Indigenous Ecological Reconstruction After Industrial Ruin in Two Iconic Sámi Catchments: Ethics of Comanagement?

Abstract

The applicability of Indigenous ethics to the evaluation of ecological restoration is explored through two case examples involving the Indigenous Sámi rivers of Näätämö and Ponoi in the European North. Six key restoration approaches are described that would have been overlooked had it not been for the use of Indigenous ethics from the start of the work. The detection of rapidly proceeding climate change impacts and species range shifts, algae blooms, documentation of gendered coastal lifestyles, and ultimately the ecological restoration of salmonid habitats were recognized as critical markers of success when these approaches were practiced, lived and cherished by all members of the cogovernance community. This article asks critical questions about the role of Indigenous knowledge and rights within comanagement and environmental evaluations and makes the case for land-based lifestyles as vehicles for maintaining distinct, culturally relevant ethics processes.

Keywords

Indigenous evaluation Sámi Finland Russia Arctic

Introduction

Indigenous ethics, and work that respects and is guided by Indigenous ethics, often takes the view that humans are just one of many societies and beings cohabiting ecosystems, places, and communities (see, e.g., Berkes et al., 1993, 1999, 2012; Cram et al., 2018; Helander, 1999; LaFrance et al., 2012; Smit, 2001). In most cases, this understanding is founded upon the distinct Indigenous knowledge, governance, and customary systems of a specific place and home area of an Indigenous nation that has developed over hundreds of years to form profound relationships with the surrounding nature and elements. Smith (2001), LaFrance et al. (2012), and Cram et al. (2018) point to the context of Indigenous peoples in evaluation. They stress their special and specific worldviews, ethics, and approaches, or as Lafrance et al. (2012) defines—the Indigenous evaluation framework (IEF). IEF often places setting and community context ahead of methods (whereas methods are central to Western science).

Map 1.

Snowchange work locations referred to in this article. Note. Operational areas mentioned in the European North.

In this reflective article, I examine the implications of these relationships for the evaluation of environmental restoration projects where collaborations between Indigenous peoples and scientists affirm the rights and knowledge of Indigenous peoples and see them as central partners in any scientific process (through using the IEF). I explore the question of what constitutes ethically sound Indigenous research in the European North, home of the Indigenous Sámi people. My central aim is to highlight, by applying the work of LeFrance et al. (2012), a range of science and Indigenous knowledge results that would not have happened without the inclusion of an ethically sound (i.e. Indigenous-approved and -guided) work stream. I use two iconic Eastern Sámi catchment areas—Näätämö in the Finnish-Norwegian borderlands (home area of the Skolt Sámi) and Ponoi, a wilderness salmon river in Eastern Kola Peninsula,¹ original home of the Ter Sámi and other Sámi—as case examples to help answer the question of how Indigenous ethics have influenced environmental evaluations in the region. The content of this article rests upon a decade of work trying to implement collaborative management actions in the context of climate change affecting these two rivers.

The Study Area: Two Northern Rivers

In many ways, a study of Indigenous-relevant natural resources, such as salmon and salmonid habitats, is a case of a common resource pool, and ultimately, how to maintain the health of these common resource pools (see for context Ostrom, 1990). And as Blomquist (2020) and others points out, the demarcations of market/private management options enter into tensions and complex relations especially if seen from an Indigenous viewpoint (LaFrance et al., 2012). Ogar et al. (2020) point out that many of the common resource pools for humanity are in fact located on Indigenous homelands and continue to be the safe havens of biodiversity globally.

Following an initial United Nations University funding in 2011, both rivers and their catchment areas were chosen to be sites of an Eastern Sámi-led collaborative management² project to tackle the negative impacts of climate change, both for the Sámi and for the rivers themselves. For Ponoi, the socioecological context has allowed the first steps toward cogovernance.³ The comanagement and observations are led by the Sámi in Sevettijärvi, Lovozero, and in the Ponoi villages, in cooperation with the Snowchange Cooperative in Finland.

Comanagement or collaborative management (Berkes, 1999; Brattland & Mustonen, 2018; Nadasdy, 2003) shares the ways in which nature (and natural resources) are known about and in most cases includes a shared decision-making process for an area, resource, or theme that challenges the top-down models of the past (see Figure 1). Comanagement regimes emerged and proliferated from the 1980s onward in Canada (Berkes, 1999) as a response to and as a part of Indigenous land claims and equity issues. They are designed to improve the involvement of local and Indigenous peoples and to expand the overall knowledge base, in response to the way power operates in a given setting (Nadasdy, 2003). Nadasdy (2003) and Brattland and Mustonen (2018) have offered criticisms of formalizing comanagement too fast or without consultations with the affected peoples.

Figure 1.

A simplified view of differences between collaborative management and “classical” management options, summarized from Berkes (1999), Nadasdy (2003), Brattland and Mustonen (2018).

In this case, comanagement is examined in three country contexts—Finland, Norway, and Russia. Norway is excluded for the most part as only a small part of the Näätämö watershed is located there. In Finland, the Skolt Sámi have specific legislation (the Skolt Sámi Act) which enables their involvement with the state agencies on questions of fisheries, reindeer herding and hunting. While the Sámi have no land rights in Finland, the present review and examples from the Näätämö (and Ponoi) collaborative management projects (by Snowchange and the Sámi) provide a window into the first decade of actions that have implemented, at least in part, the two critical aims of shared governance: first, a change to the way in which certain issues are known about (the braiding of science and Indigenous knowledge) and, second, the way that decisions are made regarding natural resources and waters is shared.

Since their establishment in 2011, these comanagement actions for both of the rivers have grown to global scale and have been influencing Indigenous-led monitoring and ecological work on aquatic ecosystems as far away as the Indigenous Australian communities of Yarrabah, Tahltan Nation in British Columbia, Canada, and Attu and Aasiaat, Western Greenland (marked on the map). They have also been featured in National Geographic, Science, BBC, and many other forums (see Mustonen et al., 2018).

The Näätämö project rose into early prominence through its demonstration of early detection—when a change is detected by the Sámi and confirmed by natural sciences. In the case of the Näätämö project, this occurred with the detection of southern insect species (e.g., scarabaeid beetle, see more in Pecl et al. 2017) arriving into the basin. Sámi visual histories (which are communal actions that convey change through the use of photography and video recording) complemented the science surveys (Brattland & Mustonen, 2018; Mustonen, 2015; Mustonen & Feodoroff, 2020). Later, the first-ever Sámi-led ecological restoration of trout and grayling habitats on the subcatchment area of the Vainosjoki river influenced a breakthrough with the state, represented by the involvement of Metsähallitus (the Finnish forest administration authority), and permits being granted on some of the comanagement actions.

Work on the Ponoi catchment area has proceeded simultaneously for the whole decade (Feodoroff & Mustonen, 2013; Mustonen et al., 2018). Due to the multiethnic composition of the Ponoi catchment area communities, the work has focused on remote fly-in communities that have predominantly Komi, Sámi, and Pomor populations. Intermarriage has caused many people to have several streams of cultural heritage in the Ponoi area. The Sámi are recognized federally in Russia as Indigenous peoples. The Komi (and the Pomors) are seen as national minorities, and these ethnic definitions have implications for formal rights and possibilities to establish, for example, obschinas (small-scale tribal enterprises; Mustonen & Mustonen, 2011). While Ponoi is by far the most remote area in the European North it is influenced both by past Soviet land use issues (e.g., chemicals in the water, dumping of collective farm equipment and fuel sources), contemporary climate and tourism drivers, and a growing interest in mining.

I explore this meeting of ethics systems in cogovernance by interrogating these two case examples for six key processes (combined, not all available for Ponoy). These processes have emerged only recently and would have gone unnoticed and/or their significance overlooked by science. Instead, all of these specific drivers were detected and emphasized by the Skolt Sámi and other local teams. This was true across scales, including for overall drivers (climate change), as well as for novel events, such as algae blooms in remote parts of the watersheds of the river.

These six processes are amplified when they are positioned within an IEF and meaning. They are in short:

Impact of extreme climate events and ecological indicators

Indigenous weather change knowledge

Algae blooms as a result of climate change impacts

Species on the move: Pacific Salmon invasion in Atlantic waters

Gendered coasts: Female life histories in remote villages of the Russian north

River quality and changes in remote Russian communities

At the end of the article, I discuss how the range of manifestations of ethics influences rights, comanagement, and climate change experiences that emerge from the Näätämö and Ponoi work. By placing these rivers into an international frame (Nadasdy, 2003) on comanagement and reforms to land uses, new options for Sámi spaces emerge. These events take place in the context of rapidly proceeding climate change that has the potential to alter even the structures of the northern ecosystems and Sámi homelands.

Background on Ecological Comanagement

The overarching theoretical notion for this article rests on the capacity of the communities involved to practice what is known in the Arctic as traditional land uses (i.e., hunting, reindeer herding, fisheries, gathering economies, cultural relations; for this work, we mainly focus on fisheries and relations with aquatic ecosystems). Indigenous scholars, like Elina Helander-Renvall (1999, see also Ogar et al., 2020) for the Sámi, have warned that knowledge embedded in the culture and ways of life in the Arctic has not been equally respected as science. Māori scholar Linda Tuhiwai Smith (2001) goes further to say that research has been directly connected with the colonial process globally. Comanagement in the common law countries, as one part of a rights-solving and rights-defining process, has been installed to alleviate such equity issues. Collaborative management rose as a tool to jointly decide the uses of lands and natural resources as a part of the Canadian Final Agreements and other formal rights processes between the state and firstly the Inuvialuit peoples, originally in 1984. Earlier power sharing agreements existed (such as in James Bay, Quebec) but the longest running comanagement structure in the Arctic, a full ecosystem and oceans process, can be found from Inuvik. I have worked with the Inuvialuit since 2001 and observed the problems and successes of the model at close hand. In addition, Nadasdy (2003) reviewed at length the experiences of the Kluane First Nations in Yukon, Canada, and their “switch” from undefined Indigenous governance (Brattland & Mustonen, 2018) of their lands into a formalized comanagement process. According to him, the local hunting and fishing traditions suffered from the establishment of offices, state-led management plans, and the rush of funds into the local hunting economy. He has been very critical of the formalized comanagement regimes.

Around the Circumpolar North the questions of land rights and land tenure have advanced mostly in the Western Hemisphere (Nadasdy, 2003). In the Eurasian North, it is only Norway that has ratified the International Labor Organisation 169 and established joint governance of the Finnmark part of Sápmi—but even there the specific questions of land ownerships have stalled. In Jokkmokk, the Sweden area, the Lapponia World Heritage site has been developed under comanagement since 1996 with implementation beginning in 2011. However, in 2019, the parties, which consisted of municipalities, Sámi reindeer herding communities, and other local stakeholders as well as national bodies, have argued about the practice and chairmanship. Lapponia structure may be jeopardized by these actions in the future.

When members of the comanagement team that emerged, including scientists and Sámi, were contemplating with the Sámi organizations and leadership⁴ the idea of installing comanagement as a vehicle for advancing Sámi traditional land uses in Näätämö and in Ponoi, it took place in 2008–2009 in the context of a very rapidly proceeding climate change. Pecl et al. (2017) as well as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Arctic Council (2013, see also Serikova, 2019 and Ogar et al., 2020) have pointed to the fact that the north boreal and the Arctic are undergoing a system shift because of climate change impacts. The region is undergoing the largest species redistribution since the last glacial era (Pecl et al., 2017). Heat waves, drought, torrential extreme events, rain-on-snow, and changes to the cryosphere are the new normal today. The Ponoi and Näätämö comanagement structure emerged from the genuine local concerns that the Skolt Sámi and other Eastern Sámi communities had regarding the survival of Atlantic Salmon and other salmonid species under the changes already being observed. Salmon, trout, and Arctic char are all keystone species for the Sámi in a cultural sense and all vulnerable to the worsening water quality and climate change drivers. Salmonid fish generally have a high cultural and traditional value as important dietary sources, they have medicinal and spiritual values globally for Indigenous and local communities. In contrast, the salmonids have often been seen by mainstream societies in contemporary contexts solely for extractive and monetary values—positioning the Indigenous appreciation (ethic) of salmonids in a special context.

Map 2.

Näätämö river catchment area.

There was also an understanding that both for Finland and for the Russian Federation (Mustonen & Mustonen, 2016) any land rights process could take either a long time or never materialize. A formal land rights process and associated acts would also always be a political process between the parties rather than a true land use question. The Ponoi and Näätämö actions were therefore planned in the process of learning from Nadasdy (2003) and Inuvialuit, James Bay, Lapponia, and other experiences. We wanted to start implementing the comanagement actions without wall building and from the ground up; that is, through first relying on the practices, knowledges and observations of the Sámi and other people especially in Ponoi (Komi and so on) as valid streams of information alongside science. Therefore, our theoretical positioning, following Nadasdy’s (2003) concerns, focuses on the undefined, but absolutely existing, traditional land uses and the knowledge arising from that. This choice seems to have been successful on critical indicators (Brattland & Mustonen, 2018) as an Indigenous evaluation action (see Cram et al., 2018). Without directly challenging the states’ mandate, but by bringing practical reformative steps both in monitoring and ultimately (at least for Näätämö), on ecological restoration, the comanagement regime for Ponoi and Näätämö has demonstrated its success in validating the traditional land uses and ways of knowing attached to them in dialogue with science.

Method

At the outset, I wish to position myself in relationship to the topics discussed. I have been serving as the Finnish science lead and coordinator both for the Näätämö and Ponoi work since its inception.⁵ I am therefore deeply embedded in the processes at hand, but on the other hand as a non-Sámi, I have been able to bring reflections to the process from outside. All Indigenous and local knowledge in the article has been shared using free, prior, and informed consent, and we consider all participants to be coresearchers in the comanagement work. I am grateful to all of my coresearchers both in Näätämö area and on Ponoi. The main results of this article have been communicated in the villages in August 2019 as a part of the Skolt Sámi Re-settlement 70th Anniversary Event and though the “Golos Ponoi” Newspaper in 2018 for Murmansk region. Overall, the comments received supported these communications and people felt that their voices from the remote communities were being heard “in the realms of science” (in most cases through coauthorship).

I am writing the article methodologically from an autoethnographical position.⁶ This enables, especially in the context of decadal positioning inside reformative natural resources work, self-reflection and self-assessment, especially in the context of ethics. I am using the method of comparative cases from the decade of fieldwork as a part of and alongside the comanagement actions.⁷ The Sámi are linguistically related to the Finnish and Karelian peoples so the dynamic and historical frame of “settlers” (Finns) and “Indigenous” (Sámi in contemporary legislation) is unique in the global setting. There are, however, Finnish reindeer herding and fishing communities and farming Sámi communities, to name some of the nonstereotypical examples. In my opinion, the best option for discussions of knowledge, power, management, and ethics in the Finnish context is to look at situations on a case-by-case basis (I have called this endemic view in Finnish geography in the past, see Mustonen, 2014).

Snowchange Cooperative (see at www.snowchange.org), a pan-Arctic nonprofit Indigenous and local-traditional community network and organization, has been facilitating the actual restoration and observational work both on Näätämö and Ponoi. It was founded in 2000 by Sámi, Inuit, and Finnish delegates to seek solutions to northern climate change and Indigenous empowerment. One of the mandates of the organization is to respond in scales and themes to those issues which are not on governmental agendas or which fall through the cracks of the national systems.

Case 1: Näätämö River Catchment Area, Finland—Norway

The headwaters of the Näätämö river (see Orell 2012 for ecological overview) is the lake Iijärvi on the Finnish side and the river flows into the Neiden Fjord on the Norwegian side. The watershed has a total area of 2,962 km².⁸ Below, the six processes introduced above are reviewed in the context of governance and climate change.

Indigenous Weather Knowledge

Climate change is present in the Sámi observations from Näätämö (Skolt Sámi Weather Statistics 2012–2019). These constitute a decade of observational data on weather, extreme events, species movements, and so on. As an example, Satu Moshnikoff (2019), a Skolt Sámi woman and Elder from Sevettijärvi community, contributed her records of biocultural indicators. She is one of the coresearchers on climate change in the community. Satu has been monitoring five sets of ecological indicators since 1978 in the village:

Sprouting of the birch tree leaf buds in the spring

Appearance of the first mosquitoes

First snowfall in the Autumn

Snow depth

First melt spots in the spring in the snowpack (from Moshnikoff 2019)

Several trends emerge from Satu’s observations. Birch tree leaf buds have almost systematically started to sprout in May, as opposed to June in the past. The watermark is the year 2000, and birch tree leaf buds have sprouted during the historically “normal” month of June only 4 years in the 2000s. Mosquitoes have more varied trends—they usually appear in mid-June, but exceptional years have included 1993 with the first mosquitoes in July and 2009 with no insects at all. Permanent snow has arrived as early as 31st August in mid 1980s but has been pushed back especially in the 2000s. The latest permanent snow cover has not come until early November, even 1st December in 1981. The first melt spots in the spring in the snowpack follow a similar trend with “normal winters” still in 1970s and 1980s, with bigger changes under way closer to 2010s. For example, in 2002, the snowless spots appeared already in mid-March, and since then late March to often in early April, as opposed to later in the spring (as in Moshnikoff 2019).

Water Quality Research Widens the Science View

I have used the latest results from the water measurements to offer a selected summary of current trends and issues between 1980 and 2018 to complement the Indigenous knowledge views (Skolt Catch Statistics 2012–2019).⁹ Sufficient water flow, high ecological quality of aquatic ecosystems, and cool temperatures are required for salmonid fish to survive. Monitoring and detection of changes in these parameters are therefore crucial context for survival of trout, salmon, and other species.

In 1990s and in mid-2010s, we saw the peaking of both autumn and winter/spring water temperatures in the catchment area. They also correspond in rough terms with the Indigenous weather observations. The early 2000s were another period of warm summers and autumn. Summer 2018 was an all-time record warm throughout the Sámi home area. Of particular concern are the high peaks over 22 °C in first week of July and end of July (see Figure 2). These are extremely dangerous temperatures for the salmonid fish, especially Arctic char and trout species in the catchment area.¹⁰

Figure 2.

Water temperature data, measured at a depth of 1 m, from Näätämö 1980–2020. Note. Data were not available for 2013 or 2015–2020. The 2018 water temperature data are from a nearby measurement site, and measurements from two dates in August are included: August 1 during the period of extreme high temperatures, and August 10.

The scientific measurements of water quality of Näätämö mostly indicate that the water quality is excellent (see Tossavainen 2013 for summaries).

The variation of water quality between 1980 and 2020 is quite modest, indicating no sudden changes. On the other hand of concern are the peak temperatures in 2018. Secondly, the spring flood peaks especially for Iron (Fe) and other metals will be further investigated in the future.

To summarize, the water quality of the Näätämö watershed is premium with low human impacts. Climate change remains the most potent driver of change for water quality and quantity. Such a science overview has been achieved by having the Sámi point out the key drivers of indicators, which then were complemented by science data.

Detection of Outbreak of Algae in the Vainosjoki Subcatchment Area

As a part of the Sámi monitoring mission (Snowchange Cooperative Näätämö Science Records, 2018) special attention was paid to the Vainosjoki subcatchment area of Näätämö river, due to the ecological restoration actions underway there (see below). This level of water quality, temperatures, and ecological indicators is not carried out by national (Norwegian or Finnish) authorities, so engagement with Indigenous knowledge is of paramount importance.

Following the heat spells of June and July in 2018 (as jointly detected by science and the Sámi), fisherman Juha Feodoroff alerted the team to carpets of algae growth (Figure 3) on the smaller pools and even the main stream of Vainosjoki river. Samples were taken by the Snowchange science team and with the cooperation of a laboratory located at the Finnish Environmental Institute, the algae were identified. Most likely the outburst of algae had resulted from the record-high temperatures and a heatwave lasting for weeks in the region. In areas the algae covered bottoms of the small pools to the depth of 40–50 cm.¹¹ Skolt Sámi worked with a team of scientists to identify the species, confirmed the observation, and are currently contemplating a range of responses to the phenomena. Later in 2019 starting from March to October, other lakes and river subcatchments were surveyed in the region and the algae growth from 2018 was visible in the bottom areas rather widely. Colder temperatures in the summer of 2019 prevented further outbreaks, but the threshold had been crossed with the extreme heat wave for the first time.

Figure 3.

Algae on Vainosjoki. Note. Algae blooms are important indicators of ecosystem shifts in the northern Arctic locations where nutrients and organic loading is scarce. Blooms may indicate the presence of pollution, human disturbance, or other new events and need to be investigated always.

Climate Action: Ecological Restoration of Vainosjoki and Kirakkakoski

In summer 2017, the Vainosjoki river restoration project began after four years of planning. A team of around 10 Skolt Sámi together with a restoration consultant and Snowchange staff manually restored the flow of the river by relocating rocks and boulders in the river. The restoration of the whole river system was completed in September 2019. Afterward, spawning gravel was distributed. The restoration work covering all of the length of the Vainosjoki area was completed in October 2019. Already these actions have shown their success, when in 2017–2020 several female trouts, including an approximately 3-kg lake trout, were observed potentially spawning and residing in the newly restored areas. In summer seasons of 2019–2020, dozens of young trout were detected along the restored stream.

The restoration measures are something the local people have hoped for many years. In the 1960s, the Finnish Forestry Agency, Metsähallitus, widened part of several river channels in the catchment area using explosives. The stream was also partially dredged. The original reason for these alterations has been complex to deduce due to lack of archival materials. A range of explanations from the local community include the potential establishment of a boat route further toward lake Vainosjärvi, timber floating, better and improved access to Atlantic Salmon (!), and employment projects in 1960s to have local people conduct some construction work to alleviate high unemployment levels.

One of these areas was the Vainosjoki subcatchment area. The alterations of the river flow had a drastic impact on the areas which subsequently lost the suitable spawning grounds. This had effects on the culture of the Skolt Sámi who through millennia have fished as part of their culture and subsistence. In 2013–2017, baseline information (in cooperation with scientists) from the comanagement work led to the ecological restoration of those spawning areas and habitats that had been altered by the state in the postwar context. These sites can be seen as cultural indicators of resilience. They have also proven the first real physical changes for the better in the Näätämö basin by following the method and persistence of comanagement actions.

Unfortunately, while this has motivated the Skolt Sámi about the work and produced concrete results, this has not translated, as of yet, to a reform or a serious transformation of those state agencies and officials who form the power levels of river governance. Ecological restoration of habitats and mitigation of past damages from the 1950–1980 time period are difficult issues for these agencies, as they challenge the “pristine wilderness” narrative of the basin and provide a sociohistorical baseline of habitat alterations, including the hydropower development and diversion of the stream flow of the Kallojoki river on the Norwegian side. These actions by the governmental agencies were seen as ethical from their Western governance, space and time, 50 years ago. Simultaneously, following Indigenous ethics, the actions were seen as “wrong” at the outset, altering the key compositions of natural streams, habitats, and fish—nonhuman beings who share equal rights and privileges in the Sámi cosmological order on Vainosjoki. Ethically sound and meaningful (Mustonen, 2018) action in this case has been the restoration of these habitats back into health using Sámi knowledge, associated Indigenous memory, and science.

Russian humpback Salmon

Pink or humpback salmon¹² (Figure 4) were introduced, much like the King Crab, as a part of the Soviet efforts to boost their maritime economies on the Barents Sea, already in the 1930s. Pink salmon is a Pacific species. In the summer 2019, record numbers of Pink Salmon arrived on Näätämö system as they had been arriving to Ponoi in 2018 (Mustonen et al., 2020). Norway installed a concentrated catch of the humpbacks along the Finnmark rivers and deltas, but, for example, the käpälä seiners, who are ethnically Kven Finns on the Norwegian side of Näätämö catchment, reported catching up to 500–600 fish a week (Yle, 2019; Niemelä et al., 2016), with overall catches around 1,000 specimens. Indigenous knowledge and some science reviews (see a review in Mustonen et al., 2021) consider the Pink Salmon to be an aggressive competitor to Atlantic Salmon in spawning locations even though the species spawn at different times. Also, diseases and potential contraction of diseases play a role in the potential risks. Both the algae and the humpback salmon arose as cultural indicators of change in the Näätämö toward the end of the 2010s. Much in line with Pecl et al. (2017) in terms of species on the move and southern and invasive species causing system change in the Sámi ecosystem, the comanagement projects focused on these two drivers of major change in the efforts to document, form a baseline, and ultimately try to solve these new horizons.

Figure 4.

Humpback salmon. Source. Provided by Aslak Holmberg, used with permission.

Case 2: Ponoi River Catchment, Murmansk, Russia

Ponoi is the largest river of the Kola Peninsula, and its total length is about 425 km.¹³ The river and its catchment area are of great ecological and cultural value in Northern Europe. The villages of Krasnochelye and Kanevka are the last roadless communities in the Murmansk region. Their population is mixed, with Kanevka almost completely comprised of descendants of the original Komi herders who arrived in 1880s. Krasnochelye has Sámi and Russian people in addition to the Komi. Sosnovka as well is a mix of these three peoples today. Ponoi river is also important for its rich biodiversity and cultural heritage—the Sámi, Komi, Pomor, and Russian cultures meet in these villages. In our project, we have always included Sosnovka as well to make sure the coastal voices and the remote White Sea situation is a part of the regional assessment.

Map 3.

Ponoi river catchment area, Russia.

Between 2006 and 2011, Snowchange work on Ponoi consisted primarily of oral history documentation. Subsequently, the comanagement work has, between 2013 and 2019, focused on mapping drivers of change and creating an observation network and a database of Indigenous and traditional knowledge (Komi, Pomor, as a distinction compared to Sámi knowledge).¹⁴ Summarizing the documentation work from Krasnochelye and Kanevka, it was clear that local people noticed and paid attention to the changes, as the summer 2018 was the hottest on record in many places. It was, therefore, very timely to focus on climate impacts. It was a keystone year in the sense that climate impacts were truly felt in the villages at all levels (low water levels, drop in salmon numbers, drought in wells, no rain). In the comanagement work, the traditional and Indigenous knowledge materials are then put to a dialogue with science measurements and archival materials to receive a better view of the situation on Ponoi. Kanevka, Krasnochelye, and the seasonal settlement of Chalme-Varre are crucial for this monitoring work.

Sosnovka is the most remote settlement of the Murmansk region. It is located in the southern shores of the peninsula, by the White Sea Coast. Historically, it was the meeting place for the Pomor (Russian) traders and inland Sámi peoples. There are no roads to Sosnovka; the main transport link of the village with other settlements of the Murmansk region is a helicopter service. These days about 20 people live in the village permanently, and almost all of them are over 40 years old. Many are already retired. Back in the early 1990s more than a hundred people used to live in Sosnovka. The village had a kindergarten, a school, and a medical assistant station. Locals used to work in the fishing and reindeer-herding brigades. Each arrival of a helicopter is a rather big event for the villagers now because this is the main way they can receive vital goods and products. Arrival of the helicopter is also one of very few events when one can see almost all the villagers in one place at once.

Despite the small number of residents of the village of Sosnovka today (in the autumn–winter–spring time no more than 20 people), people live quite apart. Many of the local observers indicated that the main issue is a ban for salmon fishing. And since fishing is one of the few ways to ensure one’s existence in this remote village, the ban forces locals into the position of poaching. Another serious problem is also the lack of work and, as a consequence, young people desiring to leave the village. Another central issue residents noted was the closure of a medical assistant’s station and thus the inability to receive qualified medical care. The closure of the local house of culture has also diminished services.

Gendered Coasts: Short View on the Life of Larisa Living in Remote Isolation

Remarkable people still live in the utmost peripheries of the Ponoi area. One example, a coresearcher in the observation work, is Larisa Pavlovna Saksa (Figure 5). She brought gender-based knowledge and observations to the work. Lahya or Larisa Pavlovna Saksa was born in 1936. Her father was a Finn-Ingrian. She had a Russian mother. In 1985, she moved from the Tula region to the Kola Peninsula and settled in the village of Umba. Later on she moved to a place called Lakhta/Lahti.

Figure 5.

Grandmother Larisa.

For many years, until its closing, she worked there in a collective farm. The community fishery brigade caught and processed salmon in the mouth of the Ponoi River. After the brigade was dismissed, the village was abandoned. Since 2011, Lahya Pavlovna has been coming to this abandoned village every summer and spends all summer long there, despite the fact that no one has lived in Lakhta for a long time. According to Lahya Saksa, she considers the work and the time spent in Lakhta to be the best years of her life. Therefore, in spite of the fact that she is an 83-year-old grandmother (in 2019), she comes to the place every summer for the last few years, where, according to Lahya Saksa, she gains strength to survive the winter time. Lahya Pavlovna is going to come to Lakhta every year until she is not able to do it, in other words—until the day she passes away…

River Quality and Changes in Remote Russian Communities

On Ponoi, in the extremely remote seasonal settlements and in the wilderness villages (including Chalme-Varre, Ponoi, Krasnochelye, Kanevka, and Sosnovka) oral histories, community-based documentation, and Indigenous coresearchers have contributed to a new understanding of the spreading of Pacific Humpback Salmon on the Kola Peninsula, extreme weather events, settlement patterns, never-before-documented Sámi traditions, and Sámi-Komi ethnic relations, as well as an ecological backlog of Soviet pollution events and water quality data. We can summarize some of the key findings from the coresearchers below:

The thickness of ice depends on weather conditions and winter temperatures. It was noted that the winters became warmer and the ice, consequently, became thinner.

Ice breaks down at different times each year due to the weather conditions, depending on how soon warm temperatures arrive in the spring.

Since the winters have become warmer and the ice is thinner, for the last 5 years, the spring floods and associated ice jams no longer represent any threat to the village. The banks of the river are quite high, and the village itself is well above the high water level, so most residents do not consider ice jams dangerous for the village anymore.

Villagers who were interviewed (especially for the 2018–2019 documentation) also did not notice any strange observations regarding the state of water in the river and the coastal waters of the White Sea. A special observation was a set of yellow burned strips on the ground close to Sosnovka. On these yellow spots, nothing grows. Some locals pointed to the rocket parts that had fallen to the ground from space.

Questions that concerned the quality of fish, salmon in particular, made people think. Respondents noted that in recent years the salmon has become slightly smaller in size, and the quantity of fish has also decreased. Pink Salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) is expanding in number and in range.

Because of abnormally high temperatures in 2018, all small reservoirs in the vicinity of Sosnovka dried up. Even some marsh-mires and swamps around Sosnovka dried up. The dry summer and lack of rain led to a forest fire near the village. Almost every resident of Sosnovka and even those who came to visit the village took part in the extinguishment of the fire, which took 2 days.

One person recording the weather carefully informed that he had never seen such a hot summer. At the same time, observations of the water temperature in the sea showed that the water temperature in summer did not exceed the indications of previous years. In recent years, in winter time, the water temperature has increased, and the 5-km strait between the Sosnovich Island and mainland has not been covered with ice.

One of the mechanisms for informing the residents of the remote villages about the results and ongoing comanagement work has been the newspaper “Golos Ponoi” (Voice of Ponoi) that has been printed in Revda and distributed with helicopters to the remote villages. The internet connections in Kanevka, Krasnochelye, and the seasonal settlement of Chalme-Varre as well as Sosnovka are terribly bad, and therefore, print media has been a good vehicle for bringing knowledge back home and making sure that the local villagers are informed of both the science and traditional knowledge work.

Main Results From Näätämö and Ponoi in Review

Climate change is now an urgent reality that is affecting the health of both fish and ecosystems in the Näätämö and Ponoi catchment areas, including Sosnovka. Water temperatures are approaching limits known to cause harmful health effects, including death, in certain fish species. Record warm spells triggered forest fires in Finland and in Russia. All of the villages have living traditional knowledge and a willingness to observe, report, and act on the results. A monitoring network is now in place and should be supported, long term, to understand climate and ecological change in the basins in terms of both science and traditional knowledge. This includes Indigenous and local customary governance and self-limiting of harvests especially on spawning salmon. Many people expressed their growing concern about allowed “catch and release” practices. All villages have sets of biocultural indicators, often gendered, with which they monitor ecosystem changes as a holistic mechanism. Women have a special knowledge of the rivers themselves.

On both rivers, striking similarities in observed changes in biodiversity emerged, especially relating to fish health. These included whitefish suffering from parasites, salmon stocks dwindling, urgent alarms about the expansion of the range of Pink Salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), newly introduced species. For the Russian communities, the backlog of Soviet land use and pollution events should be investigated as a long-term driver of change. Science results beginning as early as 1863 (on the Russian side as ground temperature measurements) on water quality, humidity, and temperature indicate that Näätämö, Ponoi, and Sosnovka are some of the last wilderness areas in the European North. While they are for the most part in pristine condition, the Russian weather data confirm local observations of the significance of climate change.

Concluding Thoughts—Positioning the Näätämö and Ponoi Work in the Indigenous Ethics Matrix

We can ask critical questions, especially following the observations made by Nadasdy (2003), of the overall impacts regarding collaborative management experiences from common law countries where they have been used within a larger framework to solve the Indigenous equity issues under a federal system. I pose some of these critical questions here and attempt to respond. My focus is on the Näätämö system because the Ponoi questions are not yet fully developed into a comanagement as understood by all parties.

How Much Progress Has Been Achieved If We Take a Critical Look at Establishing the Very First Comanagement Regimes Using Indigenous Ethics in Finland and in Part in Murmansk Region?

A divergence of results comes from how comanagement has advanced over the decade. In Näätämö, several modules of a fully-fledged cogovernance and comanagement are in place. There is now rigorous science monitoring combined with Indigenous Sámi knowledge for water quality, weather, and fish stocks. These components are often seen as critical for a successful comanagement framework to exist (Nadasdy, 2003).

The science results are published in peer-reviewed and coauthored papers that add credibility to the data (see, e.g., Arctic Council, 2013, 2015; Mustonen, 2015; Mustonen & Feodoroff, 2020; Mustonen et al., 2021; Pecl et al., 2017). The Sámi have cultural indicators for change and have created an Indigenous knowledge database of the change underway. Sámi are self-limiting their salmon harvests to allow more mother fish to reach the Näätämö spawning areas. Out of the actions described above, the Vainosjoki has reached deepest in sharing decisions and details about the common understanding between Sámi, scientists, and the state agencies. While Metsähallitus has not formally endorsed the comanagement, it has adapted several modules, such as the quota system, for Näätämö. We can estimate the Skolt Sámi have achieved 85% of a full cogovernance in a decade (see also Ogar et al., 2020). The future, of course, remains open and unstable.

On Ponoi, a network of villagers and trusted Sámi and Komi teams have been established and a wealth of observational data has been collected. Cultural heritage, Sámi language, and land uses have been documented. The comanagement actions were presented to the Minister of the Environment for the Murmansk region in 2013, so the administration is aware of this model, the actions on the ground for Ponoi, and potential reforms. The reality is that the current regime in Russia is not in favor of Indigenous management or direct support to traditional land use, so the project members tactically choose the ways the comanagement discourse is advanced in the local context. The divergent legal statuses of Komi and Sámi people also add a tension to the fishing rights questions, as well as the large-scale tourist fishery on Ponoi—topics beyond this article, but issues affecting the daily life in the villages (Mustonen et al. 2021).

What Constitutes the Indigenous Evaluation (IE) Benchmarks and What Are Critical Indicators of Success?

The keys to success differ in each location. For Näätämö, the success of the Vainosjoki restoration was critical. For Ponoi, the observational and actually functioning village network of changes seem to be the key. Sámi, Komi, and Pomors have taken on the tasks to maintain their traditional land uses, in this case fisheries, under the rapidly changing ecosystems while also conveying messages about a system change. Comanagement has not proceeded in Russia nor Finland as a 100% solution, but these credible steps do advocate for the working aspects of this model. It has also contributed to the self-esteem of the individuals and communities to advance the feeling that their voices are heard and to have actions taken as a result of their effort, such as the Vainosjoki restoration.

How Much Have the International Indigenous Models, Often From the Canadian Arctic, Been Applicable in Finland and in Russia?

Common law countries have taken a lead on comanagement as a tool. Following their critical messages, the applicability and exportability of methods has likely been the most successful in the detailed questions which are on a scale that can be managed from a local viewpoint. Vainosjoki river is 5 km long and normal people can do something about the past damages (Ogar et al., 2020). It is much harder to influence issues regarding the Barents Sea, for example. Additionally, the monitoring efforts which have related to, for example, whitefish health detection, have proven to be applicable here. Most transferability problems can be detected in the divergent political systems and a culture of Indigenous-state relations which remain underdeveloped in Finland, to say the least.

Is Endemic Comanagement With a Foundation on Indigenous Ethics More Suitable for Sápmi, Is It a Real Option and How Has the Näätämö Project Succeeded in Bringing state Officials and Metsähallitus on to the Table?

Instead of building walls or houses, the decade of comanagement has tried to find a model that works for the Skolt Sámi. State officials and Metsähallitus have after many years of grinding negotiations agreed to allow for the restoration of Vainosjoki, and therefore, we can assess this to be a significant and symbolic first. In the undefined spaces of Finnish Sápmi (Brattland & Mustonen, 2018) an endemic comanagement is probably the best means of advancing cogovernance using concrete means. It may be that the Sámi space contains the potential for models of cogovernance that have not yet been seen.

Where Has Sámi Knowledge Delivered on Robust Science Monitoring and Where Has Divergence Happened?

Detection of the advancement of southern insects (Pecl et al., 2017), algae blooms, system-wide baselines of ecological data, and the Vainosjoki restoration are some examples where Sámi knowledge has been critical. The main problems have arisen from the truth narratives regarding the area itself—the public discourse by state agencies maintains it is an untouched wilderness, while evidence uncovered in the comanagement work reveals story after story of ecological alterations to water ways, large-scale forestry, diversion of the Näätämö catchment area in Kallojoki river, and so on. The truth statements by various parties serve their particular interests and are therefore hard to change.

In conclusion, this article has explored these and other critical experiences of the first decade of the first UN-certified comanagement actions in Finland and Murmansk region, Russia. This article has been written from the perspective of the lead researcher for both of these large climate change subprojects on two iconic Atlantic Salmon rivers, an insider-scientist viewpoint. A comparison has been offered between the Näätämö and Ponoi dynamics, including around questions of applicability, equity issues, and Sámi rights. Central to the initial point of view was how Eastern Sámi, Komi, and Pomor villages are trying to maintain and advance their traditional land uses, namely, fisheries. In the decade of implementing aspects and methods of an international comanagement framework, positive steps have been taken. However, barriers still remain and will continue to exist as long as the state remains the ultimate power and decision maker on these rivers.

Toward the end of the 2010s, the emergence of climate change impacts as significant drivers of change manifested in two main indicators—the proliferation of humpback salmon as their ranges expanded, and the aggressive breakout of the diatomic algae on the Näätämö system. Only the future will show to what extent the rivers and their peoples will manage to combat these system changes while keeping their land uses and knowledges and associated cultures alive as distinct ways of knowing (Ogar et al., 2020).

The application of Indigenous Ethics and an IEF and a respect for Sámi knowledge has produced substantial new knowledge of climate and ecological change and also enabled a repair of some of the industrial ruins and degradation from earlier decades. The examples highlighted in the paper point to the benefits of research where more can be achieved if an ethical, sound, and just process building on Indigenous understandings of such terms is implemented. Bringing to light the evidence, observations, and knowledge as authored by Indigenous communities themselves is critical to illustrate and strengthen the worldviews embedded within (Smith, 2001). This strengthens the case for implementing multiple streams of evaluation, ethics, and ways of understanding increasingly complex natural and human systems. This ultimately allows human societies to make better decisions regarding these issues, such as using a collaborative management model to conserve and use natural resources in a wiser manner. These actions need to include the understanding of Indigenous and cultural indicators (Brattland & Mustonen, 2018), which will likely differ from science-driven ways of knowing a place.

The inclusion of Indigenous knowledge will bring new opportunities to evaluation. Robust science measurements are often on large scales especially in remote northern wilderness areas. Small-scale events, such as the detection of southern species arriving into the High Arctic (Pecl et al., 2017) or proliferation of algae, demonstrate the capacity of Indigenous observations. Perhaps more importantly, Indigenous scales of knowing also contain an international component: unity, ethics, and belonging, which guides more sustainable ways of being on the Earth (Berkes, 1999, calls this the “sacred ecology”). We need to be aware, however, that these mechanisms that are embedded in Indigenous languages and ways of life are increasingly threatened or subject to damaging, if good-willed, attempts for reforms (Nadasdy, 2003). Therefore, as evaluation studies grow to include Indigenous ways of knowing, there is a critical need to ensure the living carries of Indigenous knowledge are also part of the processes, to make sure the direct voices and wisdom of these peoples is fully included.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Tero Mustonen

Notes

References

Arctic Council. (2013). Arctic biodiversity assessment, 2013.http://www.acia.uaf.edu

Arctic Council. (2015). Arctic resilience report, 2015.http://www.acia.uaf.edu

Berkes

(1999). Sacred ecology—Traditional ecological knowledge and resource management. Taylor & Francis.

Berkes

(2012). Implementing ecosystem-based management: Evolution or revolution? Fish and Fisheries, 13, 465–476.

Berkes

Inglis

J. T.

(1993). Traditional ecological knowledge concepts and cases. International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and International Development Research Centre.

Blomquist

(2020). Beneath the surface: Complexities and groundwater policy-making. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 36(1):154–170. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grz033

Brattland

Mustonen

(2018). How traditional knowledge comes to matter in Atlantic salmon governance in Norway and Finland. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic4751

Carlsson

Berkes

(2005). Co-management: Concepts and methodological implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 75(1), 65–76.

Cram

Tibbetts

LaFrance

(2018). Indigenous evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 159, 2018.

10.

Feodoroff

Mustonen

(2013). Ponoi and Näätämö river collaborative management plan. Snowchange Cooperative.

11.

Helander

(1999). Sámi subsistence activities: Spatial aspects and structuration. Acta Borealia, 2, 7–25.

12.

LaFrance

Nichols

Kirkhart

K. E.

(2012). Culture writes the script: On the centrality of context in indigenous evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20027

13.

Moshnikoff

. Säähavainnot 2000–2019. A diary archive [Unpublished document].

14.

Mustonen

(2014). Endemic time-spaces of Finland: Aquatic regimes. Fennia, 192(2), 120–139.

15.

Mustonen

(2015). Communal visual histories to detect environmental change in northern areas: Examples of emerging North American and Eurasian practices. Ambio, 44, 766–777. https://doi10.1007/s13280-015-0671-7

16.

Mustonen

(2018). Meaningful engagement and oral histories of the Indigenous peoples of the north. Nordia Geographical Publications, 47(5), 21–38.

17.

Mustonen

Feodoroff

(2020). What is a River? A cross-disciplinary and Indigenous assessment. In Colbourne

(Ed.), Indigenous wellbeing and enterprise. Routledge.

18.

Mustonen

Kaisu

(2011). Eastern Sámi Atlas. Snowchange Cooperative.

19.

Mustonen

(2016). Life in the cyclic world—A traditional knowledge compedium for Eurasia. Snowchange.

20.

Mustonen

Kirillov

(2018). Traditional knowledge of northern waters. Snowchange.

21.

Mustonen

Kirillov

Paul

Koleshnikova

Kurzeneva

Barudkin

Tunon

Kvarnström

Roto

Van Dam

(2021). Community-based monitoring in the Ponoy River, Kola Peninsula (Russia): Reflections on Atlantic salmon, pink salmon, Northern pike and weather/climate change. Polar Biology, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-020-02790-4

22.

Nadasdy

(2003). Hunters and bureaucrats. UBC Press.

23.

Niemelä

Johansen

Zubchenko

A. V.

Dempson

J. B.

Veselov

Ieshko

E. P.

Barskaya

Yu.

Novokhatskaya

O. V.

Shulman

B. S.

Länsman

Hassinen

Kuusela

Haantie

Kylmäaho

Kivilahti

Arvola

K.-M.

Kalske

T.H.

(Eds.). (2016). Pink salmon in the Barents region. Office of the Finnmark County Governor, Norja.

24.

Ogar

Pecl

Mustonen

(2020). Science must embrace traditional indigenous knowledge to solve our biodiversity crisis. One Earth. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.07.006

25.

Orell

(2012). Video monitoring of the River Neidenelva salmon and sea-trout migrations in 2006-2011. Finnish Game and Fisheries Institute.

26.

Ostrom

(1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.

27.

Pecl

G. T.

Araújo

M. B.

Bell

J. B.

Blanchard

Bonebrake

T. C.

Chen

Clark

T. D.

Colwell

R. K.

Danielsen

Evengård

Falconi

Ferrier

Frusher

Garcia

R. A.

Griffis

R. B.

Hobday

A. J.

Janion-Scheepers

Jarzyna

M. A.

Jennings

, … Williams

S. E.

(2017). Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: Impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aai9214

28.

Serikova

(2019). Carbon emissions from western Siberian Inland Waters. University of Umeå.

29.

Skolt Catch Statistics 2012–2019. A Report available from the Snowchange Cooperative [Unpublished document].

30.

Skolt Sámi Weather Statistics 2012–2019. A Report available from the Snowchange Cooperative [Unpublished document].

31.

Snowchange Cooperative Näätämö Science Records, 2018. [Unpublished document].

32.

Smith

(2001). Decolonising methodologies. Zed books.

33.

Tossavainen

. (2013). Näätämö-joen (Suomi) veden laatu 2010-2012 ja Ponoi-joen (Venäjä) veden laatu vuosien 1960-2012 mittaustulosten perusteella [Water quality based on measurements on the Rivers Neiden 2010-2012 and Ponoi 1960-2012]. Scientific analysis report. Snowchange Cooperative, Available from the Snowchange Cooperative archives [Unpublished document].

34.

YLE. (2019). National News Agency of Finland. Aggressiivinen kyttyrälohi tunkee luonnonlohen reviirille (Aggressive Pink Salmon Expands to the Territories of Atlantic Salmon). Retrieved 1 September, 2019, from https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10924364