Helgeland District Court in the Øyfjellet Wind Farm Case (Fosen II)

The Øyfjellet Wind Farm, consisting of 72 turbines and the largest of its kind in Norway, is situated in an area that impacts the Jillen-Njaarke reindeer grazing district. The reindeer husbandry interests argued that the development would impede access to essential winter pastures and threaten Sami cultural practices. Their claims included allegations of invalid decisions, inadequate impact assessments, and violations of both national legal standards and Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). From the developer’s perspective, it was emphasized that the reindeer husbandry interests must adapt and that mitigating measures had been established to ensure the continued traditional use of migration routes.

The district court concluded that the expropriation decision was valid and that neither procedural errors nor insufficient assessments warranted its nullification. Furthermore, although the wind farm would cause inconveniences and increased operating costs, these were not so significant as to constitute a breach of Article 27 of the ICCPR. The court’s appraisal suggested that mitigating measures and adjustments could adequately safeguard the reindeer husbandry’s access to winter pastures, even though these involved the continued use of modern methods, such as using motor vehicles for transport and helicopters for herding.

The Expropriation Law Safeguard for Reindeer Husbandry and the Duty to Adapt
The judgment builds on longstanding case law recognizing that reindeer husbandry enjoys expropriation law protection. At the same time, it delineates the scope of the duty to adapt. While imposing additional effort and expense is not permissible without compensation, the industry must accept certain operational changes so long as the fundamental basis for the enterprise and the possibility of cultural practice remain intact. Here, the interests of traditional reindeer use of the landscape are balanced against society’s desire to harness natural resources—in this instance, wind energy.

The Importance of Mitigating Measures and Dynamic Follow-Up
A key aspect is the court’s acknowledgment that well-designed mitigation measures can provide practical solutions over time. The court noted that the wind farm does not permanently block the migration routes, but that tailored measures—such as snow removal, restricted turbine operation, or support schemes—make it possible to maintain traditional migration patterns. We thus see a dynamic administrative model in which the authorities first set a broad framework (the concession), and then refine specific measures in dialogue with the reindeer husbandry interests and the developer. This represents a more flexible approach to concession conditions, where details are developed and adjusted subsequently, which is particularly significant in complex land-use cases.

The Practical Application of International Law – Threshold for Violating Article 27 of the ICCPR
Sami interests are strongly protected under both Norwegian and international law, and Article 27 of the ICCPR offers special safeguards for Sami culture. However, the judgment clarifies that not every incremental burden suffices to establish a violation. The threshold requires “substantial negative consequences” for cultural practice. Unlike the Fosen case, where essential winter grazing areas were directly affected, the court found here that the “minimum factor” for the enterprise—winter pastures—remained accessible. Thus, the threshold under international law was not met—not even in the long term. This nuance is important: a qualitatively more severe erosion of ecological and economic conditions is required for the court to find that cultural exercise is endangered. This provides an important clarification for future cases: even in times of increasing land-use conflicts, there is some scope for development as long as core areas and the real capacity to maintain reindeer husbandry remain intact.

The Interplay of Law, Politics, and Economics
This case illustrates that expropriation and major development projects rarely rely solely on legal considerations. Economic, technological, and political factors all play a role. The court’s evaluation of procedural matters, assessments, and cumulative effects highlights the complexity of these conflicts. It also shows that the judiciary has limited capacity to govern ongoing administrative processes. The court sets boundaries, but the details and adjustments occur largely beyond the courtroom.

No “Value Creation Bonus” for Reindeer Husbandry
The reindeer husbandry interests requested that compensation cover not only losses but also a share of the wind farm’s generated value. The court rejected this. Norwegian expropriation law rests on the principle of full compensation for economic losses, not profit-sharing. The judgment thus confirms that the law of compensation is not a tool for redistribution, but rather a mechanism to restore losses—not to create surplus income or entitle a share in the developer’s returns.

The Helgeland District Court’s appraisal awards reindeer husbandry financial compensation for specific, economic drawbacks but acknowledges that significant natural interventions like a wind farm may be justified if mitigation measures ensure the continuation of cultural practices. The judgment fine-tunes the boundary between what reindeer husbandry must accept and what triggers compensation, illustrating that domestic and international legal standards can be reconciled with pragmatic considerations for renewable energy development. In this way, the case contributes to further legal clarification and provides valuable guidance for actors involved in similar projects in Sápmi and other indigenous territories. It will be interesting to follow the case’s further developments and to see whether it will be appealed further.