CERD/C/102/D/54/2013 (iv) Application of these principles in the present case 6.8 The Committee observes that the State party did not refute that Vapsten is part of the petitioners’ traditional territory. Moreover, the Committee observes that the Supreme Administrative Court has acknowledged that Sami reindeer herding communities’ traditional use of land has established property rights, based on immemorial prescription and customary law.17 The Committee also observes that, under the Nordic Saami Convention, negotiated by the Nordic Governments together with the Sami parliaments of Finland, Norway and Sweden, which builds on existing international law and aims at implementing it in a Nordic context, access to land and water is recognized as the foundation of the Sami culture, language and social life, and thus both the individual and the collective property rights of the Sami to their lands and resources are protected. 6.9 The Committee recalls that, in its concluding observations concerning the implementation by Sweden of article 5 of the Convention, it has expressed concern over the issue of land rights of the Sami people, in particular their hunting and fishing rights, which are threatened by, inter alia, the privatization of traditional Sami lands. It has repeatedly recommended the adoption of legislation recognizing and protecting traditional Sami land rights, reflecting the centrality of reindeer husbandry to the way of life of the indigenous people of Sweden and enshrining the right to free, prior and informed consent into law, in accordance with international standards.18 6.10 The Committee considers that it needs to examine the petitioners’ claims regarding the alleged failure of the State party to consult the Vapsten Sami reindeer herding community and obtain its free, prior and informed consent in the granting of mining concessions on its traditional territory. It notes that the concessions are valid for 25 years and entail rights to the extraction and utilization of nickel, iron, chromium, cobalt, gold, silver, platinum and palladium. In respect of the petitioners’ claim that the State party failed to fulfil its obligations under article 5 (d) (v) of the Convention, the Committee considers that, even though the right to property is not absolute, States parties must respect the principle of proportionality when limiting or regulating indigenous peoples’ land rights, taking into account their distinctive status as described above (paras. 6.5–6.7 above), so as not to endanger the very survival of the community and its members.19 6.11 The Committee notes the petitioners’ allegation that, when added to the existing industrial projects granted by the State party in the Vapsten community’s traditional territory, the three mining exploitation concessions which motivated the present communication would result in the petitioners being unable to pursue their traditional livelihood, meaning that they would need to be forcibly relocated from their traditional territory. The affected Sami community was able to provide only input to the triple project, which cannot, in the petitioners’ opinion, be characterized as anything close to consultations having taken place, as consultations must involve a serious engagement with the community, with a genuine and sincere ambition to reach consensus. Indeed, the petitioners maintain that the State party must obtain their free, prior and informed consent in the case of such negative impacts. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the granting of exploitation concessions does not constitute a violation of article 5 (d) (v) of the Convention because there is nothing to indicate that the decision to give priority to the designation of the area as being of national interest for mineral extraction over its designation as being of national interest for reindeer husbandry was erroneous. In the opinion of the State party, should the Committee find that there has been a limitation on the petitioners’ rights, it should be noted that the limitation was necessary and proportional in relation to the State’s valid objective. Indeed, extraction of nickel is important and, as deposits are located in a certain area, extraction cannot be carried 17 18 19 12 Supreme Court’s rulings in the Taxed Lapp Mountain and Nordmaling cases. CERD/C/304/Add.103, para. 13; CERD/C/64/CO/8, para. 12; CERD/C/SWE/CO/18, para. 19; CERD/C/SWE/CO/19-21, para. 17; and CERD/C/SWE/CO/22-23, para. 17. See also the requests for free, prior and informed consent in the Committee’s concluding observations related to reports of other States parties: CERD/C/SUR/CO/13-15, para. 26; CERD/C/NAM/CO/13-15, para. 24; and CERD/C/PRY/CO/4-6, para. 18; and in the framework of the Committee’s early warning and urgent action procedure, decision 1 (100) Canada. Poma Poma v. Peru, para. 7.6.