil meets the shore. ‘An oil spill that causes the oil to come right onto the shore will bring an ecological catastrophe, and ruin the close environment for the unforeseeable future.’ 

On the research that led to the findings..

Giving out chapter 2 right away; 

1.5 Research Method  

The chosen research method for this case study was interviews via e-mails, as the first two Coastal Sámi I came in contact with preferred this means of expressing themselves. The research was formulated in a questionnaire with open ended questions so the Coastal Sámi would have the option to write as short or lengthy as desirable. The first part of the interviews was done in the middle of June, before the main holiday started in Norway. The literature review set out to complement the Coastal Sámi replies, both to strengthen their validity, but also to provide evidence that what my informants were suspecting in many cases could be assured with recent findings on how oil affects matters concerning the Coastal Sámi. While I was writing the literature review, I constantly tried to retrieve contact with the institutions of the High North who worked on Sámi related issues. In August, when the main holiday was over, positive response on participating was received, and as I was hoping for a high number of participants an online questionnaire was made, making it easier to both further distribute the survey within the Coastal Sámi community, but also for treating the data afterwards. 

1.6 Approach

To meet the aims and objectives of this dissertation I have approached the topic twofold with both a thorough literature review, as the dissertation concerns a nation that is not the UK, I found it necessary to give the reader the full information of how legislative procedures works in Norway. As the literature review aims to highlight the different perspectives on why oil exploration is necessary it was included the perspective on the potential energy that could come as a benefit from this source. In Norway the Sámi are not often referred to as being ‘indigenous’ but are rather just referred to as being Sami, therefore it is my view that the indigenous question has been lost from the debate and hence the legal rights that comes with being recognized as an indigenous population inhabiting a resource area that has been theirs for 10.000 years (Porsanger Sameforening 2013). This leads to the inclusion of how an oil spill would affect this activity that has been going on for such a vast period of time, and whether this is the potential end point of traditional Coastal Sámi livelihood. Food security and how the health of Arctic species are affected by oil is a great concern to the Sámi, and should therefore be a considerable factor for decision makers, and is therefore left in this dissertation. A brief description on how seismic shooting affects Arctic marine life is necessary, as to explain how intertwined and fragile the symbiosis of the Arctic eco system really is. The official concerns in an open hearing from the Norwegian Environmental Movement and the Sámi Parliament are included as to show what the main arguments against oil exploration were at the time that the decision to open up the South-East Barents Sea was made. Climate change in the Arctic is a factor that both enables the potential oil business, but climate change is also a hazard for the Coastal Sámi livelihood in itself, so a brief chapter is dedicated to this factor. The official recommendation report that was made on how the Sámi would be affected by oil activity in the South-East Barents Sea was based on two major studies that have been done in Norway, the first in 2003 and the second in 2008. I include these to highlight that important facts are not given as much significance as they should, given what is at stake. Then there will be a paragraph with the current facts on how oil appears in ice covered waters as the reader will have all the facts based on a combination of chapter 2 of the dissertation, which presents answers from the Coastal Sámi population. These two main parts of the dissertation will culminate in a set of recommendations to decision makers emphasizing the potential risk involved when opening the Arctic to the oil industry and how the need to think of potential risks with a worst case scenario in mind is the best way to be prepared if an oil spill were to occur. 

2.0 Methodology and data 

In the introduction I have presented the context this master dissertation is written in, namely the Coastal Sámi perspective of Arctic oil spills. Following this, I will now present the theoretical background this study is based upon. I will further explain how the case study and research material was gathered, and how this is linked. Afterwards I will discuss my sample of informants for the case study and what methodological challenges I encountered while collecting the data. Lastly in the methodology chapter, I will discuss the treatment of the collected data. 

2.1 Grounded Theory 

For the case study of interviewing the Coastal Sámi inhabitants of the northernmost municipalities in Norway, I found it appropriate to use grounded theory. According to (Mjøset 2007) grounded theory was a program launched by Glaser and Strauss in 1967 to systematize the second, post-war Chicago school’s perspective, and is considered to be the most developed and independent program for theory on a lower level. The thought behind the theory is that if you only seek to verify existing knowledge, then nothing new can be gained. With this case study I wanted to fill the gap between what information the Coastal Sámi either knew, had been given by authorities or what they suspected about how a possible oil spill would affected their immediate nature, and what knowledge is currently available concerning how oil in ice covered waters behaves. The purpose of using grounded theory is that by setting a clause around all previous knowledge and culture dependent prejudice one will be more open to the full empirical experience that one will acquire through the field work. However, grounded theory does not demand that no assumptions are made beforehand. It is on the other hand consistent with that all observations are theory based, but it does demand that the empirical work is based on previous grounded theory in the applied topic. This is the case for this study, as the literature review views the two major studies done on the oil industries impact on the Coastal Sámi, and neither of these stated any other agenda than contributing to a field where information is scarce. What neither of these studies asked however, were questions regarding oil under ice, and oil near the Ice Edge and the Polar Front. 

The study ‘Social, Cultural, and Psychological Impacts of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill’ (Lawrence et. al. 1993) carried out an extensive research study on the consequences of 594 men and woman living in Alaska during the time of the Exxon Valdez spill. The study concluded that the oil spills impact on the psychosocial environment was equally important as the physical impacts the oil spill caused the environment. A comparable study ‘Disruption and stress in an Alaskan fishing community: initial and continuing impacts of the Exxon Valdez oil spill’ (Picou et. al. 1992) concluded that communities who are dependent on natural resources for their existence are particularly vulnerable to disasters that pollutes the biophysical nature. My case study builds on this knowledge and aims to show that the same factors applies for a Norwegian oil spill scenario. 

New mini-series: Learn more about Arctic oil drilling and the Coastal Sámi!

As a new mini-series, I have decided to publish a blog post on one chapter from my master every day for the next 14 days or so (making it a bit like the Norwegian hit series SKAM). Arctic oil drilling is a highly relevant topic these days, and my hope for this mini series is to spread awareness of the current situation, and let more people join in on the conversation on Arctic oil drilling. Here we go: 

To what extent will there be consequences for the Coastal Sámi in the event of an Arctic oil spill in the South-East Barents Sea? — With a case study of Coastal Sámi inhabitants living in the northernmost municipalities of Norway

Abstract

This dissertation provides a thorough response to the research question ‘what risk factors does the Coastal Sámi community face when considering an oil spill in the South-East Barents Sea?’ In addition to how the ocean is of significant cultural value to the Coastal Sámi for their sense of identity, it is also their primary food source. Oil activity in the South-East Barents Sea will pose a threat already under safe practice, as the seismic shooting the Norwegian oil industry use in order to locate oil wells has a negative effect on larva and fry. The sea bottom of the Barents Sea is currently being mapped, and the report is estimated to be finished in 2020, making it impossible to predict further consequences on the marine life before this time. Large scale oil spill recovery tests affirmed how techniques used in open waters to remove oil were not applicable, and how satellite monitoring system would not pick up oil spilt under ice with a density percentage over 40%. The case study confirmed that the risks of an oil spill had not been given to the informants. A plausible reason could be that information was given to the Sámi Parliament on behalf of the Sámi, but as there is no known knowledge on how to clean an Arctic spill, this withholding of information breaks with the Principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent in The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which Norway has signed. Recommendations includes drawing up a treaty distributing areas in and around the sea between the Sámi population and the non-indigenous population of Norway, waiting until the sea bottom mapping is finished before oil licenses are being allocated and in order to achieve Norway’s climate emission targets leave the oil reservoirs unexplored. 

‘The Arctic is closer to our homes than we think.’

- David Attenborough

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background of the study

The background for this masters dissertation is that the human created (Stern 2006) climate change is heating up the Arctic at a faster pace than any other place on the globe. This causes melting of the permanent ice, and with this the opening of an unexploited territory in regards of fossil energy sources. Norway owns oil concessions in the Barents Sea (see figure 1), and gas production has already started in the Southern areas of the Barents Sea in the ‘Snøhvit’ field 140 km North-West of Hammerfest. The concern of this dissertation is what the consequences for the indigenous population of Norway, the Sámi, would be if an oil spill in these recently opened areas were to occur. Norway found oil on the Norwegian shelf in 1969 (Regjeringen 2013) on the field named ‘Ekofisk’, whereas the Sámi, and in particular the Coastal Sámi population, have been inhabiting the same areas that are now being opened up to the petroleum industry for over 10.000 years (Porsanger Sameforening 2013). What is special with the South-East Barents Sea being opened for oil exploration, (and also the North Barents Sea that has been test-drilled for oil while this dissertation has been written), is that the South-East Barents Sea borders to the permanent ice, an area both indigenous and non-indigenous people of the North rely on for food security, as its existence is crucial for the complex and highly adapted biodiversity of the Arctic. Oil spill recovery systems do exist for open waters, but not for oil that has leaked under ice. Arctic drilling is a new phenomenon and tests on how to detect and clean up an oil spill sponsored by several leading oil companies have proven to be extremely challenging, if not impossible at this time(Sintef 2010). 

  Figure 1. Impact assessment area: The Norwegian Oil Directorate 

1.2 The main research question

In June 2013 the Norwegian government agreed to open the South-East areas of the Norwegian Barents Sea for oil exploration, in the hope that there will be oil reservoirs. This is a new direction in Norwegian policy making, because this is the first time an area close to the permanent ice has been opened up. The Sámi, and in particular the Coastal Sámi, are dependent on the nearby ocean and a functioning ecosystem for their continued survival as a people. The full consequences of an oil spill in Arctic waters are unknown, this dissertation will therefore assess risk factors based on current knowledge and seek out to give a full perspective of the environmental impacts for the Coastal Sámi population, and what acts of mitigation would be necessary in order to prevent potential damage done to their immediate nature.                                                  

1.3 Rationale

This dissertation will consider how an Arctic oil spill will affect the Coastal Sámi population because my thesis is that all the facts was not properly presented when the decision of opening the South-East Barents Sea for oil recovery was made, due to how there is little to no known facts on how to remove oil from ice covered waters(Sintef 2010). After reading through the official documents by the Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy sent out on a hearing to the Sámi Parliament, these parts were not included and the process of opening the above named areas was heavily criticized for having happened too quickly for affected parts to protest. 

1.3.1 Scope

This dissertation will not consider the two following aspects of oil in the Barents Sea: 

1. A report done by SINTEF on how oil reacts in Arctic waters (Sintef 2010) suggest that it is probably from the increased shipping traffic through the North-East passage that an oil leakage will come from, and that these kinds of oil spills will be harder to control from for example a governmental point of view, because from an economical perspective with the melting poles, it is more lucrative to use the North-East passage and therefor the shipping will probably happen either way if oil drilling is not going to take place in the Arctic. The report stated that the usual way oil spills from tankers is noticed is by constant satellite photos, but the problem with the Arctic is that if the ice concentration is high then it is impossible to spot the spills, and this is when the oil can drift under the ice for months.

2. Many experts have pointed towards that oil exploration in the Arctic, and particularly in the Barents Sea, is not an economically good decision as it is highly expensive to start exploration in an area where there is currently no sufficient equipment to drill safely, nor a connection to the already existing transport system Norway transports its LNG on.

1.4 Aims

The aim of this masters dissertation is to highlight the indigenous perspective of the Coastal Sámi in the debate around oil activities in the High North of Norway. A common feature for indigenous populations is their dependence on the nature for their continuous survival as a people and the Coastal Sámi are not different. When interfering with the Coastal Sámi’s prospects of a livestock funded in the primary sector, the oil industry does not only put their main food source at risk, but also how they define themselves as a people. Their identity is so intertwined with where they live and how their food is gathered, that a clean shoreline and waters are a prerequisite for the Costal Sámi’s existence. This statement is based on results from the interviews that will be discussed in chapter 2 of this dissertation.

Suing the Norwegian State over constitutional violations

The past two years we have seen every previous heat record to date being broken. We know the reason why this is happening. The burning of fossile fuels as oil, coal and gas give us carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions that escalates the global heating. This is causing the world we live in to be more unevenly distributed, where those who have done the least to contribute to the global heating are the ones suffering the most. 

In June 2016, the Norwegian government handed out permissions to drill for oil in the Barents Sea, through the 23rd licensing round. In total, 53 new search licences were distributed and Statoil announced that they would start the oil drilling already next summer. Not many months after, the Norwegian government handed out even more licences in the 24rd licence round. 

This does not make any sense due to two good reasons: 

1. We have a Environmental paragraph in our constitution, paragraph 112, that states: ‘Everyone has the right to an environment that ensures the health, and to a nature where production capability and diversity is preserved. Natural resources should be allocated on the basis of a long-term and versatile consideration that safeguards this right also to the coming generations’ and ‘the States authorities shall implement measures to conduct these principles.’ 
2. In Paris in December last year, Norway ratified, as one of the first countries, on the new climate agreement that states that we wish to hold the human created global heating to less than 1,5 degrees.

A new report from Oil Change International has also stated that if we are to reach these climate goals, we have to leave all the undiscovered oil in the ground. The report also states that the oil resources we already are drilling will contribute to a higher CO2 emission target than 2 degrees, if we are to burn the oil. This makes it pointless to drill for more new oil. 

Norway likes to think of itself as a green country, and the best in the class, but our actions speaks louder than words. 

Because of this is a number of environmental organisations now suing the Norwegian State for violations on our constitution. 

‘We think that the state has broken its responsibility for future generations by opening for large scale oil drilling. If we are to have a Earth to live on in the future, we need to take the climate changes seriously and leave the oil in the soil’ said Ingrid Skjoldvær, leader of Nature and Youth. 

‘At the same time as Erna Solberg, Norwegian Prime minister, signed the Paris agreement and promised big emission cuts, the Norwegian government opened for large scale oil drilling in the Barents Sea. We ask the court to make these licences void, because more oil will lead to higher emissions, not lower’, said Truls Gulowsen, leader of Greenpeace Norway. 

‘Norway seems determined on sabotaging the Paris-agreement even before it went into action’ wrote Nasa scientist James Hansen, in an open letter to Erna Solberg. 

With this lawsuit, the environmental organisations aim to focus on that environmental damages is not only a political problem. This regards the livelihoods of the humans that live now, but also the ones that will come after us. Given that we have a Constitution that states as clearly as the Norwegian environmental paragraph does, there are certain limits what the Norwegian government can do. The resources found in our nature are to be distributed with thoughts to a longterm and safe future. 

If you wish to follow the lawsuit, and add your name to show your support, you can follow this link: https://www.savethearctic.org/en/the-people-vs-arctic-oil/?utm_source=internal&utm_medium=post&utm_term=People%20vs%20Arctic%20Oil,arctic,action%20page,oil&utm_campaign=Polar&__surl__=IgOs9&__ots__=1476909143400&__step__=1

A small win for the Norwegian environmental movement!

Follow my blog with Bloglovin

This week has shown us how a united, climate educated and alert environmental movement managed to put a stop to the the Norwegian oil ministers wish of opening for oil licensing in vulnerable areas. In Norway, the 24th License round was recently opened up (on the 30th of August) making it possible for oil companies to nominate areas where they want to drill for oil. One of these areas that were on the new map was the Lofoten archipelago and previously unopened areas on the coast of Møre. The trouble with licensing out blocks in the Lofoten archipelago, in addition to how it contains: 

- The area is unique in a global context because the worlds last and largest cod tribe spawns here

- It contains the worlds largest cold water coral reef 

- 70% of the fish we fish in Norway has its key area in the Lofoten area

In addition to these figures, its also a part of the governmental coalitions agreement that these areas shall remain untouched in this governmental periode (ending in the late summer of 2017). When the two coalition parties (the Christian Democrats and the Liberals) that did not agree with this sneak opening joined forces with a united climate movement, then there could be no real argument from the oil pro remains of the government, and they had to backtrack their statement. The environmental movement used both social media to get the message across, in addition to the written press and TV news to inform the people of Norway what was happening and how outraged they were about this process. This is a massive win for Norway, as it shows how open democratic processes should work, and Norway has very open process so as a citizen it is easy to engage yourself and be part of the process. 

Thank you for reading.