Ranking Oil, Gas and Mining Companies
on Indigenous Rights in the Arctic
This ranking evaluates the public commitments, formalised
procedures and institutional arrangements of oil, gas and
mining companies for handling indigenous rights in the Arctic.
The purpose of the ranking is to support norm formation and
to contribute to improving the performance of companies on
indigenous rights by highlighting which companies have made
a public commitment to indigenous rights, and to what extent.
The ranking covers 92 oil, gas and mining companies
involved in onshore resource extraction above the Arctic
Circle. Each company is assessed according to 20 criteria
related to indigenous rights. The criteria were selected
by evaluating the main guidelines and legal instruments
related to resource extraction and indigenous rights in the
Arctic. These criteria include commitments to international
standards, the presence of organisational units dedicated to
on indigenous issues, transparency, and procedures for
consulting with indigenous peoples.
The actual performance of companies on indigenous rights
is not assessed – only their public commitments, formalised
procedures and organisational setup. Companies operating
in the Canadian and US Arctic do better overall in the ranking
than their counterparts operating in the Asian and European
and it is therefore experimental. Comments and feedback are
welcome, to firstname.lastname@example.org
• The top-ranking Arctic
company on indigenous
rights is Teck Alaska
• Over 60% per cent of
in the Arctic are poorly
prepared to respect
• Petroleum companies
scores than mining
the best performer is a
• The ranking indicates
ILO Convention 169
on Indigenous and
Tribal Peoples does
not guarantee that a
country provides an
companies to respect
• Between the start of
work on the ranking in
in 2016, the number
of eligible companies
mirroring a steep
decline in Arctic
Rank Company Average
Arctic Marine Engineering-Geol. Exp. RU
Aurion Resources FI
Auryn Resources CA
Avalon Minerals SE
Geo Mining NO
Hudson Resources DK
Kandalashka Al. Smelter (RUSAL) RU
Kovdorsky GOK RU
Magnus Minerals FI
Malmbjerget Molybdenum DK
Norge Mineral Resources NO
Norilsk Nickel RU
Nortec Minerals FI
Northern Cross CA
Northern Iron NO
Northern Shield Resources DK
Novourengoyskaya Burovaya Komp. RU
Platina Resources DK
Skaland Graphite NO
SK Rusvietpetro RU
The QUARTZ NO
Beowulf Mining SE
Brooks Range Petroleum US
Caelus Energy US
Commander Resources CA
Lovozero GOK RU
North-Western Phosphorus Co. RU
Norwegian Rose NO
Shahta Intaugol RU
Taranis Resources FI
Tertiary Minerals FI
Usibelli Coal Mine US
Rank Company Average
1Teck Alaska Incorp. US 3.75
2Total E&P NO 3.70
3MMG Resources CA 3.60
4Arctic Slope Regional Corp. US 3.55
5Statoil NO 3.40
6Doyon US 3.30
7Banland CA 3.00
8Kinross Gold RU 3.00
9Polymetal Int. RU 3.00
10 Imperial Oil CA 2.95
Exxon Mobil Alaska US
Agnico Eagle Mines FI
ConocoPhillips Alaska US
Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. US
First Quantum Minerals FI
Gold Fields Netherlands FI
Hilcorp Alaska US
Anadarko Petroleum US
Anglo-Am., Sakatti Mining FI
Dragon Mining FI
Eurasian Minerals SE
NANA Regional Corp. US
Almazy Anabara RU
Arctic Gold NO
GDF SUEZ E&P NO
Ironbank Zinc DK
Nenetskaya Neftyanaya Komp. RU
Nordic Mining NO
Northern Radiance RU
Nuna Minerals DK
Omya Hustadmarmor NO
Sibelco Nordic NO
TABLE 1. Ranking Arctic extractive companies on indigenous rights
The evaluation of ethical guidelines and standards
requires an assessment of how far, and in what way,
companies have committed to these instruments. This
ranking therefore assesses the public commitment,
formalised procedures and institutional arrangements
for handling indigenous rights of companies involved
in onshore oil, gas or mining in the Arctic, in terms of
some of the most important industry guidelines and
standards. The ranking covers 92 companies. The
companies are assessed on 20 criteria, for each of
which a company can score from 1 (worst) to 4 (best).
(For an overview of the criteria, see below).
Afterwards, an average score is calculated for each
company, which can likewise range from 1 to 4.
To limit the list to a manageable size and to ensure
clear rules, only those companies operating north of
the Arctic Circle were considered for inclusion. Only
the top 10 companies are ranked individually, while
the rest of the companies are grouped at dierent
levels according to which part of the scale their
average score is on (the lowest group comprises
those companies with average scores from 1 to 1.25,
the second lowest from 1.26 to 1.50 etc.).
Company No 1 in the ranking is Teck Alaska
Incorporated. Teck already has an impressive merit
list (Teck 2016). It has been classied as one of the
one of the Best 50 Corporate Citizens and one of the
Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations for the
fourth consecutive year by Corporate Knights, with
the top rank in the Metals and Mining category and
the second-best of all Canadian companies. It is also
assessed by Sustainalytics as being among the top 50
Socially Responsible Corporations and included in the
Dow Jones Sustainability World Index (DJSWI) for the
past six years, where it is among the top 10% of the
world’s 2,500 largest public traded companies. This
track record did not inuence the assessment of Teck
for this ranking. However, for a new and experimental
ranking such as this one, Teck’s track record could be
interpreted as showing that the ranking makes sense.
The companies that follow Teck at the top of the
ranking are, in rank order: Total E&P, MMG Resources,
Arctic Slope Regional Corp., Statoil, Doyon,
Banland, Kinross Gold, Polymetal International
and Imperial Oil. Although none of the top ten
companies in the ranking achieve the highest
possible score, these do very well and are arguably
the least risky companies to carry out resource
extraction in Arctic areas with indigenous peoples.
Canada MMG Resources
Denmark/Greenland Nuna Minerals
Finland Agnico Eagle Mines
Norway Total E&P Norge
Russia Kinross Gold
USA/Alaska Teck Alaska Incorp
TABLE 2. Top company by country of operation
It is worth noting that companies have been classied
according to the Arctic country in which they operate,
not their country of origin. It is also important to
emphasise that the ranking does not assess the
actual behaviour or track record of the companies,
but rather how well equipped they are to take into
account indigenous rights in terms of their formal
institutional, stang and communications set-up.
There are several reasons for this approach. The
rst two relate to practical issues in producing the
ranking, whereas the third, fourth and fth reasons
relate to the potential use of the ranking.
1. It is dicult to nd factual indicators for actual
performance that can be measured across a
number of companies in this way, and the element
of subjectivity is likely to be considerable in
assessing it and it is therefore dicult to compare
2. Assessing the actual performance of so many
companies in so many remote locations across
seven countries would be prohibitively expensive.
3. Although an assessment at the formal and
discursive level is more supercial than
an assessment of actual performance, this
ranking goes beyond supercial PR slogans
to look comprehensively at the actual public
commitments and institutional arrangements of
The top-ranked companies operating in each of the
various countries are as follows:
The results of this ranking exercise indicate that the
majority of companies involved in Arctic resource
extraction are ill-prepared to respect indigenous
rights. As many as 62% of companies are piled up
at the lowest four levels of the ranking. This means
that their average score is in the lowest third of the
ranking scale. These companies full almost none of
the 20 criteria listed in Table 5 below; the only two
criteria where many of them rise above the minimum
score are: “Does the company have any unresolved
conicts with indigenous peoples in the Arctic?” (B3)
and “Does the company have a formal procedure
for submission of complaints that is accessible to
indigenous peoples?” (C2). When companies get a
good score on these two criteria, this simply means
that no information was found about unresolved
conicts with indigenous peoples and that the
companies have a complaints procedure that
indigenous peoples could use (although it does not
reect actual usage). On the 18 other criteria, many
of which are more demanding, these companies
almost consistently get the lowest possible score.
This does not put their approach to Arctic indigenous
peoples in a positive light. However, on the bright
side, it means that for many companies it would be
relatively simple to improve their score.
The country where these lowly ranked companies
are most over-represented is Denmark/Greenland.
In fact, all of the companies operating in Greenland
fall into this category. The country where they are
second-most over-represented is Norway, where
88% of the companies fall into this category. There
are quite a few companies operating in Russia
among them too, but Russia is a large country and
there are also many companies there that score
higher. In Russia, only 31% of the companies score
in the lower third of the range. It is not just foreign
companies operating in Russia that make up the
higher-ranked companies in that country either, as
the only foreign company among the higher-ranked
companies operating in Russia is Kinross Gold. Many
of the others are well-known Russian brands, such
as Alrosa, Gazprom, Lukoil, Novatek and Rosneft.
Notably, there are also two companies operating in
Russia among the Circumpolar top ten.
4. Formal and public recognition of indigenous
rights is the rst step towards upholding those
rights. If companies are coaxed into committing
to rights on paper, it does not guarantee that they
will uphold the rights in practice, but it may make
it easier to hold them accountable later on.
5. The more companies formally and publicly
recognise indigenous rights, the greater the
pressure on other companies to do so, and the
better the basis for the creation of business norms.
Nonetheless, it also means that there may be
a considerable gap between the position of a
company in this ranking and its actual handling
of indigenous rights: the ranking in itself does not
guarantee good behaviour of any company, no
matter how high its rank.
One might argue that the gap between formal
commitments and actual implementation is greater
in Russia than in other countries, and that a ranking
such as this one is therefore too soft on companies
operating in Russia. That may be, but it is dicult to
argue that Danish, Norwegian or other companies
that pay hardly any attention at all to indigenous
rights should perform any better than their Russian
counterparts, which at least pay lip service to
indigenous rights. This also has implications for
which approach is needed to encourage ethical
practice among companies operating in Russia –
not so much pressure for public commitments, as
pressure for the practical implementation of the
commitments they have already made.
If one looks at the average scores of all companies
operating in each of the countries, a similar picture
emerges (see Table 3). Again Denmark/Greenland
comes o worst. However, here Norway does slightly
better than Russia. This reects the polarisation of
companies operating in Norway: while some have
low scores, the remainder are among the better
companies in the ranking.
At the top of the ranking are the companies
operating in the US and Canada, with average scores
well above the rest. Clearly, companies operating
in North America are better at committing to
upholding indigenous rights than are companies
in the other parts of the Arctic. It is not surprising
then that the top rank goes to a Canadian
company operating in Alaska. It is also noteworthy
that two of the countries that have not ratied
International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention
169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples have the
highest average scores, whereas the only two
Arctic countries that have ratied the convention,
Denmark and Norway, come out bottom and third
from the bottom. This indicates that ratifying ILO
169 alone is not sucient to create an enabling
environment for ethical company practice.
Sweden 1. 89
TABLE 3. Averages of companies operating
Oil and gas companies 2.14
Mining companies 1.74
TABLE 4. Average score by sector
As Table 4 shows, there is a striking contrast
between companies in the petroleum and mining
sectors, as the former have signicantly better
scores than the latter. The ranking does not show
why this is the case, therefore at this stage one
can only hypothesise. One possibility is that the
oil and gas companies have a higher prole in the
public domain than the mining companies, and that
this leads to greater public scrutiny. This, in turn,
forces oil and gas companies to take a more active
stance on corporate responsibility issues. There
are several potential reasons why companies in oil
and gas might receive more attention: their role as
the objects of nancial speculation; their perceived
geopolitical signicance; the dramatic visual impact
of oil spills, and the fact that consumers personally
and regularly ll their cars with gasoline. Modern
societies also use large amounts of mined minerals,
but many of those minerals, such as aluminium, are
built into more complex items that are bought on
a one-o basis. In any case, the dierence between
companies in the petroleum and mining sectors
should not be exaggerated; after all, the top-ranked
company in this report is a mining company.
In order to create a ranking, it is necessary to have
numerical input. There are many questions about
extractive industries and indigenous peoples
that could be relevant for this ranking, but that
nonetheless cannot be used since they do not lead to
factual answers that can provide a basis for numerical
scores. The criteria used in the ranking needed to
full the following conditions:
• They should be factual questions that can be
answered “yes”, “no”, or “partially”.
• It should in principle be possible for a company to
make public the information providing the answer
to the questions.
• In order to be able to distinguish as nely as
possible between companies at dierent levels,
some of the questions should concern basic
things that one would expect of most companies,
whereas others should be more demanding of the
criteria that many companies are unlikely to full.
The criteria for the ranking are inspired by a number
of existing guidelines and standards. In particular:
Equitable Origin (2012), GRI (2013), ICMM (2010), IFC
(2012), ILO Convention 169, Mining Association of
Canada (2012), the UN Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples, the UN Global Compact, and
World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Kreon (2015).
The ranking was created through the following
Stage 1. A set of criteria by which to assess the
companies was developed.
Stage 2. The criteria were piloted in two data-
gathering test runs and adjusted.
Stage 3. A detailed denition of companies eligible
for the ranking was formulated.
Stage 4. This denition was used to compile a list of
companies in each Arctic country.
Stage 5. Data were gathered on all of the companies
on all of the criteria.
Stage 6. The data were processed and the nal
Parallel to these stages, the ranking project was
presented to expert audiences on several occasions
for comment and feedback:
• International workshop at Arran Lule Sami Centre,
18 February 2014.
• Meeting at Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Aairs,
21 November 2014.
• International workshop with project partners,
Hotel Scandic Victoria, Oslo, 2 February 2015.
• Workshop at Nord University in connection
with the international conference “High North
Dialogue”, 17-18 March 2015.
• Mining and Mineral Cluster Norway conference,
Mo I Rana, 2 December 2015.
• International workshop at Scott Polar Research
Institute, University of Cambridge, 6-7 January 2016.
• A policy brief on the denition and delimitation of
companies engaged in natural resource extraction
in the Arctic was circulated to colleagues in several
countries, May-June 2016.
• International workshop in Hotel Scandic St. Olavs
Plass, Oslo, 22-25 August 2016.
For each criterion there were four possible answers,
each represented by a score between 1 and 4:
TABLE 6. Possible answers and scores
The criteria were piloted in two test runs. In the
rst test run they were tried through the tentative
gathering of data on a sample of four of the
companies. After some adjustments, a second
test run was carried out on 18 companies. In both
test runs, the sample was as diverse as possible
to ensure multifaceted testing of the questions
(companies from dierent countries; oil/gas/mining;
Criterion Related guidelines
A. International standards
1. Has the company committed itself to ILO Convention 169 on Tribal and Indigenous Peoples? ILO 169
2. Has the company committed itself to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? UN 2007
3. Has the company committed itself to any other written national or international rules or
guidelines on indigenous rights?
B. Company policy
1. Does the company have its own written policy on indigenous peoples? UN Global Compact 2013:
11, 12; WWF and Kreon 2015:
2. Does the company require sub-contractors to follow its policy and principles on
3. Does the company have any unresolved conicts with indigenous peoples in the Arctic?
4. Does the company have a workplace anti-discrimination policy that explicitly addresses
discrimination against indigenous peoples?
C. Company procedures
1. Does the company cover indigenous issues in its annual report or some other annual,
publicly available report?
UN Global Compact 2013:
20; TSM Protocol
2. Does the company have a formal procedure for submission of complaints that is
accessible to indigenous peoples?
UN Global Compact 2013:
11; WWF and Kreon 2015: 20
3. Are gender issues addressed in the company’s policy on indigenous peoples or in
another document on the company’s approach to indigenous issues?
Does the company have guidelines specically on how to engage in good faith
consultations with indigenous peoples to ensure free, prior and informed consent for its
project activities in Arctic areas?
Does the company ensure that information about its work in or near areas inhabited by
indigenous peoples is accessible to the indigenous peoples?
UN Global Compact 2013:
11; 21; EO10 0
UN Global Compact 2013:
14; WWF and Kreon 2015: 19
1. Does the company have sta with competence on and experience of work with
2. Does the company have sta formally responsible for handling indigenous rights?
3. Are the company’s policy and procedures on indigenous rights included in sta training? UN Global Compact 2013: 36
F. Benets and capacity building
1. Does the company have a policy of prot or benet sharing with the indigenous
people(s) in the Arctic areas where it works?
ICMM 2010: 61
2. Does the company build any infrastructure for the indigenous people(s) in the Arctic
areas where it works?
3. Does the company provide grants, scholarships or low-interest credit for the indigenous
people(s) in the Arctic areas where it works to get training, education or start
UN Global Compact 2013:
51; ICMM 2010: 93
4. Does the company provide support for the development of capacity on the part of
indigenous peoples to deal with the impact of resource extraction?
5. Does the company provide support for the cultural heritage of indigenous people(s)
aected by the company’s activities in the Arctic?
ICMM 2010: 89
TABLE 5. Criteria used to assess companies
World’s Top 100 Mining Stocks http://www.mineweb.com/archive/top-100-mining-companies-what-a-difference-a-year-makes/
2014 Top 250 energy companies http://top250.platts.com/Top250Rankings
Members of the Mining
Association of Canada
The 100 largest oil and gas
producers in Canada 2014
Oil and Gas Dispositions Northern
DENMARK / GREENLAND
List of mineral and petroleum
licenses in Greenland
The Finnish Mining Industry: An
Arctic Review 2013 – Logistics &
Mining pdf, p. 40
‘Turning prospects into success:
Mining Industry’, p. 21-22
Mining and exploration
companies in Finland
Active metal ore mines and
The Finnish mining industry, and
overvie w 2012
Mining, oil and gas companies in
Google search for “oil/gas companies Lapland”
Identication of companies
Several questions arose related to the methodology
for identifying specic companies for inclusion in
the ranking. Again, one might think of this task as
relatively straightforward, but in practice it is complex.
There exists no central register of such companies at
the circumpolar level, or even at the level of individual
Arctic states. The data gathering therefore took the
form of triangulation, using multiple written and
some oral sources to identify relevant companies.
The following sources were examined in order
to identify companies involved in Arctic resource
extraction: national lists of oil and gas and mining
companies; databases of mineral extraction
licenses; and maps of oil and gas licenses. Each of
these avenues was pursued across the seven Arctic
countries: Denmark/Greenland, Canada, Finland,
Norway, Russia, Sweden and the USA/Alaska. These
written sources were supplemented with Google
TABLE 7. Sources used to identify companies involved in natural resource
extraction in the Arctic
searches in English and Russian for the names of
Arctic towns and locations (for example Hammerfest,
North Slope or Yamal), in combination with relevant
keywords (for example, “company”, “mine”, “oil” and
“gas”). Searches were carried out in English and,
where relevant, Russian. For a list of the sources used
to identify companies, see Table 7.
At rst, over 180 companies were identied for
potential inclusion in the ranking. As the work
progressed, this number was reduced by around half.
Interestingly, one of the reasons for the reduction of
companies was that many of them went bankrupt,
or at least called o their Arctic activities during
the two years from 2014, when the initial list had
180 companies, and 2016, when the ranking was
nalised. This is an indication of the dramatic decline
in resource extraction in the Arctic during this period
of declining commodity prices (see project paper
‘The Commodity Market Roller Coaster’).
Map of the Norwegian continental
shelf: the Barents Sea
Map of the Norwegian mineral
Faktasider Oljedirektoratet http://factpages.npd.no/factpages/
России - Горное дело
предприятия в России
Каталог нефтегазовых сайтов в
Каталог нефтегазовых сайтов в
Google search: Апатиты
The same search with Мурманск и города Мурманской области: Апатиты, Никель,
Мончегорск, Кировск, Кола, Кандалакша, Североморск, Полярный, Полярные
Зори, Оленегорск, Заполярный, Ковдор, Нарьян-Мар, Воркута, Салехард
(полярный круг проходит по городу), Норильск, Игарка, Верхоянск, Дудинка,
Тикси, Диксон, Певек, Анадырь, Едарма, Хатанга
Database of Russian business
news articles as the source to
navigate relevant companies
Mining, oil and gas companies in
Google search: “mining/oil/gas companies Norrbotten”
Directory of Public Companies in
Arctic Review 2013 - Logistics &
Mining pdf, p. 41
Checked the article http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/country/2009/myb3-2009-sw.pdf
Alaska Mining Licenses http://tax.alaska.gov/programs/programs/queries/mining/license/license.aspx?60610
List of Alaska Oil and Gas
Companies/ Alaska producers and
North Slope Unit Land Working
State of Alaska, Department of
Natural Resources, Division of Oil
and Gas, as of August 2015
North Slope Oil and Gas Activity
State of Alaska, Department of
Natural Resources, Division of Oil
and Gas, as of May 2015
Equitable Origin (2012) EO100 Standard.
https://www.equitableorigin.org/eo100-for-responsible-energy/overview/, accessed 29 November 2015.
GRI (2013) G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative.
Hanway, J., Holmes, J., Klein, M., Xiyue, M. L., McLean, A., Michaels, J., Paik, E. (2015) Proposal Concerning the
Divestment of Wesleyan Univesity’s Endowment from Coal. Presented to the Wesleyan Investment Committee by
the Committee for Investor Responsibility, 26 Feb. 2015.
International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM)(2010) Good Practice Guide: Indigenous Peoples and Mining.
London: International Council on Mining and Metals.
International Finance Corporation (IFC) (2012) IFC Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability.
pdf?MOD=AJPERES, accessed 9 June 2016.
International Labour Organisation (ILO) (1989) Convention 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C169, accessed 4 Jan. 2016.
Mining Association of Canada (2012) TSM Assessment Protocol: A Tool for Assessing Aboriginal and Community
Outreach Performance. http://mining.ca/towards-sustainable-mining/protocols-frameworks
Secretariat of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (2006) Backgrounder on Indigenous Peoples – Lands,
Territories and Resources. Prepared for the sixth session of the UNPFII.
www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpi/documents/6_session_factsheet1.pdf, accessed 15 June 2015.
Teck (2016) ‘Teck Named to the Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations List.’ http://www.teck.com/news/news-
releases/2016-6828/teck-named-to-the-global-100-most-sustainable-corporations-list, accessed 21 Aug. 2016.
UN (2007) Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpi/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf, accessed 3 July 2015.
UN (2011) Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. New York: United Nations.
UN Global Compact (2013) A Business Reference Guide: United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
accessed 4 Jan. 2016.
World Wildlife Fund and KREON (2015) Environmental Responsibility Rating of Oil and Gas Companies in Russia.
Acronyms and abbreviations
DJSWI Dow Jones Sustainability World Index
GRI Global Reporting Initiative
ICMM International Council on Mining and Metals
IFC International Finance Corporation
ILO International Labour Organisation
TSM Towards Sustainable Mining
WWF World Wildlife Fund
About the author and the project
Author: Research Professor Indra Overland (email@example.com)
Research Professor Indra Overland is Head of the Energy Programme at the Norwegian Institute of International Aairs
(NUPI). He is also Professor II at Nord University and spokesperson for prixindex.net. He did his PhD at the Scott Polar
Research Institute of the University of Cambridge and has since worked extensively on the post-Soviet energy sector,
including oil, gas and renewables. He is co-author of Bridging Divides: Ethno-Political Leadership among the Russian Sámi.
Review: Dr Emma Wilson
Series editor: Professor Piers Vitebsky (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Design: Eileen Higgins (email@example.com)
Copy editing: Niamh O’Mahony
This paper is a product of the project Indigenous Peoples and Resource Extraction in the Arctic: Evaluating Ethical Guidelines
at the Árran Lule Sami Centre, Ájluokta/Drag, Norway (Project Leader Sven-Roald Nystø, Scientic Leader Professor
Piers Vitebsky, Research Coordinator Dr Emma Wilson) and funded by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Aairs. The
project also includes researchers from the Arctic Centre, Rovaniemi; the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology, Russian
Academy of Sciences, Moscow; the Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge; University of Tromsø, the
Arctic University of Norway; ECW Energy Ltd; and Michigan Technological University.
Project contact: Sven-Roald Nystø (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Árran Lule Sami Centre
Árran – julevsáme guovdásj/lulesamisk senter © Báhko ISBN 978-82-7943-059-9
Published December 2016