A/HRC/33/42/Add.3 and culture, or if it will cause considerable harm to reindeer herding.39 In assessing the impacts, the permit authority is required to take into consideration not just the potential effect of the permit applied for, but also that of any other corresponding permits or other activities, such as forestry, in the area. 64. Under the Mining Act, the Sami Parliament and the Skolt Sami Village Council have an independent right of appeal concerning permits granted on the grounds that the proposed activities undermine the rights of the Sami as an indigenous people or, in the case of the Skolt area, if the activities may essentially weaken the living conditions of the Skolt Sami and their livelihoods.40 If relevant, the Sami Parliament, the Skolt Sami Village Council or local reindeer owners’ association are also expected to participate in the final inspections following the closures of mines. 41 The Mining Act does not contain any provisions on benefit-sharing with the Sami people. 65. Currently, there are no active mines in the Sami homeland region, but there is gold panning. While the Sami Parliament does not oppose traditional gold panning, it has expressed opposition to mechanized gold-panning projects, which are increasingly destroying Sami areas and threatening traditional Sami livelihoods. 66. The Mining Act is ambitious and shows that the Government is responding to concerns raised by the Sami people. However, concern has been shared with the Special Rapporteur about the unsatisfactory implementation of the Act. One of the more specific concerns is that the impact assessments that are required under the Act have not sufficiently addressed adverse impacts on the affected Sami communities, which has obliged the Sami Parliament to appeal all permits granted in the Sami homeland region. In the view of the Special Rapporteur, that implementation gap can to a large degree be attributed to the fact that the Mining Act does not clearly define conditions that undermine Sami or Skolt livelihoods and culture or cause considerable harm to reindeer herding, leaving too much room for interpretation. The problem has been further compounded by a limited understanding of Sami culture and livelihoods on the part of the State agency in charge of granting permits, and the fact that the evaluation of impact assessments has tended to rely disproportionately on information provided by the applicants. Permits appear to have been granted on the assumption that the applicants’ activities will not have an adverse impact on Sami or Skolt livelihoods and culture or cause considerable harm to reindeer herding, whereas in practice, in many cases, the activities for which permits have been granted have entailed land encroachments that are detrimental to Sami cultural livelihoods. 67. While the Special Rapporteur is encouraged by the new Mining Act and its provisions to accommodate Sami rights, the concerns communicated to her make her question whether it has brought about concrete changes on the ground. She reminds the Government that the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights clearly establish that, in meeting their duty to protect, States should not only enforce laws that aim at, or have the effect of, requiring business enterprises to respect human rights, but should also periodically assess the adequacy of such laws and address any gaps.42 She encourages the Government, in consultation with the Sami Parliament, to assess why the Act is not being enforced effectively and what measures could reasonably correct the situation. In that connection, one proposal that surfaced in her discussions with Sami representatives was to establish an independent oversight mechanism with expertise on Sami issues under the auspices of the permit authority in order to ensure that the quality impact assessments 39 40 41 42 Ibid., part II, chap. 5, sect. 50. Ibid., part VI, chap. 17, sect. 165 (5). Ibid., part V, chap. 15, sect. 146. Guiding Principle 3. 17