Integrating Indigenous people in protected areas, toward a decolonizing process? Comparison between Assinica (Eeyou Istchee) and Laponia (Swedish Sápmi)

• Main Author: Maraud, Simon
• Other Authors: Laboratoire de Géographie Physique et Environnementale (GEOLAB), Université Blaise Pascal - Clermont-Ferrand 2 (UBP)-Institut Sciences de l'Homme et de la Société (IR SHS UNILIM), Université de Limoges (UNILIM)-Université de Limoges (UNILIM)-Université Clermont Auvergne 2017-2020 (UCA 2017-2020 )-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Université Clermont Auvergne (UCA), Université Laval Québec (ULaval), GEOLABUniversité de Limoges, Stockholm University
• Format: Conference Object
• Language: English
• Published: HAL CCSD 2017
• Subjects: [SHS.GEO]Humanities and Social Sciences/Geography; Laponia; sami
• Online Access: https://hal.science/hal-01628955

International audience The North is usually seen as a threatened place regarding natural and cultural aspects. Nowadays, Indigenous people are gradually involved in the management of protected areas on their ancestral lands. This recent involvement is presented by governments as a central step for a progressive State and even for a decolonizing mechanism. However, this point has to be weighed. Is this “indigenous involvement” part of decolonization? It is undeniable that the protected areas roots represent a colonial and Westernised tool. Thus, this integration must be studied regarding its discursive meaning and its context of domination.Two cases will illustrate this paper, one is Laponia, a natural and cultural Heritage World Site of UNESCO in Swedish Sápmi; the other one is Assinica, a National park of Quebec in Eeyou Istchee. Laponia management is based on a consensus between the Swedish Crown, the locals and the Sami reindeer herders. Assinica is being implemented by the Cree community of Ouje-Bougoumou. This paper aims to question the real redistribution of the power between the government and the Natives concerned. Furthermore, at a different scale, in these two regions, the paradigm of “development” is decisive and has to be taken into account by anology with the indigenous repossession of power. Is it relevant to talk about decolonization if the western idea of “development” is still the main tool for the apprehension of Swedish Sápmi and Eeyou Istchee?