Loss of Reindeer Grazing Land in Finnmark, Norway, and Effects on Biodiversity: GLOBIO3 as Decision Support Tool at Arctic Local Level

Abstract

Competing land use and climate change are threats to the pasture land of Sámi reindeer herding. Reindeer pastures are exposed to the development of infrastructure, hydropower, mineral exploration, recreational cabin areas, and wind power. Land use conflicts are exacerbated under climate policy with wind power plants in reindeer herding areas. Projected developments and climate change impacts challenge the adaptive capacity of reindeer herders and the resilience of reindeer herding. Analysis of biodiversity loss by the GLOBIO3 model is suggested as tool for decision support, in consultation with Sámi reindeer owners, taking into account traditional knowledge of reindeer herding. GLOBIO3 analysis for Sámi reindeer herding land in Finnmark indicates that in 2011, compared to an intact situation, about 50% of the biodiversity of reindeer calving grounds has been lost, and it is expected to be reduced with another 10% in the scenario for 2030. Reindeer owners in Finnmark told that they expect biodiversity loss will have implications for the quality and extent of suitable grazing areas. Especially the quality of the calving grounds is essential for reindeer herding. An important lesson from dialogue with reindeer owners is that even highly impacted areas should not be considered as lost, and thus be opened to further development, as they are still important for seasonal reindeer migration and grazing at certain times of the year. The chapter presents research on methods development, traditional knowledge in the context of Sámi reindeer herders in Finnmark and highlights innovative tools to engage rightsholders and stakeholders in the Arctic in development planning processes.

9.1 Introduction

Competing land use and climate change are threats to reindeer herding, as to pastoral livelihoods worldwide (Uboni et al., 2020). Migrations of reindeer, as other ungulates, are disappearing at an alarming rate, and tracking data combined with local and Indigenous knowledge can form the knowledge basis to support conservation action and policy at local, national, and international levels (Kauffman et al., 2021). The biodiversity of reindeer herding land is impacted by loss of land due to development of infrastructure, buildings, and industry, and by changes in species composition due to climate change. The characteristic Arctic biodiversity is threatened as species migrate north under warming climate (Arctic Biodiversity Assessment, 2013). The changes affect livelihoods and cultures of Indigenous communities and challenge the adaptive capacity and resilience of nature-based livelihoods that depend on Arctic biodiversity (Eira et al., 2018; Tyler et al., 2007).

Reindeer herding is livelihood for more than 20 Indigenous Peoples¹ in the circumpolar Arctic. Reindeer husbandry is practiced in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, Mongolia, China, Alaska, Canada and Greenland, with about 3.4 million semi-domesticated reindeer (Magga et al., 2011; Maynard et al., 2011; Turi, 2002; International Centre for Reindeer Husbandry, 2021). For these Indigenous Peoples, reindeer represent their cultural, economic, social and spiritual foundation. Reindeer husbandry represents a connection between people and nature, ancient in origin, and practiced almost identically wherever it is found (United Nations, 2012). Traditional Sámi use and management of land and resources have aimed for a land use that secures livelihoods for future generations (birgejupmi) and good environmental management (Sámi Parliament, 2016).

In the past decades, reindeer pastures have been exposed to loss and fragmentation of land, from development of infrastructure, hydropower, mineral exploration, recreational cabin areas, and wind power (Vistnes & Nellemann, 2007; Nellemann et al., 2003; Pape & Löffler, 2012). Loss of land is the largest threat to reindeer herding (Danell, 2005; Pape & Loeffler, 2012). Land use conflicts are exacerbated under climate policy with wind power plants in Sámi reindeer herding areas (Skarin & Åhman, 2014; Skarin & Alam, 2017; Skarin et al., 2018).

Global reports by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2019) on biodiversity loss, and by the climate panel (IPCC, 2019) on climate change and land use, call for land management that support both climate mitigation and biodiversity. Land use change, infrastructure development, fragmentation, and climate change are major human-induced impact factors on biodiversity (IPBES, 2019). Both the global studies and the Nature Index for Norway (Jakobsson & Pedersen, 2020) point to land use change as the strongest driver of biodiversity loss. Warming climate in the Arctic and re-growth of forest on the tundra directly impairs reindeer herding as the composition of species on pastureland is changed under forest re-growth (Arctic Biodiversity Assessment, 2013).

Reindeer herders have through their traditional knowledge developed unique management strategies for sustainable use and protection of pastures, and observation of changes. Adaptation to climate change calls for governance practices that take into account Sámi traditional knowledge, including the need for flexibility in the use of reindeer pastures (Eira et al., 2018; Burgess et al., 2018; Johnsen, 2018; Turi, 2016; Tyler et al., 2007). The future for reindeer herders’ communities is dependent on use of their traditional knowledge and implementing risk spreading through diversity in social organization, economy, and understanding of biodiversity and flexible use of pastures (Magga et al., 2011).

Traditional knowledge is defined by the Ottawa principles of the Arctic Council as a systematic way of thinking and knowing, “owned by the holders of that knowledge, often collectively, and is uniquely expressed and transmitted through Indigenous languages. It is a body of knowledge generated through cultural practices, lived experiences including extensive and multigenerational observations, lessons and skills. It has been developed and verified over millennia and is still developing in a living process, including knowledge acquired today and in the future, and it is passed on from generation to generation” (Arctic Council Permanent Participants, 2015).

Fulfilment of Indigenous Peoples’ rights to land and resources includes recognizing the importance of traditional knowledge for management of grazing land. Culturally relevant criteria for land use management need to be identified, aligned with Indigenous practice. There is need for studies on impacts of land-use change and climate change on reindeer herding land. The special rapporteur to the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues has proposed to increase transparency in decision-making on land use, develop new criteria for impact assessments, and monitor reindeer pastures (United Nations, 2012).

This chapter addresses how impacts on Sámi reindeer herding land can be assessed with the GLOBIO3 model and applied as decision support for land use planning, in consultations with Sámi reindeer owners. GLOBIO3 is a spatial model, based on GIS methodology, for assessing impacts on biodiversity indirectly, by modelling pressures on biodiversity. GLOBIO3 is based on cause-effect relations between pressures and impact on biodiversity, as reported by Alkemade et al. (2009), and we apply the assumptions made by Alkemade et al. (2009), with some adjustments to Arctic conditions.

GLOBIO3 is designed for implementation at global scale and is used for international biodiversity assessments, including Global Biodiversity Outlook for the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), UNEP Global Environment Outlook, and OECD Environmental Outlook. Although used by high level reports, and many national studies, there is need to achieve more experience with downscaling the global assumptions to local conditions. In this chapter an implementation of the GLOBIO3 model is presented and discussed for potential use as decision support tool at local Arctic level, with a study of Finnmark, a core area for Sámi reindeer herding in Norway (van Rooij et al., 2017). As data on biodiversity is limited, and field mapping is costly, GLOBIO3 provides an overview, that in future research, may be supported by ground-truthing or localized plot data to validate the accuracy of the model at local scales. The overview given by GLOBIO3 may be supplemented by other approaches. A case study of consequences of the Nussir mining project applies a method of impact zones and provides an in-depth study of the landscape, reporting a great concern among reindeer owners that cumulative impacts on pastures may cause reindeer herding in their district to collapse (Eira et al., 2020).

The scope of the GLOBIO3 Arctic pilot study allowed assessment of only one Arctic region. With high data availability for Norway, the county of Finnmark (at the time of analysis, merged into Finnmark and Troms county from 2020) was selected for detailed GLOBIO3 analysis (van Rooij et al., 2017). The results presented here are from the follow-up study of the Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic, for the Barents region (AMAP, 2017). The GLOBIO3 study of Finnmark was made in collaboration with the Nomadic Herders project,² studying the impacts of land-use change and climate change on nomadic pastoralists, a joint research initiative by UNEP/GRID-Arendal, the Association of World Reindeer Herders, and the University of the Arctic EALAT Institute at the International Centre for Reindeer Husbandry (AMAP, 2017). The study reported in this chapter used the data compiled by the Nomadic Herders project from 2011, with map layers in a geographical information system (GIS), both infrastructure data and biodiversity data. The scenarios presented here, based on projected developments, build on these data. By comparing the situation in 2011 and future projections of biodiversity loss, trends can be observed and implications of change in biodiversity can be discussed with Sámi reindeer owners and policy makers.

At the time of completing this chapter, the Supreme Court of Norway ruled that the licenses for wind power development on the Fosen peninsula in the Mid-Norway region were invalid, as construction interfered with reindeer herders' right to enjoy their own culture under Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (Supreme Court of Norway, 2021). While the Supreme Court ruling is an important recognition of Sámi rights, it is not yet known what the ramifications will be for other projects of which there are several in this study area, and thus we have not addressed potential consequences. However, we note in particular that the Supreme Court draws attention to the total (cumulative) impact of the development. The Supreme Court found, also pointing to statements from the UN Human Rights Committee, that although the interference alone may have such serious consequences that it amounts to a violation of Article 27 of ICCPR, it must also be considered in context with other projects, both previous and planned. According to the judgement, the total impact of the development is the determinant as to whether a violation has taken place (Supreme Court of Norway, 2021). A report from the Norwegian National Human Rights Institution (2022) points to the importance of including the total (cumulative) impacts of developments in environmental impact assessments, and of clarifying the relevant themes according to Article 27 to secure human rights considerations in public decision-making.

9.2 Concepts of the GLOBIO3 Model

The GLOBIO3 model is a tool to assess the integrated impact of pressures on terrestrial biodiversity (Alkemade et al., 2009). It incorporates impacts of five types of pressure: land use change, infrastructure development, fragmentation, climate change, and nitrogen deposition. These pressures are included in the model as they are found to have large impact on biodiversity. As nitrogen deposition pressure in general is absent in Arctic areas, this pressure type was excluded from this Arctic pilot study. The model can assess past, present and future biodiversity at different scales. By using local data and local expertise GLOBIO3 can be downscaled for (sub-) national implementation.

The GLOBIO3 model, owned and developed by Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), was built upon the GLOBIO2 model, developed by a consortium of UNEP/GRID-Arendal and other researchers and experts, with impacts expressed as relationships between terrestrial biodiversity and distance to roads and other infrastructure elements (UNEP, 2001a, b). PBL added four more pressure types and updated the cause-effect relationship for infrastructure. GLOBIO3 builds on an integrated environmental model (IMAGE) model. GLOBIO3 can be combined with economic drivers simulated by other models (Verboom et al., 2007).

GLOBIO3 expresses the state of biodiversity by a natural intactness indicator, Mean Species Abundance (MSA), defined as average abundance of species, relative to their abundance in the original (intact) state. Biodiversity loss is measured by reduction in MSA. In general, the intact state refers to pristine or undisturbed ecosystems, but the model can also be used to assess impacts on semi-natural ecosystems, i.e., old cultural-dependent ecosystems like heathland, semi-natural grasslands and grazed tundra, where the intact state refers to the ecosystem sustained by optimal level of maintenance. The distinction between natural and semi-natural reference states is implemented in the Nature Index for Norway (Jakobsson & Pedersen, 2020).

GLOBIO3 is built on cause-effect relationships between pressures and biodiversity, derived from available literature, using meta-analysis for comparable ecosystems, as explained in Alkemade et al. (2009). Each MSA pressure map consists of a grid of cells with a value between 0 (completely disturbed) and 1 (intact biodiversity). The total MSA impact map is calculated by multiplying the MSA raster maps for each of the four pressures, land use, infrastructure, fragmentation and climate change, by applying the cause-effect relationships to the appropriate input map, in a geographical information system (GIS). The calculation of the total MSA map, illustrated in Fig. 9.1, is carried out by a raster calculator of the map layers, where the approach is explained by Alkemade et al. (2009, pp. 379–380): “Little quantitative information exists on the interaction between drivers. To assess possible interactions assumptions can be made, ranging from ‘complete interaction’ (only the worst impact is allocated to each grid cell) to ‘no interaction’ (the impacts of each driver are cumulative).” In the no-interaction case, for each grid cell, GLOBIO3 calculates the overall MSA value by multiplying the MSA maps for each driver:

$$ \textbf{MS}{\textbf{A}}_{\textbf{total}}=\textbf{MS}{\textbf{A}}_{\textbf{LandUse}}\ast \textbf{MS}{\textbf{A}}_{\textbf{Infrastructure}}\ast \textbf{MS}{\textbf{A}}_{\textbf{Fragmentation}}\ast \textbf{MS}{\textbf{A}}_{\textbf{ClimateChange}} $$

Fig. 9.1

MSA total map for Finnmark, 2011

Figure 9.1 shows the total effect on MSA for Finnmark for 2011. The most intact biodiversity (dark green color) can be observed in the most remote natural and semi-natural areas, in national parks and nature reserves. The highest impact (red color) can be seen in the main urban and industrial areas and in the vicinity of major roads. Note that the red-green color distribution is widely used in biodiversity modelling studies as it is generally (except for color impaired people) perceived as the best color range to differentiate between impacted (red) and intact (green) areas.

9.3 Data and Results at the Local Arctic Level: Finnmark?

9.3.1 Data Sources

For assessment of actual and projected future developments of infrastructure until 2030 data were gathered from national sources, regional plans for Finnmark (county governor’s office), and municipal zoning plans, with information from all municipalities in Finnmark, in publicly available reports and websites. A common map resource for all municipalities is found at https://kommunekart.com The previous municipality Kvalsund is now part of Hammerfest, and planning data for Hammerfest are found at https://hammerfest.kommune.no/tjenester/byggesak-arealplanlegging-og-eiendom/arealplanlegging/kommuneplanens-arealdel-2020-2032/ For Sør-Varanger municipality the data portal is found at https://www.sor-varanger.kommune.no/kommuneplanens-arealdel.364142.no.html Data for Alta municipality are found at https://www.alta.kommune.no/plan-og-regulering.5822190-366621.html.

National infrastructure data are from Norwegian Mapping Authority https://www.kartverket.no/en with common map data base (FKB) available at www.geonorge.no with data for a wide range of elements such as buildings, roads, harbors and other infrastructure, industrial sites, mining, quarrying, sport-grounds, playgrounds and parks, and the National Land Resource Map (AR5), i.e., a land cover map, https://www.nibio.no/en/subjects/soil/national-land-resource-map.

Hydro power maps are found from https://nedlasting.nve.no/gis/ where all relevant mapping data can be selected – including current, projected and planned. Buildings are found from the cadaster, https://www.kartverket.no/en/property/eiendomsgrenser/matrikkelen-norgeseiendomsregister Roads data are found from National road data bank (NVDB) https://www.vegdata.no, and data on hydropower dams and installations, high voltage power lines, and wind power are from NVE, the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate.

Data for reindeer herding land, and in particular delineation of calving land and migration routes are retrieved from the Norwegian Agricultural Agency, with publicly available and updated data via www.geonorge.no.

For the climate change scenario, an average temperature increase of +7 °C was assumed to illustrate the expected significant impact of climate change in the long run. Benestad (2016) refers to the intermediate IPCC scenario for Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs): “Projected temperatures exhibited strongest increase over northern Fennoscandia and the high Arctic, exceeding 7 °C by 2099 for a typical ‘warm winter’ under the RCP4.5 scenario.” We requested advice from Benestad at the outset of this work, and we used the + 7 °C assumption to illustrate the high impact, although this is expected to occur after the projected developments. The adaptive capacity towards climate change impacts will be reduced due to loss of land.

Biodiversity data for Finnmark have been assessed with the national land use/land resource map from Statistics Norway, improved by local data. Information on land use in reindeer herding areas was provided by Sámi reindeer owners. In our discussion of the results during a workshop with Sámi reindeer herders in Kautokeino we achieved additional information from them which later was included in the model. The information was provided informally. The researchers have established cooperation with the reindeer owners in the Nomadic Herders project.

9.3.2 Land Use Impacts

The land use /land cover maps of Finnmark (Fig. 9.2) were based on national maps. For the impact analyses, the original land use classes of GLOBIO3 have been aggregated into land use types with a similar use intensity, for which the impact of land use on MSA is known in GLOBIO3. For Finnmark a raster map resolution of 100*100 m was selected. As land use intensity determines the MSA value of each land use class, (Alkemade et al., 2009), it was essential to use additional information from local experts to get a suitable assessment of the intactness or naturalness of the land cover classes.

Fig. 9.2

Land use/land cover map of Finnmark, 2011

In order to test the quality of local assessments, compared with assessment at national level, an assessment of impacts on biodiversity for all of Norway was first carried out. This gave the opportunity to discuss, with specialists from Norwegian environmental research institutes, the impacts of different types of land use on the intactness of biodiversity. The MSA land use values for each land use type, based on similarity with the GLOBIO3 land use types, were modified to reflect conditions in Finnmark, after discussions with the experts about the relative land use intensity and intactness of local ecosystems. This provided qualitative information to slightly increase or decrease the MSA value of the closest standard assumptions of MSA value for each land use class (van Rooij et al., 2017; van Rooij, 2017).

In order to test the quality of local assessments, compared with assessment at national level, an assessment of impacts on biodiversity for all of Norway was first carried out.

It is common in biodiversity modelling to use a combined land use and land cover map. For modelling, land use is important as the biodiversity loss is related to human impact, but since there is mostly only limited information available on land use, some classes contain info on land cover only. Since the map in Fig. 9.2 also contains land use classes (intensive agriculture, urban and pastures), it is a combined land use/land cover map.

9.3.3 Infrastructure impacts

While land use affects the entire land cover, the impact caused by infrastructure is limited to a certain distance from the infrastructure elements. The impact of infrastructure on biodiversity in GLOBIO3 is calculated based on cause-effect relations, where linear elements of infrastructure, such as major roads, power lines, and railways, are assumed to have an impact that reaches up to 5 km (Alkemade et al., 2009). The highest impact is measured close to the lines and it decreases to zero at 5 km distance. Small roads and winter roads are not included in the calculation as the traffic on these generally unpaved roads is much less. The impact distance for power lines and pipelines is set to 1 km (Vistnes & Nellemann, 2001). The impact distance from urban, industrial, mining, and agricultural areas is defined as 10 km, adapted from Alkemade et al. (2009).

For recreational cabins there are no separate cause-effect relations in GLOBIO3, and as these houses are not habited all year through it is assumed that their impact will be less than for permanently inhabited buildings. For the analysis of Finnmark, the impact of recreational cabins is considered to be equal to the impact from roads, but with a smaller impact distance of 1 km, adapted from the study by Lie et al. (2006). To avoid double counting of other pressures (e.g., land use), the impact of infrastructure is only calculated for natural and semi-natural areas. We refer to semi natural in case the MSA values of those areas are 0.7 or higher. A complete natural class would have an MSA value of 1. In urban and agricultural areas the impact of land use already includes the presence of roads and other existing pressures. Figure 9.3 shows an overview of existing infrastructure and the corresponding MSA map for impact of infrastructure in Finnmark in 2011.

Fig. 9.3

(a) Infrastructure in map of Finnmark, 2011. (b) Infrastructure and impact on MSA in map of Finnmark, 2011

In future research, more studies are needed on the cumulative impacts of the different types of infrastructure, with roads, power lines, wind power and possibly projected development of railway, and the extent of use.

9.3.4 Fragmentation Impacts

Fragmentation impact is calculated based on maps with remaining intact areas of non-dissected contiguous nature areas. These contiguous nature areas are derived from the land use and infrastructure maps. The impact of fragmentation in GLOBIO3 is expressed as minimum requirements for intact (semi-) natural areas to sustain viable species populations, based on cause-effect relations between intact area size and biodiversity. The larger an intact area is, the lower is the fragmentation impact. We apply the assumption of Alkemade et al. (2009) that intact areas of more than 10,000 km² are considered to have no fragmentation impact. To avoid the error of expressing a fragmentation impact of small islands as a result of their natural small size, islands with area less than 100 km² are excluded from the fragmentation impact calculations. Additional cause-effect relations are needed for small islands.

Urban and agricultural land separate natural ecosystems from each other. Major roads, railways and channels that run through a natural area also divide the area into separate parts. Other linear elements of infrastructure such as minor roads, tracks and ski trails are not included in the fragmentation calculations as their impact on fragmentation is expected to be small. Likewise, the impact of electricity lines is not included in the fragmentation calculation, as human presence and physical disturbance along these lines is low and a limited number of species will actually be prevented from crossing the electricity line path. Studies show that reindeer avoid grazing near the electricity lines (Vistnes & Nellemann, 2001), but this effect is already covered by the infrastructure impact calculations, in which the impact of electricity lines are included.

9.3.5 Climate Change Impacts

In GLOBIO3, the assessment of climate change impact is based on a combination of an integrated environmental model (IMAGE) and climate envelope models. The climate envelope (niche) of a species is defined as a relationship between the species’ occurrence and bioclimate variables (temperature and precipitation) (Arets et al., 2014; Alkemade et al., 2011). The share of remaining species within a climate envelope is used as an indicator for climate change impacts on biodiversity. Both plants and vertebrate species of Arctic ecosystems show a strong decline in the share of remaining species, relative to the intact situation, with increasing temperature.

Cause-effect relations between temperature change and biodiversity loss in terms of MSA have been developed for a number of biomes (Alkemade et al., 2009). Tundra and birch forest are the predominant biomes in Finnmark. For Finnmark a differentiation can be made between the biomes ‘Kola Peninsula Tundra’ and ‘Scandinavian Montane Birch forest and grasslands’. The climate change impact is rather limited for the study area, as the current temperature increase is still relatively small, but expected to increase considerably in the future. While it can be expected an increase in species number (and MSA) as the average temperature increases meaning the climate is viable for a larger number of animals and plants, the characteristic Arctic biodiversity is threatened with warming climate and disappearance of ecological niches for Arctic species (Arctic Biodiversity Assessment, 2013).

9.3.6 Total Impact

The total impact on MSA, as shown in Fig. 9.1, is disaggregated per pressure type and per municipality in Fig. 9.4. The remaining biodiversity can be expressed as a total MSA value. Figure 9.4 shows that after land use, infrastructure development and land fragmentation have the strongest impact on biodiversity.

Fig. 9.4

Share of remaining biodiversity and biodiversity loss per pressure type and per municipality for Finnmark, 2011

Figure 9.4 shows the total remaining biodiversity (MSA) and the share of biodiversity loss per pressure type for Finnmark in 2011. According to this analysis the remaining biodiversity in Finnmark in 2011 was 54% of the intact situation. The largest biodiversity loss is caused by land use (23%), followed by fragmentation (12%), infrastructural developments (8%), and climate change (3%). Although the impact of infrastructure might seem relatively small for the entire Finnmark, the local impact can be very high.

9.3.7 Projected Future Biodiversity Trends in Core Reindeer Areas in Finnmark

In order to explore projected impacts on future biodiversity in Finnmark, a scenario of future developments was constructed as explained. In this scenario it is assumed that all planned developments, where information could be gathered, will be realized by 2030. The projections are strongly dependent on national and regional projections of economic and political drivers for development and assessments of what type of developments are most likely.

Figure 9.5 shows MSA in 2011 (as in Fig. 9.1) and projected future MSA total maps for Finnmark, based on land use/land cover data from 2011 and projected scenarios for 2030 for land use change, infrastructure, fragmentation and climate change. The overall loss of biodiversity from 2011 to the future scenario for Finnmark amounts to about 10%, from 0.54 to 0.43. Climate change is by far the largest contributor to the additional loss, but locally large losses occur as a result of infrastructural, urban and mining development.

Fig. 9.5

MSA in 2011 (a) versus projected MSA in 2030 (b) for Finnmark, with overall reduction from 0.54 to 0.43

9.4 Implications for Reindeer Herding

Indigenous communities worldwide are faced with pressures that affect their traditional use of land and way of living. Reindeer herding in the circumpolar Arctic depends on the availability of large areas of suitable grazing land, and reindeer herds use migration routes to move from one seasonal pasture area to the other. Socio-economic developments, such as urban development, exploration of new mines and building of new infrastructure are causing loss of pastureland, forced changes of reindeer migration routes, and biodiversity loss. Although the GLOBIO3 model is not designed to analyze impacts on a single endemic species such as reindeer, the impacts of infrastructure development and climate change on biodiversity will also affect reindeer husbandry. Loss of biodiversity of grazing areas imply changes of its vegetation, and the warming climate and regrowth of birch forest will have negative impact on reindeer herding.

Infrastructure development near or in the important areas of calving grounds and migration routes will severely disturb the reindeer. In other words, loss of biodiversity is an indication of various threats that negatively affect reindeer husbandry.

Calving land is defined the part of the seasonal spring pasture where most of the female reindeer stay during the time of calving. The most valuable calving land is a gently rolling tundra without steep riverbanks. The migration routes follow the ancient migration routes of the wild reindeer, from time immemorial, and infrastructure development can seriously impair the ability of reindeer to use the seasonal pastures located at large distances from each other.

Figure 9.6 shows the total impact on MSA for 2011 and projected for 2030 biodiversity in Finnmark within calving grounds and migration routes. The average MSA value of calving grounds in 2011 is 0.5 with a standard deviation of 0.18. In other words, 50% of the original biodiversity on the calving grounds is already lost. The average MSA of the calving grounds is expected to be reduced with another 10% to 0.4 (standard deviation 0.15) according to the future scenario. The biodiversity loss within the migration routes is somewhat less severe, but still significant with an average MSA of 0.57 (standard deviation 0.15) in 2011 and 0.46 (standard deviation 0.13) according to the future scenario. As these numbers are average biodiversity loss, much higher losses may occur locally. Almost complete losses of biodiversity occur at locations where the original land cover has been removed to make place for urban and infrastructural developments. When a new road crosses a migration route it will create a barrier for the animals, especially when the road is accompanied with guard rails or fences.

Fig. 9.6

MSA total for calving grounds and migration routes in Finnmark for 2011 (a) and projected future scenario (b)

Figure 9.7 shows a detail of the projected future total MSA map for three reindeer herding districts in Finnmark: Fálá, Fiettar and Gearretnjárga.

Fig. 9.7

MSA total for Fálá, Fiettar and Gearretnjárga reindeer herding districts in Finnmark for the projected future scenario. Hatched areas are calving grounds. Non-hatched colored areas are reindeer migration routes. Red lines show frequently used reindeer migration routes

Figure 9.7 demonstrates the future challenges that these reindeer herding districts are likely to face should development proceed as projected up to 2030. Lands designated as calving grounds would be strongly impacted.

Figure 9.8 shows the change in biodiversity (MSA) between 2011 and the projected scenario for 2030 for the calving grounds and migration routes, for three reindeer herding districts in Finnmark: Fálá, Fiettar and Gearretnjárga, in case planned projects will be realized. The beige-colored areas show an additional biodiversity loss after 2011 between 0% and 10%. These areas are situated within the impact zones of adjacent urban and infrastructural developments. Among the projected developments are the building of new buildings and industrial complexes, mines and construction of planned roads. Since the data were compiled, the wind power concession area, marked by 1 in Fig. 9.8, has been rejected as result of protests, and the project developer withdraw its plans. Reindeer owners had suggested another location for the site to a less conflicting area, but that seemed to be economically less attractive.

Fig. 9.8

MSA difference between 2011 and projected scenario for 2030 within calving grounds and migration routes, in Fálá, Fiettar and Gearretnjárga reindeer herding districts in Finnmark. Climate change impact is excluded. 1: previously planned wind power development, 2: planned airstrip and buildings, 3: planned industrial area, 4: planned housing, 5: mining concession area, 6: biodiversity loss area due to nearby infrastructural developments

9.5 Using the GLOBIO3 Model as a Decision Support Tool

In this project, as well as the Nomadic Herders and related projects, there has established partnerships with Sámi reindeer herders in Finnmark who have been closely involved in the work. The ethical issues of research cooperation with Indigenous Peoples are addressed through the partnership and involvement of the reindeer owners in the research, and their ownership of the traditional knowledge related to use of the reindeer pastures.

The MSA maps for the three reindeer herding districts, Fálá, Fiettar and Gearretnjárga, shown in Figs. 9.7 and 9.8, and other GLOBIO3 output maps, were discussed with reindeer owners from these reindeer herding districts during participatory mapping workshops in Kaitu, Finland, and Skáidi, Finnmark, in 2016. The workshop format consisted of presenting GLOBIO3 maps and discussing the results.

The reindeer owners observed the biodiversity impact in their areas and discussed the pressures behind the impacts and the possible consequences. Serious threats to reindeer herding land can directly be located on the maps by the reindeer owners. As the projected developments are mapped as part of the biodiversity modelling, the maps can be used to facilitate discussions between planners and reindeer owners in consultations and stakeholder workshops.

GLOBIO3 calculations expand the knowledge obtained by mapping the new infrastructure or land use change proposed by the planners relative to the migration routes and calving grounds. The advantage of using GLOBIO3 in this case is to make a comprehensive assessment to see land use chance in connection with climate change. A key point made in previous research with reindeer owners (Tyler et al., 2007) is that the capacity to adapt to climate change requires availability of land that is impaired by the projected infrastructure developments.

The purpose of the dialogue was to test the quality and relevance of the model results in view of the traditional knowledge of the reindeer owners and discuss the potential use of the GLOBIO3 model as decision support tool in land use planning. This process may facilitate discussions about alternatives and may help to reduce conflicts between planners and reindeer herding. It was emphasized by the reindeer herders in the dialogue that the maps are potentially useful tools if they are supplemented with interpretations based on traditional knowledge and success of the dialogues depends on a full engagement and consultation with rights holders and use of their traditional knowledge in discussions about possible consequences.

As expressed in the workshop, reindeer owners were concerned about the projected biodiversity loss and deterioration of seasonal reindeer pastures and the consequences of such developments in their districts for reindeer herding in the future. According to the reindeer owners, low biodiversity along migration routes does not need to be a limitation for migration, as the reindeer sometimes also use roads and railway tracks to move. The threats behind the biodiversity loss cause the largest problems. Fences obstruct passages, cars and trains cause a serious threat to the animals and collisions occur frequently. Herds stay away from wind power turbines, and the animals avoid proximity with people. Expansion of urban and industrial areas, and recreational cabin areas, cause an increase of human disturbances in or near the calving grounds and migration routes. In case disturbances are present on or near calving grounds, the female reindeer try to avoid these.

The increased biodiversity loss is expected to go along with a loss of calving grounds and grazing areas and reduced accessibility of seasonal reindeer migration routes. Therefore, it will be of large importance to discuss consequences of the projected developments well in advance with policy makers and the reindeer herding community. This could be realized in consultations and by participatory scenario planning as part of a wider impact assessment process. During this process reindeer herding will be able to provide planners with traditional knowledge that will increase the understanding of the implications of cumulative impacts. The traditional knowledge of reindeer herding is crucial for sustainable use of grazing land under cumulative impacts, as the capacity to adapt to climate change impacts depends on the availability of a diversity of pastures (Tyler et al., 2007).

An important lesson gained from this dialogue is that biodiversity loss, illustrated in red color on the maps, must be interpreted with caution. While red color on the maps is clearly a warning that planned developments may be detrimental to biodiversity in these grazing areas, it does not mean that the highly impacted areas should be considered as completely lost to reindeer herding, and thus be opened to further development, as they are still important for seasonal reindeer migration and grazing at certain times of the year. There is a risk that people might incorrectly assume red zone areas should be open to development because they perceive them to be of no use to reindeer. This is not an issue of scale, but of the need for continuity in the landscape of reindeer herding, to ensure the passage between the seasonal pastures.

These findings inform guidance for interpreting the maps. The maps are not a good indication of how the reindeer move in the disturbed areas, but rather they are an indication of growing pressure that has detrimental impacts to reindeer. The model can be used to help shift the discussion to reindeer husbandry as both a traditional livelihood and a viable economic sector with potential for growth, and how the reindeer owners’ traditional knowledge may enhance the economy of reindeer herding (Reinert, 2006).

One of the workshop participants made a point of asking whether a future in reindeer husbandry could be guaranteed. Another participant asked why the question of how these developments would limit the ability of reindeer owners to sustain their economy was left unasked and, even more pertinently, why the potential for growth in reindeer husbandry was not discussed, neither by the authorities nor by the reindeer husbandry sector itself. Yet another participant raised the issue of calling for more self-governance for reindeer husbandry to increase the protection of remaining areas of reindeer herding land without physical impacts.

Flaws in planning process were brought into the discussion, pointing to the need for improved participation and consultation. A reindeer owner from Fálá reindeer herding district, with summer pastures near Hammerfest, who participated in the GLOBIO3 workshop pointed out what he saw as fundamental flaws in the planning processes: that reindeer owners are included too late, after the area planning has taken place. This is also pointed out in research on impacts of mining in other regions (Herrmann et al., 2014), The area planning (områderegulering) sets out broad land use plans for large-scale areas of land and does not require an impact assessment. Input from reindeer owners is only sought at the next stage of zoning plan (reguleringsplan), when decisions are taken at a local scale. By that stage, however, people are already envisioning the land in a different way, and their “mental landscapes” – the perception of what is possible – have already shifted. Extending the decision support for consultations, by modelling results and maps, as suggested here by use of the GLOBIO3 model, is a comprehensive approach to model impacts of land use change and climate change on biodiversity, together with use of traditional knowledge to give a broader picture of the need to maintain the adaptive capacity of reindeer herders under these changes.

9.6 Land Use Planning and Traditional Knowledge

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), article 8 (j), calls for application of traditional knowledge of Indigenous Peoples to achieve sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity (CBD, 1993). The Norwegian Nature Diversity Act §8 calls for application of experience-based knowledge on use of nature, throughout the generations, including Sámi use of nature, that can contribute to sustainable use and protection of biodiversity. While Sámi reindeer herding in Norway is framed as the economic basis for carrying Sámi culture, articulation of Indigenous rights at national and local levels is fragmented, and a challenge remains to integrate Sámi traditional knowledge into governance of reindeer husbandry and land-use planning (Turi, 2016).

Traditional knowledge expresses the interrelated issues of managing grazing land and managing the herd. The traditional organization in reindeer herding reflects a knowledge-based adaptation to use of seasonal pastures to build resilience (Sara, 2015). Strategies include flexible use of seasonal pastures and diversity in herd structure, in contrast to current governance of reindeer herding, with focus on number of reindeer as parameter for monitoring pasture pressure. The issues of knowledge and power in governance of reindeer herding are discussed by Benjaminsen et al. (2015). Traditionally, it was the overall condition of the herd that mattered, assessed by whether the herd had good appearance (čáppa eallu) (Haldorsen, 2020). Acknowledging traditional knowledge in governance requires an understanding of the landscape, beyond perspectives of agriculture and nature conservation, to reflect relations between nature and people (Joks et al., 2020). There is need to develop institutional approaches to support self-governance and cooperation (Norwegian Agriculture Agency, 2016). Formal recognition by authorities of informal institutions is key for local communities to organize sustainable resource management (Ostrom, 1990).

In Sweden, RenGIS, has been developed as a GIS tool to support dialogue and mitigate conflicts between reindeer herding and other land use and agencies (Sandström, 2015; Sandström et al., 2012). RenGIS³ is a tool for compiling traditional knowledge of reindeer herding and field measurements of seasonal grazing lands, combined with data on other land use. The RenGIS process combines Indigenous and scientific knowledge in the planning processes, and the experience highlights the importance of working closely together for co-producing knowledge. The use of participatory mapping empowers reindeer herding communities by improving their knowledge base and their dialogue with other land users, seen as a step towards strengthening their capacity to adapt to climate change (Sandström, 2015). New data sets, as those produced by GLOBIO3, can easily be incorporated into RenGIS.

A key feature of the spatial GLOBIO3 model is that its main output is presented in maps, hence allowing to present the complexity of the model structure directly in a visual way. This relates to the idea of participatory mapping, where traditional Indigenous knowledge on use of biodiversity and the landscape can be expressed in participatory mapping to give a deeper understanding of the Indigenous landscape (Bélisle et al., 2021). Traditional knowledge on use of nature can give richer interpretations of model results, with integration of Indigenous and scientific knowledge (Reid et al., 2009). GLOBIO3 results combined with participatory mapping have the potential to become powerful and collaborative tools to assist both rights holders and local and regional decision-makers. These tools improve the understanding of complex spatial issues and may facilitate development of strategies for adaptation and maintaining resilience. Combining spatial mapping with traditional knowledge is a representation of nature as expressed in the boundary object literature (Clark et al., 2016; Leigh Star & Griesemer, 1989; McGreavy et al., 2013).

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has suggested several approaches to develop indicators of collective action of Indigenous Peoples in land management, including geospatial modeling, to support conservation and use of natural resources under development pressures, institutional analysis, with active involvement of local resource users to develop, monitor and enforce rules for natural resource use, and ecological assessment, documenting how local conservation efforts can improve the condition of the natural resource base (CBD, 2014). A spatial approach to assessment of ecosystem services, in the United Nations System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA), is recently adopted as statistical standard by the United Nations (2021).

The special rapporteur to the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues proposed that there is a need to increase reindeer herders’ capacity in negotiating with developers competing for the grazing land. Reindeer herders should have the right themselves to determine their own future, based on their own philosophy of life and understanding of the world, and should be consulted, included and accepted as partners when development, research and monitoring takes place on their territories (United Nations, 2012). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently concluded that protecting reindeer grazing lands would be the most important adaptation measure for reindeer herders under climate change (Nymand Larsen et al., 2014). It is in the application of the international proposals to national and regional governance that we suggest that GLOBIO3 may provide a mechanism for decision support in the dialogues.

9.7 Projected Impacts of the Nussir Mining Project

This section presents a case study of the proposal for developing the Nussir copper mine in Kvalsund, a previous municipality, now part of Hammerfest, with impacts for the reindeer herding districts Fiettar and Fálá, with location shown in Figs. 9.7 and 9.8. The study is elaborated by the Foundation Protect Sápmi⁴, a foundation whose purpose is to maintain and develop the Sami cultural community. The Nussir proposal was approved in 2014 by the Ministry of Local Government and Modernization. It was acknowledged that reindeer husbandry is a livelihood protected by international rights implemented in national law, and that a substantial loss of the material basis of Sámi culture could not be allowed. However, the approval did not address what that might mean in practice and did not consider cumulative effects of mining combined with other encroachments on the pastures and did not consider the question of a ‘tipping point’ beyond which it would no longer be possible to practice reindeer husbandry, a crucial question put forward by the reindeer herding communities.

The study by Foundation Protect Sápmi applied a model for assessing cumulative impacts, through calculation of impact zones, combined with traditional knowledge of reindeer owners, to assess consequences of the planned mining at Nussir and the adjacent area Gumpenjunni for the reindeer herding districts Fiettar and Fálá (Eira et al., 2020). The model of cumulative impacts has been developed in cooperation between mining industry and reindeer herding in Sweden, building on models from Sweden, Canada and USA (Folkesson, 2010; Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 2009; National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, 2012). The model has been applied in Sámi reindeer herding in Sweden with results that both developers and reindeer owners perceive as realistic and relevant (Leveäniemi, 2014).

The analysis by Foundation Protect Sápmi of already existing land use changes shows that 54% of the area of Fiettar reindeer herding district is impacted, within an impact zone of 10 km assumed for mining. A compilation of research results suggested an impact zone of 14 km for mining (Skarin & Åhman, 2014). The analysis shows that the projected future impacted area will increase to 63% of the Fiettar reindeer herding district, impacted by construction of a new high voltage power line, and with the planned mining activities, the impacted area will increase to 70%. Both 63% and 70% impacted land are far above the threshold for reindeer herding, assessed as 65% remaining natural land as limit for when the reindeer population has sufficiently high probability to be sustainable (Eira et al., 2020). In comparison, a study assessed that of all Sámi reindeer herding land in Norway, an average of 89% is impacted within an impact zone of 5 km, however, with geographical variations, and a larger share of impacted land is found south of Finnmark (Engelien & Aslaksen, 2019). These models of impact zones calculation represent the infrastructure module of GLOBIO3, while they do not include the climate change impacts and the impacts on biodiversity that give a broader picture.

Climate change with increased temperature variability around zero degrees will increase challenges for reindeer herding, and more flexibility of land use is needed. Projected impacts of the Nussir mining project will reduce the flexibility and increase the risk for reindeer herding, especially for access to intact spring pastures and calving grounds, which is more critical as the frequency of unpredictable snow and temperature conditions is expected to increase. If the spring pastures are impacted, calves cannot make efficient use of summer pastures and are thus at risk of not surviving the winter if grazing conditions are bad.

The study by Foundation Protect Sápmi points out that with use of explosives in Nussir, it is probable that reindeer may sense tremor and instinctively flee with a larger avoidance zone than 10 km. Avoidance effects will be especially high for female reindeer with young calves, leading them to the high mountain areas, with higher death risk for calves. The herd must be forced back to areas they have fled. Calves that survive avoidance must be used for herd renewal and profitability will decrease. For Fálá reindeer herding district, the autumn migration route will in practice be closed, and they need to consider alternative migration routes possible, in cooperation with neighboring reindeer herding district Fiettar. However, in the 1970s, when previous mining took place, Fiettar reindeer herding district had to change calving land to their spring and autumn pasture, and further adaptation to infrastructure development is not possible without ruining the spring and autumn pastures, i.e., the scope for adaptation is used up (Eira et al., 2020).

A study of the impact assessment process of Nussir mining project noted that impact assessments focused mainly on the number of ‘square meters on the ground’ that would be affected by physical development, while as pointed out by a reindeer owner interviewed, disturbance from mining is far more extensive than the actual area of mineral extraction (Johnsen, 2016). Exploring the question of co-existence between reindeer herding and mineral exploration, Uhre (2020) concluded that co-existence does not seem possible in the Nussir area. In general, it should be emphasized that the consideration for co-existence in certain appropriate circumstances will depend on scale and the presence of cumulative effects.

The report by Foundation Protect Sápmi on the Nussir project concluded that disturbances and physical barriers will fragment the landscape and lead to cumulative intermediate effects in Fiettar reindeer herding district and furthermore in the eastern reindeer migration route (Nuortajohtolat). This may cause pressure (doldi) on pastures to be used later in the seasons, a pressure occurring if different herds reach the migration corridor earlier in the autumn season and may cause a longer and more intense pressure on the pastures during the spring season. The pressure on the spring pastures occurs if mining development takes place in the calving grounds, and calving must take place in inland areas. Altogether, increased pressure on pastures occurs as a result of pastures having to be over-utilized at the wrong time of the season, due to the barriers created by mining development. Pressures also disturb the well-established system of sequential moving along the migration route. Thus, during autumn migration, coastal grassland pastures will be under-utilized, while inland lichen pastures will be over-utilized. The cumulative long-term effect can be disastrous, especially if expected warming climate lead to warmer autumns when dry lichen pastures may be harmed by trampling (duolmmastuvvon). The negative consequences include cascading impacts on winter pastures, weight loss for reindeer, and reduced chance of survival through the winter. All together this means weaker economy and higher operational risk in reindeer herding. The report by Foundation Protect Sápmi concluded that there is great concern among reindeer owners that regional and intermediate cumulative impacts on vulnerable lichen pastures in the Fiettar reindeer herding district may also cause collapse of reindeer herding in the form that it is known today in the Fálá district (Eira et al., 2020).

9.8 Discussion and Conclusions

As explored in Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic for the Barents region, processes for impact assessments are found to have flaws, particularly for reindeer herding land, as they do not consider cumulative effects, do not include traditional knowledge in reindeer herding, do not sufficiently take into account societal issues, and assume that what can be counted and measured is more important than what cannot (Degteva et al., 2017). As a result, the role of Indigenous Peoples in impact assessment processes, their knowledge, stewardship of nature, and value perspectives, and the question of land rights are under-communicated. However, more attention has recently been given to how new approaches in impact assessment could assist Indigenous communities to engage in these processes in a meaningful way, in participatory scenario planning that provide multiple perspectives on social-ecological challenges (Degteva et al., 2017). GLOBIO3 scenarios as explored here, combined with traditional knowledge, may be part of this extended approach.

Results of the GLOBIO3 study for Finnmark can contribute to develop the GLOBIO3 model for Arctic conditions, as a tool for assessing cumulative impact of drivers of biodiversity loss. The results reported here show the need for further improvements of the model, to include characteristic elements of Arctic biodiversity and important Arctic socio-ecological systems, such as reindeer herding. GLOBIO3 can be used to quantify and visualize actual and projected future impacts on biodiversity in Arctic regions and is potentially useful for reindeer owners in consultations and to support policy makers in land use planning. The model provides support for enhanced dialogue between reindeer herders and planners on development projects affecting Indigenous Peoples’ communities and reindeer pasture. For decisions at local level more detailed data are needed, and the quality of results depends on availability of traditional knowledge and local expertise, for adjustment of land use impacts for local conditions.

There is a limit to the level of detail for which the GLOBIO3 model can be used. The issue of ground-truthing is important to ensure the global model, representing broad trends, is aligned with specific spatial predictions that are meaningful to reindeer owners. The interaction between land use changes, climate change impacts, and biodiversity loss constitutes the broad picture for the resilience of reindeer herding and the adaptive capacity of the reindeer herders.

Detailed land use and infrastructure maps were available for Finnmark. The relations in GLOBIO3 are based on global data with limited information on Arctic species. Future research should include a review of results in available literature to develop GLOBIO3 relations to Arctic environmental conditions. Characteristic elements of Arctic environmental conditions not yet included in GLOBIO3 are impacts of permafrost thawing and the increased occurrence of ice on snow. The latter has a major impact on reindeer pastures. Melting of the permafrost in tundra areas will have huge implications for climate change (increase of emissions) and land use (change of soil and vegetation). Additional research is needed to develop cause-effect relations between characteristic Arctic environmental conditions and biodiversity in GLOBIO3. In the pilot study reported here, some of the parameters in GLOBIO3 were adjusted through advice from ecological researchers, and in follow-up research, elements of traditional knowledge may be integrated in the model if MSA values is adjusted for specific locations.

Future work might illuminate potential connections and specific mechanisms between biodiversity and herding both in terms of ecological systems and in terms of potential policy related solutions to the key issues raised. In existing policies for new developments, a connection could be made to use reindeer herders’ traditional knowledge, which would include herders earlier as a part of the development planning process.

GLOBIO3 results for Finnmark were presented to Sámi reindeer owners who recognized the implications of actual and projected future impact of pressures on reindeer husbandry. According to the reindeer owners, maps from the model are expected to support dialogue between the reindeer herding community and policy makers, but they emphasized that the maps should be used during consultations in the area planning process before decisions are made. Reindeer owners in Finnmark told that they expect that biodiversity loss will have implications for the quality and extent of suitable grazing areas. Especially the quality of the calving grounds is essential for reindeer herding. A reduction of biodiversity in the migration routes does not directly impair seasonal reindeer migration, but as biodiversity reduction in GLOBIO3 is partly caused by new developments such as infrastructure, impediments for migration are expected. The study by Foundation Protect Sápmi reported great concern among reindeer owners that regional and intermediate cumulative impacts on lichen pastures may cause collapse of reindeer herding in their district (Eira et al., 2020).

A potential improvement of decision support is to develop a specific reindeer model in GLOBIO3, in collaboration with reindeer owners, with focus on calving grounds and migration route impediments, drawing on the experiences from RenGIS developed in Sweden, to localize and describe bottlenecks of planned developments and consequences for reindeer husbandry. This may provide a reindeer pasture land monitoring system as proposed by the special rapporteur to the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (United Nations, 2012). To test the models as decision support tools they should be implemented in policy cases at municipal or county level. Knowledge of cumulative impacts and potential future consequences of climate and socio-economic drivers achieved through modeling, in consultation with and including the traditional knowledge of reindeer owners, may provide a tool to assist in planning future developments and advancing strategies for adaptation and resilience. Experiences from this pilot study from Finnmark may be useful in further research on land use change and impacts on biodiversity in other parts of the Arctic, in research partnerships involving reindeer owners, and other Indigenous communities, with their traditional knowledge, in order to enhance decision support for consultations.

Supplementary Material

The uploaded report, Technical report biodiversity assessments of pilot areas in the Barents region with GLOBIO3, describes in more detail model equations and base layers, in the form of data and maps, including maps from Statistics Norway, that have been used for each GLOBIO3 map layer. There may be differences between maps in this report and in the chapter, due to differences in selected scenarios.

Fig. 9.9

Snow covering the winter pastures in Vuorašvarri, Finnmark, Norway reflects the sunshine and heat. Albedo or reflectivity measures how reflective the surface is: the diffuse reflection of solar radiation out of the total solar radiation. (Photo: I.M.G. Eira)