In October 2024, the Committees on the Rights of the Child (CCRC) and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) published their Views in three communications against Finland. Both Committees concluded that the country had violated the rights of individuals in the Kova-Labba Siida (a Sámi community) by granting a mineral exploration permit and area reservation in the Siida’s traditional reindeer herding territory without first conducting an impact assessment and obtaining the Siida’s free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC).
In their Views, the Committees interpret Articles 8 and 30 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and Article 15(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) for the first time in matters concerning Indigenous peoples. The Views notably develop the understanding of the relationship between resource extraction, the Indigenous right to culture, and its intergenerational transmission.
This post first outlines the cases’ backgrounds and the Committees’ admissibility assessments. It then examines the Committees’ consideration of the merits, focusing on the right to culture, land rights, and extraction. Finally, based on the Committees’ recommendations, it concludes.
Background and Admissibility
In 2014, Finland issued a gold, copper, and iron exploration permit in the Siida’s traditional reindeer herding territory. As part of the permitting procedure, Tukes, the Finnish permitting authority, sought written statements from the Sámi Parliament and a reindeer herder cooperative and invited both to two meetings. In response, both the cooperative and Parliament noted that this did not amount to a proper assessment of the impact of mineral exploration on reindeer herding and Sámi culture. As a result, the Sámi Parliament stated that the ‘basic preconditions’ for FPIC had not been met. Tukes, nevertheless, granted the permit. All appeals of Tukes’ decision failed. Later, in 2022, a company applied for and received, without any Sámi consultation, an area reservation to survey for minerals in the Siida’s reindeer herding territory.
In their complaints, the authors claimed that granting the exploration permit and area reservation without their FPIC infringed their right to preserve their Indigenous identity. They submitted that this had the ‘effect of eroding the preconditions of communal reindeer herding and its transmission from generation to generation’. The authors also argued that the erosion of their rights should be seen in light of climate change and the effects of tourism, wind farms, and military activity, which render reindeer husbandry in their ancestral land impossible.
Finland submitted that the Communications were inadmissible, alleging they constituted an actio popularis. The country maintained that its Mining Act, under which the permit and area reservation were granted, was not discriminatory as it applies equally to all and that the authors, therefore, had not suffered ‘any clear or concrete disadvantage’. It also argued that the author’s climate change claim was inadmissible as they had failed to exhaust domestic remedies.
In their Views, the Committees rejected Finland’s admissibility arguments and found the communications admissible. The Committees concluded that Finland had violated the authors’ rights under Article 15(1)(a) ICESCR, read alone and in conjunction with Articles 1, 2(2), and 11, as well as under Articles 8, 27, and 30 CRC, read alone and in conjunction with Articles 2(1) and 12. The Committees also noted, concerning the author’s climate change claim, that the issue was raised to substantiate the authors’ claims and not to present a separate claim.
CESCR’s Views on Cultural Rights, Land, and Extraction
Referring to its General Comments (GC) no. 21 and 26, and with notable reference to decisions of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), the Human Rights Committee (HRC), and regional courts, CESCR considered that Article 15(1)(a) ICESCR entails the right of Indigenous Peoples to the lands, territories and resources that they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired and requires States parties to take measures to recognize and protect the rights of Indigenous Peoples to own, develop, control and use their communal lands, territories and resources (para. 14.5).
In relation to the recognition of Indigenous peoples’ right to land, CESCR noted that such recognition is ‘an indispensable part of their right to take part in cultural life’. Accordingly, CESCR held that Indigenous peoples must be meaningfully included in decision-making processes that ‘may affect their way of life, particularly their right to land’ based on FPIC (para. 14.3). It further held that an adequate and effective FPIC process requires an independent impact assessment and ‘interactive and continuous dialogue through Indigenous Peoples’ own representative institutions’ through ‘culturally appropriate procedures’ (para. 14.6).
Thus, the Committee affirmed verbatim its GC 21, holding that the right to participate in cultural life under ICESCR entails Indigenous peoples’ right to own, develop, and control their traditional territories and resources, as these are integral to their cultural identity. The CESCR thus takes a notable step by holding that the Indigenous right to culture under ICESCR includes an obligation to safeguard the cultural connection between Indigenous peoples and their lands and resources through the legal recognition of their ownership of ancestral lands.
CESCR noted that while Tukes had been in contact with the Sámi Parliament and reindeer husbandry cooperative, no independent assessment had been conducted on the impact on reindeer herding of mineral exploration. Consequently, as reindeer herding is ‘a fundamental part of the Sámi culture and livelihood’ the Committee found that procedure lacking such assessment fails to meet the standard of an adequate and effective FPIC process (para. 14.6). Similarly, concerning the area reservation given without consultation, CESCR found that the procedure took ‘no account of the rights of Sámi living on the affected area to control and use their land and transmit their traditional livelihoods’ (para. 14.7).
As a result, CESCR considered that Finland had not adequately taken the ‘right of Indigenous Peoples to land, as part of the right to take part in cultural life’ into account. It noted that in Finland, where the Sámi lack formal ownership of their reindeer herding territories, a Siida would be entitled to neither compensation for mineral exploration nor be an interested party in an area reservation. The Committee emphasised that legal measures recognising rights such as collective ownership and the protection of the right to traditional lands are crucial components of the Indigenous right to participate in cultural life. Consequently, as Finland had failed to demonstrate how the permit and area reservation processes adequately addressed the authors’ cultural rights, CESCR concluded it had violated Article 15(1)(a) ICESCR (paras. 14.8–14.11).
A striking characteristic of the Committee’s Views is the degree to which it draws on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Article 26(2), and CERD, HRC, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Saramaka) and African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Endorois) case law – despite Finland not being signatory to the American or African conventions. In doing so, the Committee affirms that the cultural right to land under ICESCR extends beyond domestic (property) law and must be understood within a broader human rights framework according to which the rights over Indigenous land are not merely a matter of private law, as argued by Finland, but inextricably linked to Indigenous peoples’ cultural practices and their (land) rights in this regard.
CCRC’s Views on the Right to Culture
In its Views, CCRC recalled that ‘cultural rights have an intergenerational aspect’ fundamental to Indigenous peoples’ ‘cultural identity, survival, and viability’ (para. 9.14). It further considered that Article 30 CRC ‘enshrines the right of Indigenous children to enjoy their traditional territories and that any decision affecting them should be taken with their effective participation’ (para. 9.17).
Centrally, CCRC held that failing to respect Indigenous peoples’ rights to use and enjoy their land and neglecting to take appropriate measures to uphold their FPIC ‘constitutes a form of discrimination’. It does so as it ‘results in nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by Indigenous peoples, on an equal footing, of their rights to their ancestral territories, natural resources and, as a result, their identity’. This particularly impacts Indigenous children, the Committee noted, as safeguarding their cultural identity is essential to ensuring the ‘continuity of their distinct people’ (para. 9.24).
Consequently, in a manner similar to ICESCR in its Views, CCRC found that Finland had violated the CRC, highlighting that ‘Indigenous children must be particularly at the heart’ of the consultation process, from their consideration in impact assessments to their effective participation in FPIC consultation (paras. 9.25–9.26).
Recommendations and Conclusion
Both Committees recommended that Finland ‘effectively’ revise its decisions ‘based on an adequate process’ of FPIC in which the ‘authors should effectively participate’, accompanied by an independent impact assessment, and that Finland enshrines FPIC and the requirement to do an impact assessment in its domestic law. Finally, CESCR requested that Finland legally recognise the rights of Indigenous peoples and their right to their ancestral lands.
The Committees’ Views form part of a broader development of Indigenous rights according to which resource extraction cannot come at the expense of cultural rights. Nearly three decades ago, the HRC in Länsman affirmed that economic development must not erode the rights protected under Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, though it accepted a relatively narrow interpretation of that right. In contrast, the Committees’ recent Views reflect a more expansive understanding of the Indigenous right to culture and land under international law.
The Committees’ Views will also likely pressure Finland, which does not recognise the siida system in its domestic law and whose Supreme Administrative Court has consistently ruled that Sámi lack standing in matters related to permits and area reservations related to their traditional territories. The CCRC has requested that Finland provide information about its measures to implement its Views within 180 days (para. 11).
