Communication
3588/2019
Submission: 2018.12.06
View Adopted: 2024.07.19
The Committee’s Views in Jovsset Ante Sara v. Norway represent a vital development in the protection of indigenous cultural rights under article 27 of the Covenant. The case reinforces the principle that economic viability is intrinsic to the exercise of cultural practices, particularly for indigenous peoples whose identities are closely tied to traditional livelihoods. In recognising that reindeer husbandry for the Sámi is not merely economic but deeply cultural, the Committee clarified that States must carefully assess the cumulative and individual impact of conservation measures on cultural sustainability, and not apply policy tools in a rigid or undifferentiated manner. This decision marks a significant evolution from the Committee’s earlier views in Kalevi Paadar et al. v. Finland (CCPR/C/110/D/2102/2011), where it found no violation in a similar context involving reindeer herding restrictions. By contrast, Jovsset Ante Sara sets a higher threshold of justification for State interference, affirming that cultural rights should not be protected in the abstract, but must be preserved with a view to maintaining practical viability and meaningful consultation. It, thus, offers a more nuanced and protective reading of article 27 than before, with implications for indigenous self-determination, minority rights, and environmental regulation moving forward.
The author, Jovsset Ante Sara, is a young Sámi reindeer herder from Norway who practises traditional reindeer husbandry, a livelihood central to Sámi identity and culture. In 2010, at the age of 17, he inherited his mother’s siida unit and began managing his own herd. In 2013, under the 2007 Reindeer Husbandry Act, the Norwegian authorities issued a compulsory culling order requiring him to reduce his herd from 350 to 75 reindeer. He contested this decision through the domestic court system.
The cull was imposed as part of a broader national policy to reduce overgrazing, aimed at promoting ecological sustainability within Sámi pastoralist regions. However, the author argued that the reduction made his herd economically non-viable, particularly for young or small-scale herders like himself, and thereby threatened his ability to maintain a traditional livelihood. Both the Sámi Parliament and the Sámi Reindeer Herders’ Association supported his objection, consistently stating that a minimum of 200 reindeer was necessary for sustainable and independent reindeer herding.
While the domestic Court of Appeal ruled in his favour, holding that the culling order violated his cultural rights, the Supreme Court of Norway overturned this decision, finding the measure justified and proportionate to national environmental and policy objectives. The Court held that although the measure interfered with the author’s cultural rights, it pursued a legitimate aim of preventing overgrazing and protecting the collective viability of Sámi reindeer husbandry, and it was accordingly, lawful.
In the present communication, the author alleged that Norway’s refusal to grant an exemption to the culling order, despite his small-scale operation and cultural reliance on the practice, constitutes a violation of article 27 of the Covenant, which protects the rights of minorities to enjoy their own culture. He argued that the policy was applied inflexibly, without sufficient consideration of his individual circumstances, and contrary to recommendations by Sámi institutions.
The Committee found the communication admissible under article 27, concluding that the author had exhausted domestic remedies and had sufficiently substantiated his claim, meeting the requirements of article 5 (2) (a) and (b) of the Protocol. It noted that the alleged interference—compelling a herd reduction to the point of economic inviability—was closely linked to the author’s ability to practise his culture.
The Committee concluded that Norway had violated article 27 of the Covenant, which guarantees the right of persons belonging to minorities to enjoy their own culture. While acknowledging that the State had a legitimate interest in promoting sustainable environmental practices and preserving reindeer pastures, the Committee found that Norwegian authorities had failed to justify the necessity and proportionality of the culling order in the specific circumstances of the author’s case.
It noted that the author’s herd was already among the smallest in the region, and that he had demonstrated a commitment to sustainable reindeer husbandry. The culling order, therefore, posed a disproportionate burden on him and jeopardised the economic and cultural viability of his herding activities. The Committee was especially concerned that no exemption mechanism existed in the law to safeguard small-scale or young herders, despite the consistent position of representative Sámi institutions that at least 200 reindeer are required to maintain a viable livelihood.
Moreover, the Committee stressed that States have a duty under article 27 to ensure that measures impacting minority cultures are both necessary and proportionate, and that they meaningfully consult with indigenous institutions. In this case, Norway disregarded the expertise and advocacy of Sámi bodies, failing to conduct an individualised assessment of the impact of the culling order on the author’s right to enjoy his culture. The Committee reaffirmed that, where minority livelihoods are rendered economically unviable, this may amount to a denial of cultural rights, especially when less restrictive alternatives were available but not considered.
The State party should:
Deadline for implementation: 19 January 2025
More information:
A similar case from 2014 (CCPR/C/110/D/2102/2011) was brought against Finland before the Committee concerning Sami’s minority rights in regards to reindeer. There, no violation was found, affecting that this case reflects an evolution in jurisprudence.
