A/HRC/33/42/Add.3 Finnmark County (see A/HRC/18/35/Add.2, para. 81). The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has recommended that Norway follow up on the proposals of the Sami Rights Committee, including by establishing an appropriate mechanism and legal framework, and identify and recognize Sami land and resource rights outside Finnmark (see CERD/C/NOR/CO/21-22, para. 30 (b)). 27. The Special Rapporteur heard explanations from Sami representatives that resource areas, the diversity of nature, cultural monuments, the landscape and the fjords comprise an important part of the basis for their culture. The management of areas, nature and cultural heritage is therefore important to ensure the basis for preserving and developing Sami culture. It is important to find good solutions for the management of the use and conservation of natural resources that secure the reindeer husbandry, fresh and seawater fishing, small-scale farming, hunting and gathering that are important to Sami culture. The Special Rapporteur noted disagreement between State authorities and the Sami people on the current regulations on sea salmon fishing and spring duck hunting in the municipality of Guovdageaidnu/Kautokeino. 28. A major concern of Sami representatives relates to the Minerals Act11 and its limited recognition of the rights of the Sami people. Despite objections from the Sami Parliament, the Minerals Act was adopted in 2009, and was the subject of an exchange of correspondence between the former Special Rapporteur and the Government of Norway. In 2015, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination raised concerns over the Act’s limited safeguards for the Sami people and recommended that it be revised (see CERD/C/NOR/CO/21-22, para. 30). 29. A central concern is that the Minerals Act differentiates between the Sami in Finnmark and those outside Finnmark, who have no specific rights or safeguards. The distinction is particularly problematic as there are currently no legal frameworks or specialized mechanisms in place to identify Sami land and resource rights outside Finnmark County, and it may in practice jeopardize future recognition of Sami claims to their traditional lands and resources. Another concern expressed to the Special Rapporteur relates to the absence of a requirement to consult and obtain consent for proposed measures. While the Act provides the Sami Parliament with an opportunity to comment on applications for licences in Finnmark and attributes some weight to Sami culture when assessing the applications,12 the Special Rapporteur does not consider that international standards are met when consultation consists of a mere opportunity to comment on proposed measures that may have a significant impact on the Sami people and their rights. Another way in which the Minerals Act does not meet international standards is the lack of specific consultation or consent requirements with respect to the particular Sami communities that will be directly affected by the proposed measures. 30. While the Special Rapporteur notes that the procedures for consultations between the Norwegian and Sami Parliaments apply to the whole central government administration and are said to embrace mineral activities, there appears to be a lack of common understanding between the Government and the Sami Parliament about how the consultation agreement is to be complied with in practice. Sami representatives have suggested that the implementation of the procedures for consultation remains particularly challenging in relation to energy development projects and reindeer husbandry. That, together with a regulatory regime that does not adequately protect Sami interests and rights, makes it difficult to ensure predictability and to allow for coexistence between traditional and new industries. In the view of the Special Rapporteur, the criticism frequently directed 11 12 Act of 19 June 2009 No. 101 relating to the acquisition and extraction of mineral resources. See the Minerals Act, sect. 17. 9