89151 INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE JUNE 2014 © 2014 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank 1818 H St., NW Washington, DC 20433 U.S.A. Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org E-mail: feedback@worldbank.org All rights reserved. June 2014 This volume is a product of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/ or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly. For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA, telephone 978-750-8400, fax 978-750-4470, http:// www.copyright.com/. All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA, fax 202-522-2422, e-mail pubrights@worldbank.org. PAGE ii | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary............................................................................................................................................................... vi Introduction............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Part I. Indigenous Peoples in the Evolution of the Russian State – A Brief Historical Review............................................. 3 A. Ethnicity in Historical Context.................................................................................................................................... 3 Part II. Who Is Indigenous?...................................................................................................................................................11 A. Russian Law...............................................................................................................................................................11 B. International Law...................................................................................................................................................... 12 C. World Bank Policy..................................................................................................................................................... 13 Part III. Legal Protection for Indegenous People.................................................................................................................. 17 A. General Legal Framework in the Russian Federation............................................................................................... 17 B. Participation in Development Process....................................................................................................................... 20 C. Lands and Related Natural Resources....................................................................................................................... 22 D. Commercial Development of Natural and Cultural Resources................................................................................. 24 E. Physical Relocation of Indigenous Peoples............................................................................................................... 26 F. Developmental Assistance......................................................................................................................................... 28 G. World Bank Projects Applying the Indigenous Peoples Policy (OD 4.20 and OP 4.10) in Russia.......................... 30 H. An Indigenous View.................................................................................................................................................. 32 Part IV. Key Issues and Opportunities.................................................................................................................................. 37 A. Development Preferences and Challenges of Russia’s Indigenous Peoples............................................................. 37 B. Possible Directions for Further Action...................................................................................................................... 40 Annex A. Population Profile of Indigenous Peoples in the Russian Federation...................................................................... I Annex B. Map of Geographic Distributions of Indigenous Peoples Populations................................................................. VI Annex C. Case Studies........................................................................................................................................................VIII Case Study 1. Building Indigenous Capacity: the Sakhalin Indigenous Minorities Development Plan [Russian Federation]...................................................................................................................................................... IX Case Study 2. Demonstrating Customary Indigenous Land Use [Nenets Autonomous Okrug, Northwestern Russia].....................................................................................................XII Case Study 3. Institution-Building for Northern Aboriginal Peoples in Russia (INRIPP-2)........................................XV Case Study 4. Regional Support for the Traditional Economy.................................................................................XVIII Annex D Literature Cited................................................................................................................................................XXIV ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ADB Asian Development Bank AO Autonomous Oblast (or Okrug) ASSR Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republics CANSR Chief Administration of the Northern Sea Route CCCS Cross-Cultural Consulting Services, PLLC CERD Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination CPS Country Partnership Strategy CSO Civil Society Organization EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development ECA Europe and Central Asia region of the World Bank FPIC Free, Prior and Informed Consent ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) ICERD International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination ICESR International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights IFC International Finance Corporation IP Indigenous People IPO Indigenous Peoples Organization IPP Indigenous Peoples Plan IPPF Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework KMNRF Small-numbered Indigenous Peoples of the Russian Federation KMNSSDV Small-numbered Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East MIGA Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency MINREG Ministry of Regional Development OD Operational Directive OP Operational Policy PS Performance Standard RAIPON Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North RSFSR Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic RTA Reimbursable Technical Assistance TTNU Territories of Traditional Nature Use UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights UN United Nations UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNHRC United Nations Human Rights Council USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics WBG World Bank Group WGIP Working Group on Indigenous Populations WIPO United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The report was prepared by Aaron Kyle Dennis and Grego- The study was overseen by a core team led by Nicolas Per- ry Eliyu Guldin of the consultancy Cross-Cultural Consult- rin (ECSSO, World Bank). Jennifer Shkabatur (ECSSO) ing Services, PLLC (CCCS), a private firm registered in the and Carolyne Makumi (ECSSO) provided support to final- USA that specializes in working with international devel- ize this report. Luis Felipe Duchicela (peer reviewer), Elis- opment institutions and private sector firms to devise col- abeth Huybens, Victor Bundi Mosoti (peer reviewer), Juan laborative partnerships with indigenous groups. The Rus- Navas-Sabater, Soren Nellemann (peer reviewer), Michal sian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North, Far Rutkowski, Lada Strelkova, and Jorge E. Villegas offered East and Siberia (RAIPON)—the preeminent Indigenous helpful comments and suggestions. Peoples Organization of the Russian Federation—served as collaborating partner to CCCS for all stages of report preparation, with a particular responsibility for data review and enunciation of indigenous priorities. PAGE vi | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A popular saying holds that, “In Russia, everyone is and the ensuing economic, social and administrative re- indigenous.” Indeed, there is some truth to this statement, forms instituted under the Soviet Union, ethnicity devel- as most ethnic communities in today’s Russian state re- oped into a central political issue—with sizeable minority sided—ab origine—within its current territorial borders. populations vying with the Central Government for terri- Many of these communities self-identify as both Russian torial control and sovereignty. In contrast to previous eras, citizens and as distinctive ‘peoples’. Some maintain cus- the modes of life of indigenous populations were forcibly tomary cultural, economic, social, and/or political institu- changed during the Soviet period. Since the end of the So- tions that are separate from those of the dominant society viet era, both minority and indigenous communities have and culture. Some claim collective attachment to geo- had to re-negotiate their place within a multi-ethnic, multi- graphically distinct habitats or ancestral territories and to cultural Russia.1 the natural resources therin. Some speak distinctive lan- guages. The World Bank’s concept of Indigenous Peoples (IPs), as elaborated, under Operational Policy (OP) 4.10, A) RUSSIAN DEFINITION is therefore pertinent to at least some of these groups. The concept of indigeneity has considerably evolved throughout the recent history of the Russian state. Pri- OBJECTIVES or to the Revolution of 1917 the peoples today classified as “indigenous” were seldom referred to in state policy, except This Country Profile has several specific aims. One is in general terms such as “stray persons of different origin” to provide Bank task teams with an understanding of some found in 1822 in the Charter for the Management of Persons of the historical, legal and social issues that are involved of Different Ethnicity. During the Soviet period, the terms in making a determination to apply OP 4.10. If OP 4.10 is “native peoples and tribes of the Northern regions”, “small invoked, this report seeks to inform task teams of some of peoples of the North,” and “peoples of the North,” were used the key concerns of IPs and the requirements of the Rus- sequentially to define legal categories of peoples targeted for sian legal context that should be taken under consideration special state policy protections. With the post-Soviet (1993) to enhance project sustainability. Another aim is to define Constitution of the Russian Federation, the concept of “indi- priority issues of particular concern to IPs in the Russian geneity” was introduced via provisions for "small-numbered Federation that the Bank might reference as it continues to Indigenous Peoples.” This legal category was later refined work with the Government of the Russian Federation to im- by the ‘Unified Register of Indigenous Small-numbered Peo- plement the Bank’s Country Partnership Strategy (CPS)’s ples of the Russian Federation’ codified by the Government Theme 2: Expanding Human Potential. of the Russian Federation on March 24, 2000. The Russian Unified Register enumerates a list of for- IPS IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION mally recognized indigenous groups. It now comprises 47 ‘numerically small’ minority peoples, of which 40 in- Discussions of ethnicity in the Russian Federation are habit territories belonging to Siberia, the Russian North or both complex and sensitive due to historical legacies of the Russian Far East. Other indigenous groups include IPs state- and nation-building. As the Russian Empire ex- living in the Caucasus, the Volga, and the steppe zone, as panded in the 17th century, it subsumed numerous, diverse well as the small peoples of north-west Russia2. In the mod- peoples. During the Tsarist period, state policies focused on ern Russian state, official identification of ethnic groups as asserting state political and economic control over northern “Indigenous Peoples” is based on the following criteria:3 and eastern territories. They otherwise paid little attention to reforming or integrating traditional political institutions • Living in the historical territories of their ancestors. and subsistence systems of newly subjugated peoples— though in later years there was an increasing pressure to- • Preserving their traditional way of life, occupations, ward ‘Russification’. With the fall of the Russian Empire and folk art [handicrafts]. PAGE vii • Self-recognizing themselves as a separate ethnicity. the population lacks primary education. In other groups, more than 10 percent of the population lack primary education. Rus- • Numbering at most 50,000 people within Russia. sian is the first and main language for more than 90 percent of IP communities. Levels of unemployment among the IP IPs’ advocacy groups often decry the definitional ap- population are 1.5-2 times higher than average in the Russian proach taken by the Government of the Russian Feder- Federation. A considerable part of the working IP population ation. Indigenous communities that are larger than 50,000 indicates that its primary income derives from private farming. cannot be included in the Unified Register and they are thus not eligible for the benefits of the IP status. However, there are larger ethnic groups in the Russian Federation that share B) THE WORLD BANK’S DEFINITION the characteristics and challenges of small-numbered IPs but do not enjoy recognition or legal protections (such as prior- The definition of indigeneity is a central part of the ity access to natural resources such as fishing and hunting World Bank’s OP 4.10. OP 4.10 notes that a wide range grounds). The requirement to maintain a traditional way of of terms may refer to peoples that would be recognized life and inhabit certain remote (especially Northern or Far as Indigenous Peoples for purposes of policy application, East) regions of the country is also of concern, as it restricts including “indigenous ethnic minorities, aboriginals, hill the freedom of IPs to engage with the modern economy and tribes, minority nationalities, scheduled tribes, or tribal hinders their competitiveness. groups” (paragraph 3). However, “[b]ecause of the varied and changing contexts in which Indigenous Peoples live As of 2010, the peoples recognized as small-numbered and because there is no universally accepted definition IPs comprised ca. 316,000 individuals. 258,000 of them of Indigenous Peoples” (paragraph 3), OP 4.10 does not are small-numbered IPs of the North, Siberia, and the Far “define the term.” Instead, it states that ‘distinct’ and ‘vul- East, residing within 28 constituent political administrative nerable’ social and cultural groups that possess the follow- units of the Russian Federation. The size of these groups ing cumulative requirements would trigger the policy for varies from fewer than 300 to more than 40,000. Accord- operational purposes: self-identification as members of a ing to the 2010 census, the population of IPs in Russia has distinct indigenous cultural group; collective attachment to been modestly growing. A comparison between the results geographically distinct habitats or ancestral territories; dis- of censuses held in 2002 and 2010 reveals that the IP pop- tinctive customary cultural, economic, social, or political ulation increased during the period by 9,567 (representing institutions; and an indigenous language. a population growth in 16 out of 47 recognized IP commu- nities). The census also revealed that the number of women The definitions used by the World Bank and the Russian in most IP communities outweighs the number of men. The Federation currently diverge. OP 4.10 applies unambig- IP population is currently concentrated in original territo- uously to small-numbered IPs residing in the northern and ries designated for IP communities, and only 4.3 percent far eastern areas of the Russian Federation. However, OP of IPs reside outside of these territories. Nearly 65 percent 4.10 could also be triggered by the presence of distinct and of the recognized IP population resides in rural areas, often vulnerable sociocultural groups that are not covered by the constituting the majority of farmers in mixed communities. Russian definition. The median age of the IP population is relatively young and their education level is relatively low. The median age LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR IPS of IPs ranges between 21 and 29 for most indigenous groups. Compared to averages in the Russian Federation, IP com- Protections granted to IPs as part of OP 4.10 and by munities have more population below working age, and less Russian legislation are as follows. population above working age. This statistics also reflects the fact that IP groups have higher birth rates and higher mortal- ity rates compared to the average in the Russian Federation. A) PARTICIPATION IN DEVELOPMENT Infant mortality is 1.8 times higher among IPs compared to PROCESSES the Russian Federation average. Education levels of IP com- munities are relatively low, but vary from one group to an- A central pillar of OP 4.10 is the requirement for “free, other. Among Nentsy, for example, more than 25 percent of prior, and informed consultation” with IPs regarding PAGE viii | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE projects that affect them. The scope of IPs’ participation Russian law also provides that the land utilized by within Bank-financed projects includes participation in the an indigenous community for traditional economic process of project preparation for the purposes of ascertain- activities can be formally recognized as a “territo- ing and responding to the concerns of IPs. Such participation ry of traditional nature use.” These territories can be is predicated on full disclosure about the nature and intention assigned to that community to use free-of-charge for of the proposed project activities. Broad community support a certain renewable period of time. IPs living in these is seen as a necessary precondition of project approval. territories are guaranteed several privileges: the right to continue occupy the land and use its renewable resources Russian federal law formally requires the participation for traditional activities, the right to participate in deci- of IPs in development contexts, but this requirement is sion-making when industrial development in the territo- not always implemented in practice. The formal legal re- ry is considered, and the right to receive compensation quirement includes IPs’ participation in monitoring the use when industrial development occurs that interferes with of land resources, adoption and implementation of federal their access to land or damages the environment. How- and regional laws, environmental and ethnological assess- ever, IP organizations maintain that these provisions are ments, and more. However, despite legal safeguards that often not implemented. require informing and consulting IPs in development pro- cesses, there is a lack of a systematic consultative frame- Hunting rights and access to forests, and aquatic resourc- work. IPs remain underrepresented in executive and legis- es present a challenge. These areas are regulated by codes lative bodies at the national level, and their representatives which define limitations to the concepts of usufruct and own- do not always have opportunities to participate in consulta- ership and obligate IPs to compete in commercial tenders for tive working groups (whenever such groups are created) to hunting and fishing grounds with private businesses. These review new legislation. legislative provisions substantially endanger IPs’ continued access to their sources of subsistence, food, and income. B) LANDS AND RELATED NATURAL RESOURCES In practice, the majority of IPs has no permanent le- gal rights over the land and natural resources that they OP 4.10 refers to the protection of lands and related nat- depend on for their survival. Although the constitution ural resources. Recognizing that “Indigenous Peoples are of the Russian Federation allows for varied forms of land closely tied to land, forests, water, wildlife, and other natural and natural resources ownership (private, state, municipal resources,” OP 4.10 requires projects that ‘affect such ties’ and otherwise), most of the land and subsoil resources in to pay attention to the customary rights of IPs pertaining to Russia are the property of the state. Agricultural, forest, lands and territories, the need to protect such lands, the cul- pasture and other land parcels utilized by private entities tural and spiritual values that IPs attribute to such lands, and are primarily leased from the government. IPs’ rights to IPs’ natural resource management practices. land and natural resources are consistent with this general framework; they are accorded rights to use the land and Formally, Russian law offers IPs several protections its renewable and common resources while title ownership related to the use of lands and natural resources. These remains with the state. protections aim to ensure that IPs retain access to their cus- tomary territories for the purposes of traditional economic Reindeer herders are particularly vulnerable and de- activity, participate in the enforcement of state legal protec- pendent on access to land. Reindeer communities repre- tions, and retain access to material and financial resources sent a considerable portion of the indigenous population that required to maintain such areas. However, the Russian Land preserves traditional lifestyle, and unrestricted access to land Code also rules out any form of land tenure other than rent is critical for the preservation of their sources of livelihood. and private property. This contradictory approach creates se- However, as reindeer herding is typically nomadic, the ac- vere difficulties for IPs in asserting their rights to land and cess rights of these communities are not sufficiently protect- resources. While government representatives maintain that ed, and they may not be able to graze their reindeer due to indigenous groups rarely pay any fees for the use of land, IP changes in land use induced by commercial projects. In such representatives contend that they do pay such fees, and even cases, physical displacement does not occur due to an official if these are small, they nonetheless impose an economic bur- decision to relocate the community, but rather because lands den on indigenous communities. on which the community used to graze its reindeer become PAGE ix affected by industrial projects and are no longer suitable for and impose often arbitrary and non-transparent restrictions reindeering purposes. on indigenous fish-dependent communities that make tradi- tional fishing practices impossible. C) COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES D) PHYSICAL RELOCATION OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OP 4.10 provides that the commercial development of the natural and cultural resources of IPs is conditional OP 4.10 requires borrowers “to explore alternative pro- upon their prior agreement to such development. This ject designs to avoid physical relocation of Indigenous requirement applies to projects involving “the commercial Peoples.” This requirement reflects the recognition that development of natural resources… on lands or territories “physical relocation of Indigenous Peoples is particularly that Indigenous Peoples traditionally owned, or custom- complex and may have significant adverse impacts on their arily used or occupied” as well as projects involving “the identity, culture, and customary livelihoods.” In those “ex- commercial development of Indigenous Peoples’ cultural ceptional circumstances, when it is not feasible to avoid re- resources and knowledge.” location”, borrower relocation must have “broad support” from the affected IPs communities as part of the free, prior, Territories inhabited by IPs of the North are affected by and informed consultation process. an ongoing expansion of industrial operations, mostly in the extractive industries. IPs and their representative organ- Russian law does not contain provisions that require the izations note that such industrial activity often occurs with- consent of IPs for involuntary resettlement. The lack of out prior consultation with IPs about planned activities—let protections for IPs in the Russian Federation against gov- alone adequate compensation or benefits-sharing arrange- ernment or private sector project-related involuntary re- ments. This situation is exacerbated by both federal and locations is a serious issue, as physical displacement can regional government bodies’ lack of appropriate guidelines cause irreparable damage to a way of life if access to ances- and the legislative provisions that exist carry no sanctions tral territories is severed. However, physical displacement for their violation. Large infrastructure development projecs of indigenous communities in Russia is more likely to oc- in the North and Far East regions of the Russian Federation cur due to project-induced changes in land use rather than are particularly worrisome in terms of their negative effect of by official government fiat. the livelihood of IPs. Recent reports of industrial operations in indigenous territories operating without consultation, con- sent or even information sharing have come from Tomsk E) DEVELOPMENTAL ASSISTANCE oblast, Yamal Nenets okrug, Altai republic, the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), Kamchatka territory, and Sakhalin oblast. OP 4.10 provides that the Bank may offer financial assis- tance to support initiatives that protect IPs. At a member Russian legislation does not limit tenders and auctions country’s request, the Bank may support the country in its of land, forest and water areas in territories where IPs development planning and poverty reduction strategies by live and for the natural resources they use. This situa- providing financial assistance for a variety of initiatives. tion effectively reduces the hunting grounds and pastures Russian national policy objectives for development as- for IPs. Moreover, the law has no regulation that obliges sistance to IPs largely correlate with OP 4.10. Yet, in license holders to provide indigenous users access to are- spite of legislative improvements envisioned in a 2009 as that they use for traditional livelihood. Such legislation Federal Decree on the Concept of the Sustainable Develop- creates grounds for conflicts and lawsuits where IPs have to ment of the Small Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia defend their right to traditional livelihood. and the Far East of the Russian Federation, little has been accomplished so far to help realize these objectives. Fishery presents a particular challenge. Access to fish stocks and fishing grounds is especially critical, as fish *** constitute the single most important source of nutrients for many IPs. In spite of this right being protected by federal In sum, there is a gap between formal IP rights under the law, fishing authorities pursue highly restrictive policies Russian legislation and their practical implementation. PAGE x | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE Formally, IPs in the Russian Federation have a wide range of them to be involved in the crafting of laws and regula- special benefits and rights guaranteed to them, broadly paral- tions affecting them. leling the special considerations and requirements for partic- ipation and consultation called for in OP 4.10. However, they • Rights Awareness and Access to Justice. IPs wish to are not always attainable. Contradictory laws and regulations have full access to information that affects their lives as well as a lack of enforcement can result in the de facto and livelihoods and to raise awareness in indigenous denial of many of the rights accorded to IPs. Many IP organ- communities of the rights they are entitled to. In those izations maintain that the Constitution actually affords little cases where IPs are excluded from exercising their space to IP communities (as differentiated from individuals). rights to participate in development processes, they As a result, IPs and their representative organizations tend wish to have access to effective—and legally estab- to refer to international law—rather than Russsian law—to lished—forms of recourse. substantiate community claims to specific rights and free- doms vis-à-vis conflicting laws and activities of central and • Benefits-sharing. IPs desire fair and equitable benefits regional state bodies. The outome is a tension-ridden rela- to project-affected indigenous communities based on tionship between the state and indigenous communities. just compensation for damages and impacts. Program- matically speaking, initiatives in support of education The cumulative effects of historical circumstances and and access to health services are the most frequently current socio-political conditions aggravate existential cited community social needs. There is also an increas- threats posed to IPs. These include the on-going degrada- ing awareness of the need for targeted gender-based tion of their environment caused by resource exploitation, initiatives. the relatively inferior state of their health, the rapid loss of culture, language and traditional knowledge, the impover- • Cultural Survival. Declining population sizes com- ishment of indigenous rural populations and the profound bined with increased acculturative pressures have environmental changes being brought about by global cli- brought some peoples’ very existence into question. mate change. In this context, the IPs consulted for this re- IPs are concerned about their ability to carry their cul- port talked about development that balances economic po- ture to subsequent generations and hope to use any de- tential and resource extraction with ecological and cultural velopment initiative to advance that goal. sustainability. POSSIBLE DIRECTIONS FOR IPS’ CORE DEVELOPMENTAL FURTHER ACTION PRIORITIES • Support for Indigenous Priorities. To support indig- The following five areas can be considered to be core develop- enous priorities, it may be useful to develop appro- mental priorities of IPs in the Russian Federation: priate regulatory frameworks, both at the federal and regional levels, to extend protection of rights to land • Protection of Rights to Land and Resources. IPs in the and resources and to enhance participatory approach- Russian Federation desire coherence, consistency and es. Capacity-building efforts could address the need certainty in regard to state legal formulations concern- for raising rights awareness and increasing access to ing their access to land and resources. They are also in justice, while programmatic initiatives could speak to need of assistance to obtain such access. benefits-sharing preferences and cultural heritage pro- tection measures. • Participation. IPs seek the right to participate fully and effectively in the decisions that will concern their lives • Supporting Concrete Initiativies. It could be promis- and livelihoods. They seek the widespread acceptance ing to support initiatives that make the development of this right, along with support for the creation of process more inclusive of IPs, and raise the capacity of mechanisms guaranteeing this right that would allow both local governments and indigenous communities PAGE xi to collaborate on development projects. Other types of NOTES: initiatives include recognition of customary land tenure 1 This report focuses on the 47 IPs populations of the North, Siberia, systems and establishing data baselines of indigenous and the Far East. communities focusing on traditional economic activi- 2 Diatchkova, Galina. 2001. ‘Indigenous Peoples of Russia and Po- ties and making this information publically available. litical History’ Canadian Journal of Native Studies 21(2): 217-233. Available online at: http://www2.brandonu.ca/library/cjns/21.2/ cjnsv21no2_pg217-233.pdf • Ensuring the Engagement of IPOs. As a means of helping to ensure that developmental initiatives are 3 The criteria defining ‘Indigenous Peoples’ as such in Russia (the legal Russian term being коренные малочисленные народы devised with the active participation of IPs, represent- Российской Федерации [korennyye malochislennyye narody ative Indigenous Peoples Organizations (IPOs) could Rossiyskoy Federatsii], abbreviated as “малочисленные народы”) be engaged as interlocutors on projects affecting IPs is established in Article 1 of Federal Law of April 30, 1999 N 82- FZ ‘On the Guarantees of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of the communities. Russian Federation’ (as amended). Available at: http://base.garant. ru/180406/ • Engagement with the Private Sector. A unified ap- proach could be devised to support corporate engage- ment with indigenous communities regarding projects that will affect those communities. This could include encouraging responsible private sector relationships with project-affected IPs through voluntary compli- ance with the provisions of IFC ‘Performance Stand- ard 7 (Indigenous Peoples).’ Following on these initial developments, a new paradigm of community engage- ment with the private sector can be explored based on a dynamic three-way partnership between indigenous communities, local governments, and companies. PAGE xii | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE INTRODUCTION This Country Profile has several objectives. One is to The structure of the report is as follows. Part I of this provide Bank task teams with an understanding of some of ‘Country Profile’ provides the historical context for the the historical, legal and social issues that are involved in emergence of minority and indigenous issues in Russia making a determination to apply OP 4.10. In cases where including the concept of indigeneity. Part II outlines the OP 4.10 is invoked, this report seeks to inform task teams of definition of “indigenous people” under Russian and inter- some of the key concerns of Indigenous Peoples (IPs)3 and national law, and according to the World Bank policy, as the requirements of the Russian legal context that should stated in OP 4.10. Part III discusses the legal and regula- be taken under consideration to enhance project sustaina- tory protections granted to IPs under Russian law and pur- bility. Another aim is to define priority issues of particular suant to the Bank’s OP 4.10. It focuses in particular on IPs’ concern to IPs in the Russian Federation which falls un- rights to participate in developmental processes, access to der Theme 2: Expanding Human Potential of the Bank’s lands and related natural resources, commercial develop- Country Partnership Strategy for the Rusian Federation for ment of natural and cultural resources, physical relocation the period of 2012-2016 (CPS)’s. of IPs, and developmental assistance. Part IV outlines key development priorities of IPs in the Russian Federation, re- The basis of this Country Profile Report is a desk re- lying on inputs from the Russian Association of Indigenous view of publically available English and Russian lan- Peoples of the North, Siberia, and the Far East (RAIPON). guage materials (analysis of secondary data). Efforts This part also includes directions for further action that have also been made to confirm report findings, including could be undertaken to support dialogue on IP rights in the a questionnaire survey distributed to recognized experts in Russian Federation. The annexes provide comparative data IP issues in the Russian Federation. Also, a panel of stake- on the circumstances and locations of indigenous groups holders from government, civil society and academia was in Russia. convened at the Moscow office of the World Bank on June 18, 2012 to discuss key topics and issues. Some of the at- tendees later served as peer reviewers for a draft version of this document. A final working group meeting to review the outcomes of this report and the case-study annexes was convened at the Moscow office of the World Bank on April 2, 2013. PAGE 1 PAGE 2 | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE PART I. INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE RUSSIAN STATE – A BRIEF HISTORICAL REVIEW A popular saying holds that, “in Russia, everyone is in- policies differentiating primarily between Russian and digenous.” Indeed, there is some truth to this statement. non-Russian populations. Some recognition was however Most ethnic communities in today’s Russian state resid- made of the special circumstances of northern indigenous ed—ab origine—within its current territorial borders.1 groups. Throughout most of this period, political and eco- Many of these communities self-identify as both Russian nomic control of northern and eastern territories was the citizens and as distinctive ‘peoples.’ Some maintain cus- primary concern of the Russian state, while traditional tomary cultural, economic, social, and/or political institu- indigenous political institutions and subsistence systems tions that are separate from those of the dominant society were preserved. Towards the end of the period, there was and culture, and some claim collective attachment to geo- an increasing pressure toward ‘Russification’ and gaining graphically distinct habitats or ancestral territories and the territorial control. This project also included efforts to con- associated natural. Some also speak their own languages. vert minority religious groups to Orthodoxy, which would In sum, there is a wealth of distinctive ethnic and cultural often result in civil unrest. communities within the modern Russian state. With the fall of the Russian Empire in 1917, ethnicity By Russian legal and regulatory standards, however, only became a central political issue. The economic, social and a small subset of ethnic peoples count as IPs. It is there- administrative reforms instituted under the Soviet Union for- fore important to start by engaging with the question: Who cibly changed the modes of life of indigenous populations. is indigenous? Historical context is important to respond to This resulted in sizeable minority populations vying with the this question, as it exposes the sensitivity of the concept of central government for territorial control and sovereignty. ethnicity in Russian socio-politics and the depth of inter-eth- nic tensions and political struggles. It also explains the emer- Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, both mi- gence of the Russian differentiation between IPs and other nority and indigenous communities have had to re-ne- minority ethnic groups according to population size (a point gotiate their place within a multi-ethnic, multicultural that will be treated in greater length in Part II). Russia. The post-Soviet period can be characterized by relatively more democratic methods of governance and a renaissance of traditional cultures of IPs and other small A. ETHNICITY IN HISTORICAL nations, though only within the limited political and eco- CONTEXT: THE POLITICS OF nomic space opened by the Government of the Russian REGIONALISM AND ETHNO- Federation.2 The next section of this report focuses on the NATIONALISM THROUGHOUT THE period of the Russian Empire through the Soviet Union, HISTORY OF THE RUSSIAN STATE followed by a separate discussion of ethnic politics and IP issues in the post-Soviet Russia. The current complexity and sensitivity of ethnicity in the Russian Federation is based on the historical dy- namics of state- and nation-building. As the Russian Em- A) MINORITY INTEGRATION IN THE RUSSIAN pire expanded in the 17th century, it brought under Russian EMPIRE AND THE SOVIET UNION state control numerous peoples. Throughout most of the Tsarist period, the concept of indigeneity was non-exist- The integration of minority nationalities with the Rus- ent and was instead subsumed within more general state sian state has its historical antecedents in the Russian PAGE 3 Empire  and even the Tsardom of Russia. By some ac- permission. Hiring manpower was allowed ''with the con- counts, the annexation of the territories where indigenous sent of clan administration." The importation and sale of and minority populations were settledbegan in the 13th liquor was strictly forbidden.8 century in the northern part of what is known today as Eu- ropean Russia, when the Saami were the first people to pay Yet shortly thereafter, in the 1830s, Russian imperial levies to the state of Novgorod.3 More intensive efforts at authorities started promoting the concept of a unified state expansion were undertaken from the mid-16th centu- ‘Russian’ national identity. This project included efforts ry onward. As local rulers sought to extend their territorial to convert minority religious groups to Orthodoxy. This control and power, their policies toward minority popula- initial drive for ‘Russification’ (русификация; rusifikatsiya)9 tions varied between greater and lesser degrees of interven- led to civil unrest and was subsequently moderated. How- tion in economics and governance. However, Russian state ever, it regained momentum after the November Uprising interference in social and cultural practices was relatively of partitioned Poland in 1831, and especially after the Rus- limited in scope throughout this period. sian defeat in the Crimean War in 1856, the Polish rebellion of 1861, and the January Uprising of the Polish-Lithuanian At the time of first encounter, indigenous and minority Commonwealth in 1863. populations already had well-developed communities, economies and cultures. The indigenous populations of One response to the imperial ‘Russification’ project was the North, Siberia and the Far East had specially-adapt- heightened national sentiment among many of the mi- ed livelihoods based on a nomadic or semi-nomadic way nority populations in the Russian Empire.10 In the build- of life, of fishing, hunting, and/or reindeer herding4 and up to the the Russian Revolution of 1917, the Bolsheviks complex forms of social organization and governance to leveraged this sentiment to develop pacts with leading eth- regulate their societies.5 In this period, state (Tsarist) pol- nic groups that traded promises of territorial recognition in icy was to not interfere with these systems, nor to worry return for political allegiance. Following the triumph of the whether the diverse ethnic subjects self-identified as inde- Soviet forces in the following years, the concepts of ethnic- pendent peoples rather than as part of a collective ‘Rus- ity and territoriality (ethno-regionalism) took on an entirely sian’ cultural community. The primary concern was that new form as various peoples previously subjugated under they recognized the administrative dominion of the Rus- the Russian Empire sought to define a new multi-ethnic and sian state, i.e the authority of the Tsar, and were prepared multi-confessional state. to remit tributes.6 The practice of granting ethno-territorial autonomy to Interaction between Russian and non-Russian peoples leading ethnic groups was institutionalized as an organ- continued to increase throughout this early period. This izing principle of the Soviet state. But the definition of how was due to various political interests, including military such autonomous ‘nations’ would be constituted became expeditions to further expand the eastern territories. This politically charged. Joseph Stalin’s (1913) Marxism and the ultimately led to the construction of well-fenced towns and National Question, the cornerstone of the Soviet policy to- the collection of levies. At the time, the main governing wards nationalities, defined a nation as “a historically con- body dealing with non-Russian populations was the Sibe- stituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis rian Department, established in 1637. As part of these de- of a common language, territory, economic life, and psy- velopments, Russian peasants started to settle in Siberia in chological makeup manifested in a common culture.”11 Yet large numbers by the early 19th century. many of the subject nationalities or communities of the former Russian Empire did not fully meet these criteria for As settlers and aboriginal peoples entered into com- reasons of cultural, linguistic, religious and tribal diversity. mercial relations, the Russian state began to realize the Other groups lacked a political consciousness articulated on necessity of legal regulation. “Regulations of Indigenous the basis of ethnic unity. Throughout the subsequent evo- Peoples”, adopted in 1822, aimed to respond to this need, lution of Russian state administration, ethnicity remained a establishing legal judicial and regulatory entities, and de- salient political concern. fining the status of the non-Russian population.7 It sought to preserve the traditional administration and economy of The Bolshevik government adopted the Declaration of indigenous populations, while prohibiting Russians from the Rights of the Peoples of Russia. The Declaration, issued settling in areas of clan communities without asking their on November 15, 1917, recognized equality and sovereign- PAGE 4 | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE ty of all the peoples of Russia; their right for self-determi- Bashkirians in the Bashkirian Republic, and the Tuvinians nation, up to and including secession and creation of an in- in the Republic of Tuva, named after the dominant ethnic dependent state; freedom of religion; and free development group in the given territories. The republics were extend- of national minorities and ethnic groups on the territory of ed varying degrees of governanmental autonomy.16 Areas Russia.12 This position was confirmed by the Constitution with relatively large population ratios of aboriginal people of 1918. Thus, the IPs of the Russian North acquired equal in sparsely populated regions were recognized as ‘national rights with other ethnic groups of Russia. Also worth not- okrugs’ (now ‘autonomous okrugs’). Some of those also ing is the ‘Decree of the Government On the Preliminary included titular nations, such as the Chukchi in the Chukot- Protection of Indigenous Tribes’ of 1923, which established kan AO and the Evenks in the Evenkian AO. Yet the ethnic a category of people, “natives of the north,” who were in peoples after whom these territorial administrative units need of special state protection, banned the import of alco- were named never constituted a majority population and hol to areas of permanent inhabitation by northern IPs, and were still considered “national minorities” (национальные introduced a state monopoly on the fur trade, along with меньшинства; natsional'nyye men'shinstva).17 Apart from other measures.13 national republics, oblasts, and okrugs, several hundred national districts were also established (population 10,000- The establishment of the Soviet Union cement- 50,000) and several thousand national townships (popula- ed the concept of “nationalities.” The Union of So- tion 500-5,000). viet Socialist Republics (USSR, also ‘Soviet Union’) was formally established in 1922 as a federation of na- Despite the general policy of granting national territo- tionalities within the boundaries of the former Russian ries to all ethnic groups, several small nationalities in- Empire. Immediately thereafter, the Bolshevik govern- itially remained without their own territories. The first ment began the process of ‘national-territorial delimitation’ population census of the USSR in 1926 reported that the (национально-территориальное размежевание; nat- state was constituted of 176 distinct nationalities.21 How- sional'no-territorial'noye razmezhevaniye). This process ever, the peoples of the North, as a prominent example, strengthened the concept of ‘nationalities’ via officially had neither autonomous republics nor autonomous oblasts. sanctioned territorial definitions in which ethnographers They were particularly vulnerable because of their small and ethnographic knowledge played a significant role.14 size and dependency on traditional economic activities of Eventually, the USSR came to encompass 15 major na- fishing, hunting and reindeer herding. It is from this context tional territories, each organized as a Union-level republic that the modern category of IPs first began to take shape as (Soviet Socialist Republic or SSR). All 15 national repub- distinct from other ‘minority nationalities.’ This situation lics, created between 1917 and 1940, had constitutionally began to change in the 1930s with the creation of 10 nation- equal rights and equal standing in the formal structure of al/autonomous areas for IPs and local tribal governments, state power. The largest of the 15 republics was the Russian including the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, the Koryak Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, (RSFSR), which, al- Autonomous Okrug, and the Nenets Autonomous Okrug.19 beit predominantly comprised of ethnic Russians, was also ethnically the most diverse—hence ‘a federation within a During this period, scholars and politicians proposed federation.’ two alternative approaches to IPs’ status:20 In the early 1920s, the RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federal • The ‘Traditionalist’ or ‘Native’ approach emphasized Socialistic Republic) was administratively partitioned the importance of preserving the culture of the northern into autonomous ethnic territories.15 Those were referred IPs and proposed that contacts with the newly arrived to as Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republics (ASSR) and population be minimized. Some proponents of this ap- Autonomous Oblasts (AO)—many of which exist to this proach also advocated for the creation of ‘reserved’ ar- day as ethnic republics within the Russian Federation. Pur- eas similar to those existing in Western countries (that suant to the general policy of granting ‘national territories’ is, the United States of America).21 to all ethnic groups, numerous lower-level administrative territorial divisions were also created. The larger of these • The ‘Innovative’ or ‘Integrative’ approach argued for units were the republics (республика; respublika), or so- the rapid and radical integration of the northern IPs called “titular nations” (титульная нация; titul'naya nat- into the culture of other peoples of Russia and their siya) of the Yakuts in the Sakha Republic (Yakutia), the adoption of socialist values. PAGE 5 At first, the ‘traditionalist’ policy was pursued. Under small-numbered IPs, these changes had dramatic ramifica- the Decree of the Presidium of the All-Russian Central tions for community interaction with nature and society. Executive Committee dated 20 June 1924, the Committee of the North22 was set up to attend to the “problems” of The Soviet government was also concerned with the de- the indigenous population.23 In 1926 the Central Executive velopment of nationalism in ethno-territorial units. To Committee issued a Decree on the Establishment of Interim secure its position, the Soviet government therefore subject- Regulations for the Management of Indigenous Tribes of ed some minority populations to deportation—notably peo- the Northern Periphery of the RSFSR,24 identifying 26 In- ples of the North Caucasus and the Volga Germans—and digenous Peoples (туземных народностей; tuzemnykh nar- forced others to assimilate with the prevailing Russo-Sovi- odnostey).25 Immediate steps were taken to “assist” these et culture. This forced relocation resulted in the destruction specially recognized indigenous populations. Exemptions of ethnic social, cultural and economic structures.32 The from taxation and conscription were codified, along with a migration of Russian-speaking Slavs to non-Russified re- law requiring that Native people, including Native women, gions reinforced the process of acculturation. be included in courts of the people. "Culture bases" were also established, where cinemas, cooperatives, clinics, and By the end of the 1930s, the concept of nationality had libraries were located.26 The policies of the early 1920s largely supplanted that of ethnicity. Official Soviet that aimed at the development of indigenous cultures and narratives celebrated ethnic differences through colorful economies by means of limited partnership and slow-paced folkloric displays that emphasized the existing unity and reform, while relatively benign, still reflected a common friendship of the peoples of the USSR but—at the same perception that IPs were backward (отсталый; otstalye) time—concealed any forms of cultural difference that and had to be ‘saved’ from their ‘primitiveness.’ would threaten or cast doubt upon this narrative. From the 1930s onwards, teaching of Russian language became In the late 1920s and early 1930s, political sentiment compulsory and many native languages disappeared from shifted in support of the ‘innovative’ or ‘integrative’ ap- schools.33 To encourage this process, indigenous children proach. The political discourse at the time revolved around were sent to boarding schools where their Moscow-trained the notion that the whole society had to move quicker along teachers refocused their lives, languages, and identities the road to “true” socialism and eventual communism. The away from their indigenous heritages. Committee of the North was disbanded in 1934. In 1935, power over Northern Affairs was assumed by the Chief Ad- In the 1960s, the government started pursuing a policy ministration of the Northern Sea Route (CANSR).27 The ear- of resettling people from small villages to larger urban lier toleration of the Russian state for the quasi-independence areas. This policy had the most significant impact on in- of indigenous societies was replaced with forced integration. digenous lifestyles. It destroyed ecologically balanced en- All the trappings of ‘primitive communism’—animism, vironmental management systems that had prevailed for shamanism, rituals and ceremonies, the chum and yaranga centuries. Ethnic integration and mass separation of chil- (temporary tent-like traditional dwellings), native languages, dren from their parents occurred due to their education in etc.—were to be reformed by socialist principles and indus- boarding schools. This was coupled with the reduction of trial development. accessible hunting, fishing and herding areas and the loss of opportunities to engage in traditional activities. Those Collectivization became the major factor of reorganiz- trends led to a spiritual and economic crisis among IPs. ing traditional economy and social life. Centralized set- From the 1970s, hidden unemployment, alcoholism, bro- tlements with modern houses, schools, and hospitals would ken families and the undermining of traditional culture all replace the nomadic and semi-nomadic life-styles of the continued to increase. These phenomena led to a decrease IPs.28 Along with the larger economy of the entire Soviet in rates of population growth and later to declining abo- Union, the means of production were socialized—whether riginal populations—paralleling similar trends in countries farmland or reindeer herds—transforming customary sub- from Australia to the USA. sistence systems.29 Household-based family relations gave way to collective farms (колхозы; kolkhozes)30 sustained Partially in response to these changes, ethno-national- by state subsidies. Overall, state control and regulation ist sentiments began to arise among minority groups were introduced into all aspects of the economic, social from the 1960s onward. New classes of indigenous polit- and political lives of IPs.31 For both minority regions and ical and cultural elites began to emerge. In the 1980s, the PAGE 6 | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE combination of growing ethno-nationalist sentiments, the Russia’s small-numbered minority and indigenous pop- emergence of a reformist General Secretary, Mikhail Gor- ulations became even more vulnerable within the new- bachev, and disparities across the territorial administrative ly re-constituted state. Many communities experienced constituents of the Soviet Union provided the conditions something of an organizational void, lacking the former for minority issues to re-assume central significance.34 structure imposed by the Soviet government and unable to define a role for themselves in the newly-emerging systems In sum, while the USSR was conceived as a union of of state governance. Furthermore, the collapse and disin- distinct nations,35 not all nationalities were considered tegration of state-owned fur farms, fisheries, and reindeer as equally advanced. The 19th century Marxist conceptu- breeding enterprises eliminated the wage-earning opportu- alization of nationality, retained by many Communist Party nities that indigenous communities had relied on. As a re- theoreticians, encompassed a range of ethnic formations sult, the post-Soviet era saw many minority and indigenous that were defined on a continuum of backward to advanced, communities surviving in virtually non-cash environments with Russians as the most advanced group. Pastoral groups with a significantly increased dependency on natural re- like the Sakha occupied a sort of middle ground—per- sources for their subsistence.39 Unemployment, poverty and ceived as less advanced than the national populations of the alcoholism soared, and some communities were brought to Ukraine, Belarus, and Uzbekistan, but still less backward the brink of extinction.40 than the small indigenous populations of the North, Siberia and the Far East. These varied classifications—linked as The political struggles of the early 1990s and the in- they were to administrative hierarchies of territorial gov- creasing prominence of ethno-regionalism sparked a ernance—have partially conditioned how the concept of general revival of the ethnic practices of minority pop- IPs is understood in the post-Soviet period.36 ulations. Russia’s minority IPs (especially the twenty-six “Indigenous Peoples” of the 1926 'The Central Executive B) ETHNICITY AND INDIGENEITY IN THE Committee Decree’) grew more active. They established FORMATION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION representative organizations advocating actively for protec- tion and expansion of their rights and freedoms. The First The abrupt transition to a market economy and the Congress of the Northern Minorities took place in March collapse of the Soviet Union brought questions of eth- 1990, calling for a return of historic lands and the creation nicity and nationality back into the center of Russian of traditional tribal councils.41 politics. Both ethnic Russians and minority populations faced two principal and interrelated challenges. First, the question arose as to how to formulate a Russian national identity that incorporated the diversity of peoples and cul- tures of the new Russian Federation. In the RSFSR of the late 1980s, the Russian democratic movement was formed around a civic notion of the state. Yet after independence, this movement disintegrated in the face of ethno-nationalist sentiments. The status of ethnic Russians, Russian culture and history, and the Russian language in the new Russian state thus needed to be determined. Second, due to the link between territory and political/economic rights that devel- oped in the late 1980s,37 the administrative arrangements of the new Russian Federation became extremely important. The contradiction between the Kremlin's desire to maintain dominance over the regions and the desire for autonomy, or even independence on the part of the minorities, fostered a power struggle between federal and regional authorities.38 Political contestation over issues of ethno-nationalism es- calated into open conflict between the Russian state and some of its national minority constituents—particularly in the North Caucasus. PAGE 7 NOTES: 11 Definition of a nation in J. Stalin, Marxism and the National Ques- tion, March–May 1913; Russian original: J. Stalin, Collected Works 1 The Russian State similarly is very strong in asserting that all in 16 Volumes, volume 2. people living in Russia are indigenous. In the key document, On the Concept of Sustainable Development of the Indigenous Peoples 12 Declaration of Rights of the Peoples of Russia, 15 November 1917, of the North, Siberia and the Far East of the Russian Federation, Big Soviet Encyclopedia, on-line edition. Retrieved 15 November the very first paragraph states that ‘most ethnic groups living in the 2008. country were composed as ethnic entities on the territory of Russia 13 Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP). 2004. and in this sense they are indigenous people that have played a Persistent Toxic Substances, Food Security and Indigenous Peoples historic role in establishing the Russian state.’ of the Russian North. [Chapter 2 of the Final Report]. Oslo: Arctic 2 Diatchkova, Galina. 2001. ‘Indigenous Peoples of Russia and Po- Monitoring and Assessment Programme Website. Available online litical History,’ Canadian Journal of Native Studies 21(2): 217-233. at: http://amap.no/documents/index.cfm?dirsub=%2FPersistent%20 Available online at: http://www2.brandonu.ca/library/cjns/21.2/ Toxic%20Substances%2C%20Food%20Security%20and%20In- cjnsv21no2_pg217-233.pdf digenous%20Peoples%20of%20the%20Russian%20North&sort=- datelastmodified&CFID=8305&CFTOKEN=113E1F0F-1653- 3 Diatchkova 2001. 1298-0AFC124363948720 4 United Nations Human Rights Council. 2010. ‘Report of the 14 Hirsch, Francine. 2005. Empire of nations. Ithaca: Cornell Univer- Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and funda- sity Press; Hicks, Susan M. 2011. ‘Between Indigeneity and Nation- mental freedoms of indigenous people,’ James Anaya. Addendum ality: The Politics of Culture and Nature in Russia’s Diamond Prov- — ‘Situation of Indigenous Peoples in the Russian Federation’ [A/ ince.’ Theses submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for HRC/15/37/Add.5] New York: Office of the High Commissioner the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Vancouver: Faculty of Graduate on Human Rights. Available online at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ Studies, University of British Columbia. Available online at: https:// Issues/IPeoples/SRIndigenousPeoples/Pages/CountryReports.aspx circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/37777. 5 The peoples of the Caucasus region—incorporated into the Russian 15 The exact number of ASSR and AO varied over the years as new state in the 19th century, along with a variety of Central Asian entities were created while old entities switched from one form populations—had similarly developed lifeways and institutions of to another, transformed into Union-level republics (for example, governance. By the time of the Russian occupation, the Indigenous Kazakh and Kyrgyz SSR created in 1936, Moldovan SSR created in Peoples of the North had already developed subsistence patterns 1940), or were absorbed into larger territories (for example, Crime- in accordance with their natural environment, as well as regula- an ASSR absorbed into the RSFSR in 1945 and Volga German tions concerning social relations, mutual aid, public support of ASSR absorbed into RSFSR in 1941). the disabled, orphans and widows, regulations of collective use of certain territories (hunting grounds, fishing sites, reindeer pastures), 16 Such ‘autonomy’ did not in fact imply any form of self-administra- property relations and inheritance. Most indigenous nations led a tion. nomadic life and were organized in autonomous clans or territorial 17 Dallmann, Winfried and Helle Goldman. No date. ‘Indigenous – communities based on common law. Under these circumstances native – aboriginal: Confusion and translation problems.’ ANSIPRA the Tsarist policy towards the indigenous population rested on website: http://ansipra.npolar.no/english/items/Confusion.html. indirect control through the traditional institutions of the commu- Here we do not enter into temporary Stalinist policies, which tried nity. (Diatchkova 2001, citing: Высочайше утвержденный 22 to eliminate the concept of “национальности” [“nationalities”] as a июля 1822 года Устав Об управлении инородцев [Regulations whole, to wipe out all ethnic differences. of Indigenous population of 1822], 1998 Национальная политика в императорской России [National Politics in the Tsarist Russia], 18 List of nationalities in the 1926 USSR census on demoscrope.ru Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Ethnology and Anthro- 19 Gerhard Simon. 1991. Nationalism and Policy toward the Na- pology, ed. VII. Semenov, Moscow, Staryi Sad: 141-176.) tionalities in the Soviet Union: From Totalitarian Dictatorship to 6 Diatchkova 2001. Post-Stalinist Society. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. 7 Высочайше утвержденный 22 июля 1822 года Устав Об 20 AMAP, 2004. управлении инородцев (Regulations of Indigenous Population of 21 Bogoraz-Tan V.G., 1923. On study and preservation of the bor- 1822), 1998 Национальная Политика в императорской России derland peoples. The report presented at the extended Narkomnats (National Politics in the Tsarist Russia), ed. Yu I. Semenov, Russian Board, 24 March 1923. ‘Zhizn’ natsionalnostej (Life of nationali- Academy of Sciences, Institute of Ethnology and Anthopology, ties)’, Book III-IV, 168-180 (in Russian). Moscow, Staryi Sad: 7 22 Consisting of Marxists and non-Marxists, the Committee of the 8 Diatchkova, 2001. North was a conglomeration of experts on Indigenous Peoples. The 9 Russification was actually known as early as the 16th century with basic principle of this Committee was non-interference with the the Khanate of Kazan (medieval Tatar state which occupied the development of traditional societies and the creation of new bodies territory of former Volga Bulgaria; conquered by Ivan IV in 1552) of autonomous administration. Until 1934, it ‘was responsible for and other Tatar areas, but this passage speaks of a more deliberate the economic development, conservation and management of the and systemic policy. wildlife, establishment of political and legal institutions, trade, medical care, and education in Native regions’ (Bartels, 1986:6-7; 10 Minority Rights Group International. 2011. ‘World Directo- Diatchkova, 2001). ry of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples - Russian Federa- tion: Overview.’ [Updated August 2011]. UNHCR Refworld. 23 Diatchkova, 2001. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,COUN- 24 Referenced in Klokov KB, Hrushchev SA. No date. ‘Demographic TRYPROF,RUS,,4954ce18c,0.html [accessed 01 June 2012]. PAGE 8 | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE Reproduction Dynamics of Populations Reproduction of Native autonomous oblasts (regions) (AOs) – smaller ethnic-based units; Small Peoples of the North of Russia and its Regional Features.’ 10 autonomous okrugs (districts) (AOks) – the lowest level ethnic Available online at: http://www.shu.ru/old/pages/magazin/n20/klok- units, situated within an oblast or krai (province). Second, the ov.pdf. Also referenced in Golovnev A. 2012. ‘Ethnicity: Stability remaining areas of the RSFSR, comprising most of its constituent and Variability (The Experience of the North).’ Available online at: members and accounting for about 70 per cent of its territory and http://ethnobs.ru/library/237/_aview_b19541 more than 80 per cent of the population, was divided into territorial formations: 6 krais (mostly large and lightly populated areas), and 25 России: саамы, ненцы, ханты, манси, энцы, долганы, нганасаны, 49 oblasts – largely ethnically homogeneous, Russian-populated селькупы, кеты, эвенки, юкагиры, эвены, чукчи, коряки, districts. In addition, Moscow and Leningrad (now St Petersburg) эскимосы, алеуты, ительмены, тофалары, ульчи, нанайцы, were given a status broadly equivalent to that of an oblast. нивхи, удэгейцы, негидальцы, ороки, орочи, чуванцы. 38 Minority Rights Group International, 2011. ‘World Directory of Mi- 26 http://www2.brandonu.ca/library/cjns/14.2/hele.pdf norities and Indigenous Peoples - Russian Federation: Overview.’ 27 http://www2.brandonu.ca/library/cjns/14.2/hele.pdf [Updated August 2011]. UNHCR Refworld. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,COUN- 28 A. 1. Krushanov, 1987. ‘Isotoriia i kul’tura Chukchei (The history TRYPROF,RUS,,4954ce18c,0.html [accessed 01 June 2012]. and culture of the Chulcchi).’ Leningrad: Nauka; D. L. Schindler, 1991. ‘Theory, Policy and the Narody Severa,’ Anthropological 39 RAIPON, IWGA, 2011. ‘Parallel Information Concerning the Sit- Quarterly 64(2): 68-79; M. A. Sergeev, 1955. ‘Nelcapitalisticheskii uation of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of Indigenous and put’ rarvitiia malykh narodov Severa,’ Trudy Instituta Etnografi AN Small-Numbered Peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East of SSSR, New Series, XXVII, Moscow-Leningrad; lu Slezkine, 1992. the Russian Federation.’ Paper submitted at the occasion of the 46th ‘From Savages to Citizens: The Cultural Revolution in the Soviet Session of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Far North, 1928-1938,’ Slavic Review 51(1): 52-76; V. A. Uvachan, 2-20 May 2011. IWGA and RAIPON: Copenhagen & Moscow. 1977. ‘Perekhod malykh narodov Severa at rodovogo stroia K raz- Available online at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cescr/ vitomu sotsializmu,’ Letopis’ Severa 1 8: 21-36; 1. S. Vdovin, 1973. docs/ngos/IWGIA_RAIPON_RussianFederation_CESCR46.pdf ‘Legislative, economic, social and cultural policies of the USSR to 40 United Nations Human Rights Council, 2010. ‘Report of the encourage the development of the Chukchi and the Eskimo,’ The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and funda- MuskOx, l3:41-48. mental freedoms of indigenous people, James Anaya. Addendum 29 V. Komarov, October 27, 1988. ‘U narodoswi Severa (Among the - Situation of Indigenous Peoples in the Russian Federation’ [A/ peoples of the North),’ Sel’skma Zhizn’. This reorganization was HRC/15/37/Add.5] New York: Office of the High Commissioner part of an attempt to provide an infrastructure of locally produced on Human Rights. Available online at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ goods (eggs, milk, meat, vegetables, etc.) and services to support Issues/IPeoples/SRIndigenousPeoples/Pages/CountryReports.aspx the growth of industry in the Far North. 41 Minority Rights Group International, 2011. 30 Later on, kolkhozes in the northern areas were replaced by Soviet farms (совхоз; sovkhozes) with nearly all the property of the indig- enous population nationalized (AMAP, 2004). 31 Diatchkova, 2001. 32 Secretariat of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations. 1997. ‘Review of Developments Pertaining to the Promotion and Protec- tion of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People: Environment, Land And Sustainable Development. Adden- dum: Information received from indigenous peoples and non-gov- ernmental organizations.’ Available online at: http://www.suri. ee/doc/saamide.html. It should be noted, however, that the major deportations which took place during World War II did not affect the Indigenous Peoples (i.e., those referred to as “Small-numbered Peoples of the North, Siberia, and the Far East”) and such mass deportations were never a routine element of Soviet ethnic politics. 33 Minority Rights Group International, 2011. 34 Minority Rights Group International, 2011.a 35 Hicks, 2011. 36 Köhler, Thomas, and Kathrin Wessendorf, eds, 2002. Towards a New Millenium: Ten Years of the Indigenous Movement in Russia. Copenhagen: IWGIA; Hicks, 2011. 37 In the 1980s, the RSFSR was organized into 88 administrative components (subjects) of higher than city and district level. These subjects were divided into two categories. First, ethno-territorial units: 16 Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republics (ASSRs) – based around sizeable non-Russian ethnic groups and considered the embodiment of the national statehood of their titular populations; 5 PAGE 9 PAGE 10 | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE PART II. WHO IS INDIGENOUS? A. RUSSIAN LAW tees’) establishes the legal definition of “small-numbered Indigenous Peoples”2 as, “ethnic communities with fewer The definition of indigeneity reflects the historical de- than 50,000 persons who inhabit their ancestral home- velopment of IPs in the Russian Federation. Prior to lands, maintaining traditional ways of life, community the Revolution of 1917 the peoples today classified as in- organization and economic activities and folk art [handi- digenous were subsumed under a broader category such crafts] and who perceive themselves as belonging to sepa- as the term "stray persons of different origin" (бродячие rate ethnic communities” (Article 1). These requirements инородцы; brodyachiye inorodtsy) found in 1822 in the can be summarized as follows: ‘Charter for the Management of Persons of Different Eth- nicity.’ In the Soviet period, the terms "native peoples and • Living in the historical territories of their ancestors tribes of the Northern regions” (туземные народности и племена Северных окраин; tuzemnyye narodnosti i pleme- • Preserving their traditional way of life, occupations, na Severnykh okrain, 1920), "small peoples of the North" and folk art [handicrafts] (малые народности Севера; malyye narodnosti Severa, 1930s-1940s), and “peoples of the North” (народности • Recognizing themselves as a separate ethnicity Севера; narodnosti Severa, 1940s–1980s) were used to define legal categories of peoples eligible for special state • Numbering at most 50,000 people within Russia3,4 policy protections. They referred to minority nationalities that were clearly distinct from the larger ethnic populations In order to be legally recognized as small-numbered surrounding them and also considered endangered popula- IPs, an indigenous community has to be formally tions. registered. As of March 24, 2000, small-numbered IP have to be registered in the ‘Unified Register of Indige- The post-Soviet Constitution of the Russian Federa- nous Small-numbered Peoples of the Russian Federation’ tion contained similar distinctions. When the Constitu- (Единый перечень коренных, малочисленных народов tion of the Russian Federation (Конституция Российской Российской Федерации; Yedinyy perechen' korennykh, Федерации; Konstitutsiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii) was malochislennykh narodov Rossiyskoy Federatsii5). The adopted by national referendum in 1993, it took into account Unified Register enumerates a list of 47 small-number the need to establish a legal distinction between ethnic (that minority peoples,6 40 of which inhabit territories belong- is, “national”) minorities (национальные меньшинства; ing to Siberia, the Russian North or the Russian Far East.7 natsional'nyye men'shinstva) and “small-numbered Indige- nous Peoples” (коренные малочисленные народы; koren- Special legal provisions apply to recognized IP com- nyye malochislennyye narody).1 Both ethnic minorities and munities. Adopted in 2000, On General Principles of small-numbered IPs are granted constitutionally safeguard- Organization of Obshchina of Numerically-small Indige- ed rights to their own language, culture, education, and par- nous Peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East of the ticipation in decision-making, yet the small-numbered IPs Russian Federation8 (‘On Obshchina’) establishes general are distinguished by statutory definition as small-numbered principles for the formation of obshchina, or clan commu- peoples living on ancestral lands with a lifestyle associated nity, of small-numbered Indigenous Peoples of the North, with the conduct of traditional economic activities. of Siberia and the Far East of the Russian Federation “for the goals of defending their age-old surroundings, and the The definition of IPs in the Russian Federation re- maintenance and development of traditional ways of life, lies on several cumulative requirements. The Law On economy, trades and culture.” Obshchinas may consist of Guarantees of the Rights of Numerically-small Indig- a single family, a few families, or a whole village, and are enous Peoples of the Russian Federation (‘On Guaran- entitled to receive use rights for allotments of land parcels, PAGE 11 and quotas for fishing and hunting, accommodating their resources such as fishing and hunting grounds).14 The re- traditional practices. quirement to maintain a traditional way of life and inhabit certain remote (especially Northern or Far East) regions of As of 2010, the peoples recognized as small-numbered the country is also of concern, as it restricts the freedom of IPs comprised ca. 316,000 individuals. 258,000 of them IPs to engage with the modern economy and hinders their are small-numbered IPs of the North, Siberia, and the Far competitiveness. East, residing within 28 constituent political administrative units (also “federal subjects”) of the Russian Federation.9 The size of these groups varies from fewer than 300 (e.g., B. INTERNATIONAL LAW 14 Aliutortsy, 227 Entsy, 274 Taz, and 295 Orok) to more than 40,000 (41,000 Nenets)10 and the Evenks with 35,000 Over the years, the United Nations system has chosen members in Russia and 30,000 more in Northern China.11 to refrain from an adoption of a formal definition of Other indigenous groups include IPs living in the Cauca- IPs. The first definition, proposed by the United Nations sus (Abaza in the Karachay-Cherkessia Republic of Dag- Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP) in estan, Shapsugs in Krasnodar), the Volga (Bessermyane 1972, focused on indigenous populations that are primarily in Udmurtia Republic), and the steppe zone (Nagaybaki composed of pre-colonial populations. This definition was, in Chelyabinsk Region), as well as the small peoples of however, recognized as too limiting. In 1986, Special Rap- north-west Russia (Veps in Karelia Republic, Leningrad, porteur Martínez Cobo revised his preliminary definition, Vologda Region), Izhorians (in Leningrad), Vod (in Lenin- and proposed an amended version.15 grad), and Setu (in Pskov Region) engaged in farming and animal husbandry. This data does not include the over two According to this definition, the category of ‘Indige- million strong Dagestan peoples who, according to a gov- nous Peoples’ contains any community that maintains ernment decree in 2000, were to be included in the overall historical continuity with ancestral territories. The Register of small-numbered Indigenous Peoples of Russia definition is commonly accepted for practical purposes, after Dagestan carried out its own regional listing.12 For but it has not been adopted in formal legal documents. more demographic details about the IP population, please However, observers from indigenous organizations see Annex A. agreed that a formal and universal definition is not neces- sary.16 Ms. Erica-Irene Daes, the Rapporteur of the WGIP, IPs’ advocacy groups often decry the definitional ap- noted that this was because ‘historically speaking, indig- proach taken by the Government of the Russian Fed- enous peoples have suffered from definitions imposed by eration. Some note that the Russian legal system does not others.’17 The United Nations Declaration of the Rigths recognize the concept IPs as based on self-identification, of Indigenous Peoples similarly does not independently but instead requires groups to seek inclusion into the Uni- define “indigeneity”, but recognizes in the preamble that fied Register of Indigenous Small-numbered Peoples of the indigeneity should take into account regional and national Russian Federation. This process of inclusion is both bu- particularities. It also gives primacy to IPs’ self-determi- reaucratic and cumbersome: it has to be proposed by the nation as regards their political status, economic, social federal subject (region/republic/province) in which the re- and cultural development. spective ethnic group lives. IPs’ advocacy groups note that there are several cases in which regional authorities refused The current international understanding of ‘Indige- to make such a proposal.13 nous Peoples’ is defined via a variety of characteristics: self-identification at the individual level and accepted by The population limit of 50,000 as a condition for IP rec- the community as their member; historical continuity with ognition is also contested. Indigenous communities that pre-colonial or pre-settler societies; a strong link to terri- are larger than 50,000 cannot be included in the Unified tories and surrounding natural resources; a distinct social, Register and they are thus not eligible for the benefits of economic, or political system; a distinct dialect/language, the IP status. However, there are larger ethnic groups in culture, and beliefs; non-participation as a dominant group the Russian Federation that share the characteristics and in national society; and possessing a resolve to maintain challenges of small-numbered IPs but do not enjoy recog- and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as nition or legal protections (such as priority access to natural distinctive peoples and communities.18 PAGE 12 | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE C. WORLD BANK POLICY OP 4.10 applies unambiguously to small-numbered IPs residing in the northern and far eastern areas of the The definition of indigeneity is a central part of OP Russian Federation. As noted above, 40 groups, with a to- 4.10. OP 4.10 notes that a wide range of terms may refer tal population of over 250,000, are recognized by the Gov- to peoples that would be recognized as Indigenous Peoples ernment of the Russian Federation as “Small in Number for purposes of policy application, including “indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and Far East of Russia” while ethnic minorities, aboriginals, hill tribes, minority nation- 47 groups with over 300,000 people are recognized as the alities, scheduled tribes, or tribal groups” (paragraph 3). somewhat larger category of “Small in Number Peoples of However, “[b]ecause of the varied and changing contexts the Russian Federation.” The classification is limited to in- in which Indigenous Peoples live and because there is no digenous groups with a population of less than 50,000 to universally accepted definition of Indigenous Peoples” distinguish them from other larger groups that inhabit re- (paragraph 3), OP 4.10 does not “define the term.” Instead, gions named after them, such as Yakutia (Yakuts) and Tuva it states that ‘distinct’ and ‘vulnerable’ social and cultural (Tuvinians). While these larger groups have characteristics groups that possess the following cumulative requirements that might lead to their classification as IPs elswhere, this would trigger the policy for operational purposes:19 has not been the practice in Russia due to the political and historical circumstances (see Part I above). For purposes of this policy, the term ‘Indigenous Peoples’ is used in a generic sense to refer to a distinct, vulnera- However, the definitions used by the World Bank and ble, social and cultural group20 possessing the following the Russian Federation currently diverge. OP 4.10 could characteristics in varying degrees: be triggered by the presence of distinct and vulnerable so- ciocultural groups that are not covered by the Russian defi- (a) self-identification as members of a distinct indigenous nition. cultural group and recognition of this identity by others; (b) collective attachment to geographically distinct habi- tats or ancestral territories in the project area and to the natural resources in these habitats and territories21 (c) customary cultural, economic, social, or political in- stitutions that are separate from those of the dominant society and culture; and (d) an indigenous language, often different from the offi- cial language of the country or region. A group that has lost ‘collective attachment to geographi- cally distinct habitats or ancestral territories in the project area’ (paragraph 4 (b)) because of forced severance re- mains eligible for coverage under this policy.22 Ascertain- ing whether a particular group is considered as ‘Indigenous Peoples’ for the purpose of this policy may require a tech- nical judgment. PAGE 13 NOTES: In 2000, 14 peoples of Dagestan were added to the ‘Unified Reg- ister.’ «Постановление Государственного Совета Республики 1 Ethnic minorities (paragraph “c”, Article 71 and paragraph “b”, Дагестан №191 от 18 октября 2000 г» (http://lawru.info/base89/ Article 72) and “small-numbered peoples” (Article 69). Ethnic part7/d89ru7364.htm). minorities policies are based on the Federal Law of June 17, 1996, ‘On the national-cultural autonomy’ (although both this law and 7 One should note that the small-numbered Indigenous Peoples of Russian legislation in general does not contain a legal definition of the North, Siberia and the Far East living in extreme conditions ethnic minorities) and the Framework Convention for the Protection of the circumpolar or nearby regions have special legal status and of National Minorities (ratified by the Federal Law of June 18, are under the state guardianship. The list of these peoples was 1998 ). Status as “small-numbered Indigenous Peoples of the North, approved by Executive Order of the Government of the Russian Siberia, and the Far East of the Russian Federation” is determined Federation No. 536-p of April 17, 2006, Available online at: http:// by Federal Law of 30 April 1999 ‘On Guarantees of the Rights of base.garant.ru/6198896/. At present, indigenous small peoples of Indigenous Peoples of the Russian Federation,’ with a specified list the North inhabit the territories of 28 constituents of the Russian approved by governmental decree № 255 on March 24, 2000. Federation (the republics of Altai, Buryatia, Karelia, Komi, Sakha (Yakutia), Tuva, Khakassia; the Altai, Trans-Baikal, Kamchatka, 2 The full Russian legal formulation is ’numerically small Indigenous Primorye, Khabarovsk Territories; the Amur, Vologda, Irkutsk, Peoples of the Russian Federation’ (коренные малочисленные Kemerovo, Leningrad, Magadan, Murmansk, Sakhalin, Sverdlovsk, народы Российской Федерации; korennye malochislennye Tomsk, Tumen Regions; the Nenets, Khanty-Mansi, Chukotka and narody Rossiiskoi Federatsii); the term is abbreviated to ‘small Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Areas). Because of the special vulner- peoples’ (малочисленные народы; malochislennye narody) [alt. ability of the traditional way of life and environment, their priority ‘small nations’], though the common English gloss is ‘Indigenous rights to the exploitation of natural resources are guaranteed by the Peoples’ (which more accurately would be rendered in Russian as Russian legislation. The remaining seven small peoples (Abazins, “коренных народов”; “korennykh narodov”). Besermyans, Vod, Izhorians, Nagaibaks, Setu (Seto), Shapsugs), 3 Some argue that the provisions of this Federal Law are applicable to although living outside the circumpolar region, also enjoy certain persons who are not related to the small nations, but who reside in special rights related to the preservation of their ethnic identity, traditional areas of residence and who conduct traditional economic social coverage, traditional lifestyle and economic pattern. activities as do Indigenous Peoples in accordance with the laws of 8 Adopted July 20, 2000 [№ 104-ФЗ] Available at: http://base.garant. the Russian Federation (Art. 3). That is, RF subjects may be includ- ru/182356/ ed in the regional list of persons living with KMNRF, and thereby have extended to them all the rights of small-numbered IPs. This 9 Figures taken from: Коренные малочисленные народы РФ. is done only in Yakutia, where the list includes a group of Russian Перепись 2010 г. Available for download at: http://www.gks.ru/ old-timers. Others warn that the claims of some to have this law ap- free_doc/new_site/perepis2010/perepis_itogi1612.htm. Other docu- ply to them are bogus and motivated simply by economic interest. ments list a total of 35 regions where the KMNSSDV live. For example, in the areas of Kamchatka, Sakhalin, Murmansk, and 10 Figures taken from: Governmental Decree dated August 28, 2009 N elsewhere in the Far East much of the local population, indigenous 1245-r On approval of an action plan for implementation in 2009- and not, want to fish freely (primarily for salmon) as Indigenous 2011. Concept of Sustainable Development of Indigenous Peoples Peoples. This is a particularly sensitive question in Kamchatka, of the North, Siberia and Far East. the richest salmon region in Russia. There some criminal fishers (poachers) try to receive the status of indigenous persons (in their 11 The features that characterize the northern Indigenous Peoples personal documents) by decisions of the courts (or through some are determined by their environment. Their small population size other means) so as to be entitled to fish salmon freely as small-num- also results from external factors and does not indicate either bered IPs. They sometimes go as far as to organize ‘obschinas’ by under-development or inherent population decline. On the contrary, themselves or use the local indigenous population (actually only for their specific geographic environment and economy type, a their passports) to receive the fish quotas. small population size represents an optimal solution (Gumilev and Kurkchi, 1989). However, the same factors that ensured the high 4 Small-numbered IPs status remains tied to the condition that a degree of adaptability of northern populations to their extreme people has no more than 50,000 members (the determination of the living conditions also made it difficult for them to integrate with size of a people is in Russia based on self-designation in public cen- other cultures, especially those which were more “developed.” The suses), maintains a traditional way of life, inhabits certain remote resulting conflicts have affected all aspects of their life, including regions of Russia and identifies itself as a distinct ethnic communi- social, cultural and spiritual integrity. ty. A definition of “indigenous” without the numerical qualification does not exist in Russian legislation. 12 The Dagestan peoples include (with population figures derived from the 2010 Russian Census): Lak in northeastern Dagestan 5 Refer to: Постановление Правительства РФ от 24 марта 2000 г. (178,620); Tabasaran in southern Dagestan and in the former N 255 «О Едином перечне коренных малочисленных народов Soviet Republics (146,360); Rutul in the northeast (36,000); Российской Федерации» (с изменениями от 30 сентября 2000 Agul in mountainous regions north of the Samur Valley (23,314); г., 13 октября 2008 г., 18 мая, 17 июня, 2 сентября 2010 г., 26 Tsakhur in southwestern Dagestan—while the majority live in декабря 2011 г.). Available online at: http://base.garant.ru/181870/ northern Azerbaijan (12,976); Kumyk in Dagestan and Chechnya, 6 The 47 indigenous, small-numbered peoples comprising the Unified Ingush, and Ossetia and in bordering countries (503,060); Nogai in Register of the Indigenous Peoples of the Russian Federation is Dagestan and scattered throughout areas of the old USSR (38,168 detailed in Постановление Правительства РФ от 24 марта 2000 in Dagestan); Akhvakh in west Dagestan and Azerbaijan (7,930); г. N 255 «О Едином перечне коренных малочисленных народов Hinukh in Tsunta region of southwest (443); Hunzib in the south Российской Федерации» (с изменениями от 30 сентября 2000 (1,010); Abazin in Karachay-Cherkessia and Adygea Republics г., 13 октября 2008 г., 18 мая, 17 июня, 2 сентября 2010 г., 26 (34,800; 2002 census); Shapsug (included in the Register). Census декабря 2011 г.). Available online at: http://base.garant.ru/181870/ figures refer only to people resident in the Russian Federation. PAGE 14 | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE 13 RAIPON, INFOE, 2008. Parallel Information: Discrimination the context of: Standard-Setting Activities: Evolution of Standards against indigenous small-numbered peoples of the Russian North, Concerning the Rights of Indigenous People - New Developments Siberia and the Russian Far East. (Johannes Rohr, Mikhail Tody- and General Discussion of Future Action, 21 June 1005. E/CN.4/ shev, Olga Murashko, eds.). Available online at: http://lib.ohchr.org/ Sub.2/AC.4/1995/3, p. 3]. New York: Economic and Social Coun- HRBodies/UPR/Documents/Session4/RU/RAIPON_IWGIA_RUS_ cil. Available online at: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/ UPR_S4_2009anx_Indigenous_Peoples_Russia_RAIPON_IN- GEN/G95/128/02/PDF/G9512802.pdf?OpenElement FOE_2008.pdf 18 World Bank. No date. ‘Still Among the Poorest of the Poor,’ 14 The Altai Kezhi in the Altai Republic, for example, number more Indigenous Peoples Policy Brief. Available online at : http:// than 50,000 but share a similar history and way of life to the Telen- siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTINDPEOPLE/Resourc- gits, who are included in the official list of small-numbered peoples. es/4078011271860301656/HDNEN_indigenous_clean_0421.pdf The Altai-Kezhi are actually an amalgam of local peoples who were 19 World Bank, 2005. Operational Directive 4.10 – Indigenous Peo- artificially placed together for the political reason of creating a larg- ples. Available online at: http://go.worldbank.org/TE769PDWN0 er administrative unit. The Nogay are another example. Numbering well over 50,000, and constituting an ethnically differentiated 20 OP 4.10 Footnote 6: The policy does not set an a priori minimum people, the Nogay also experience many problems similar to those numerical threshold since groups of Indigenous Peoples may be of smaller indigenous groups. Also, the Komi-Izhemtsy or Izvatas, very small in number and their size may make them more vulnera- have a traditional reindeer-herding and fishing way of life and the ble. numbers (16,000 according to the 2002 Census) to be considered KMNSSDV, but in order to maintain the status of a republic, the 21 OP 4.10 Footnote 7: ‘Collective attachment’ means that for gen- Government of Republic of Komi refuses to recognize them as erations there has been a physical presence in and economic ties a separate indigenous group. Some of these groups—in spite of to lands and territories traditionally owned, or customarily used or their size or other reasons—would fit into the framework defini- occupied, by the group concerned, including areas that hold special tion of OP 4.10. (United Nations Human Rights Council, 2010. A/ significance for it, such as sacred sites. ‘Collective attachment’ HRC/15/37/Add.5) also refers to the attachment of transhumant/nomadic groups to the territory they use on a seasonal or cyclical basis. 15 UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1986/7 and Add. 1-4. “Indigenous commu- nities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical con- 22 OP 4.10 Footnote 8: ‘Forced severance’ refers to loss of collective tinuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed attachment to geographically distinct habitats or ancestral territories on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors occurring within the concerned group members’ lifetime because of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of of conflict, government resettlement programs, dispossession from them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are their lands, natural calamities, or incorporation of such territories determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations into an urban area. For purposes of this policy, ‘urban area’ nor- their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of mally means a city or a large town, and takes into account all of the their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own following characteristics, no single one of which is definitive: (a) cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system. This historical the legal designation of the area as urban under domestic law; (b) continuity may consist of the continuation, for an extended period high population density; and (c) high proportion of non-agricultural reaching into the present of one or more of the following factors: a) economic activities relative to agricultural activities. Occupation of ancestral lands, or at least of part of them; b) Com- mon ancestry with the original occupants of these lands; c) Culture in general, or in specific manifestations (such as religion, living un- der a tribal system, membership of an indigenous community, dress, means of livelihood, lifestyle, etc.); d) Language (whether used as the only language, as mother-tongue, as the habitual means of communication at home or in the family, or as the main, preferred, habitual, general or normal language); e) Residence on certain parts of the country, or in certain regions of the world; f) Other relevant factors. On an individual basis, an indigenous person is one who belongs to these indigenous populations through self-identification as indige- nous (group consciousness) and is recognized and accepted by these populations as one of its members (acceptance by the group).” 16 Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, 2004. ‘The Concept of Indigenous Peoples. Background paper prepared by the Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues for the Workshop on Data Collection and Disaggregation for Indigenous Peoples’ (New York, 19-21 January 2004). New York: Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Available online at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/workshop_data_ background.doc 17 Working Group on Indigenous Populations, 1995. ‘Note by the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Indigenous Pop- ulations, Ms. Erica-Irene Daes, on criteria which might be applied when considering the concept of indigenous peoples.’ [Presented in PAGE 15 PAGE 16 | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE PART III. LEGAL PROTECTION FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLE A. GENERAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK officially published for the information of the general IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION public. 4. Universally recognized principles and norms of in- A) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS ternational law as well as international agreements of the Russian Federation should be an integral part of The protection of IPs is enshrined in the Constitution its legal system. If an international agreement of the of the Russian Federation. In addition to general commit- Russian Federation establishes rules, which differ from ments to human rights and freedoms (dealt with especially those stipulated by law, then the rules of the interna- in Articles 2, and 17–64), the Constitution of the Russian tional agreement shall be applied. Federation contains at least five articles that have direct consequences for IPs:1 3) Article 36 1. Citizens and their associations shall have the right to 1) Article 9 possess land as private property. 1. Land and other natural resources shall be utilized and protected in the Russian Federation as the basis of the 2. Possession, utilization and disposal of land and oth- life and activity of the peoples living on the territories er natural resources shall be exercised by the owners concerned. freely, provided that this is not detrimental to the en- vironment and does not violate the rights and lawful 2. Land and other natural resources may be subject to pri- interests of other people. vate, State, municipal and other forms of ownership. 3. The conditions and procedure for the use of land shall be determined by federal law. 2) Article 15 1. The Constitution of the Russian Federation shall have 4) Article 69 supreme legal force, direct effect and shall be applica- ble on the entire territory of the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation shall guarantee the rights of in- Laws and other legal acts, which are adopted in the digenous small peoples in accordance with the universally Russian Federation, must not contradict the Constitu- recognized principles and norms of international law and tion of the Russian Federation. international treaties of the Russian Federation. 2. State government bodies, local self-government bod- 5) Article 72, part 1, item ‘l’ ies, officials, citizens and their associations shall be obliged to observe the Constitution of the Russian Fed- The following shall be within the joint jurisdiction of the eration and laws. Russian Federation and constituent entities of the Russian Federation: … (l) protection of traditional habitat and the 3. Laws must be officially published. Unpublished laws traditional way of life of small ethnic communities.2 shall not have force. Any normative legal acts con- cerning human and civil rights, freedoms and obli- Russian constitutional commitments to international law gations shall not have force unless they have been are especially important for IPs. The Russian Federation PAGE 17 is a party to many international treaties and conventions that B) LEGISLATIVE PROTECTIONS protect IPs rights. Of those Conventions, perhaps the three most prominently cited3 by IPOs of the Russian Federation Federal laws constitute the second category of legal when making rights-based claims are as follows. sources that offer protection to IPs. In case of a conflict between federal law and another act issued in Russia, the • The UN International Convention on the Elimination federal law prevails. The core framework for Russia’s fed- of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD)4 com- eral protections of IPs’ rights is primarily comprised of mits its signatories to the elimination of racial discrim- three federal laws: ination and the promotion of understanding among all races (Article 2).5 1. On Guarantees of the Rights of small-numbered IPs of the Russian Federation (“On Guarantees”):11 Passed • The International Covenant on Civil and Political in 1999, the law recognizes the rights of Russia’s Rights (ICCPR)6 commits its parties to respect the civ- small-numbered IPs to protect and utilize their natural il and political rights of individuals, and also includes habitats, traditional ways of life and economic activ- provisions to protect collective rights.7 ities (particularly fishing and hunting). It affirms that IPs may set up territorial self-government bodies in • The International Covenant on Economic, Social and places of compact settlement, form communities and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)8 commits its parties to work other organizations, manage their educational institu- toward the granting of economic, social, and cultural tions according to their traditional way of life, receive rights to individuals, and also contains provisions for compensation for damage to their traditional environ- collective rights. ment due to industrial activities, and have courts con- sider their customary laws. ‘On Guarantees’ also re- Additional international commitments include the fol- quires federal executive bodies to ensure that federal lowing. The Russian Federation ratified the European and regional programs protect customary indigenous Union Council of Ministers’ Resolution of 30 November rights regarding land tenure, community management 2008 on Indigenous Peoples within the Framework of the of natural resources, etc. Development Cooperation of the Community and Members States [13461/98], which affirmed IPs’ rights, including 2. On General Principles of Organization of the Obsh- self-development, and called for integrating IPs’ concerns china of small-numbered Indigenous Peoples of the into the European Union’s existing procedures and guide- North, Siberia and the Far East of the Russian Feder- lines for development cooperation.9 However, the Russian ation (“On Obshchina”):12 Adopted in 2000, the law Federation has not signed several international legal doc- establishes general principles for the formation of ob- uments that protect IPs. For instance, it has not ratified shchina, or clan community, of small-numbered Indig- International Labour Organization Convention No. 169 enous Peoples of the North, of Siberia and the Far East. concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (1989), and abstained from voting on the United 3. On Territories of Traditional Nature Use of small-num- Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.10 bered Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East of the Russian Federation (“On Terri- IPOs lament that Russian policy emphasizes IPs’ indi- tories”):13 Adopted in 2001, the law provides that the vidual, rather than collective rights. IPOs maintain that land an indigenous community utilizes for tradition- the Constitution gives little space to IPs as communities, al economic activities may be granted a special legal as opposed to individual indigenous people. IPs and their designation of “territory of traditional nature use,” and representative organizations often cite international law to be assigned to that community to use free-of-charge for substantiate their claims as groups to specific rights and a certain renewable period of time. freedoms vis-à-vis conflicting laws and activities of the states. This generates a critical tension in the legal and reg- A Concept Paper issued by the Russian Government ulatory relationship between the state and indigenous com- elaborated on the federal policy toward IPs. The Federal munities. Decree On the Concept of Sustainable Development of the Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East PAGE 18 | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE of the Russian Federation14 (‘Concept Paper’) was issued There is no single ministry or agency responsible at the by the Government of the Russian Federation in February national level for all indigenous issues. Instead there are 2009. The ‘Concept Paper’ outlines the federal policy for a number of departments that share such responsibility and the period of 2009 to 2025 for improving the socio-eco- often act at cross-purposes. The table below lists the key nomic conditions of IPs and for protecting their traditional players in the Government of the Russian Federation, the environments, way of life, and cultural values.15 It presents Presidential Administration, and in the Duma. Agencies seven key objectives for state support to indigenous devel- that are considered by indigenous observers as the most opment16 and specifies time frames and benchmarks for re- critical are indicated in italics. alizing these objectives. AGENCY / OFFICE KEY INDIGENOUS-RELATED FUNCTION GOVERNMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Ministry of Regional Development Coordinates IPs policy and legislation at the federal level; prepares lists of recognized IPs; coordinates federal subsidy program to regional budgets for IPs. Ministry of Natural Resources (Environment) • Department of State Policy for Hunting and Wildlife Coordinates laws and regulations on hunting. • Federal Service for Supervision of Natural Resources Checks compliance with environmental legislation; source of ecological expertise. • Federal Forestry Agency Responsible for forested areas’ development. Ministry of Agriculture • Federal Fisheries Agency Responsible for supervision of water biological resources, including registers and tenders for fishing grounds. Ministry of Culture Cultural preservation. Ministry of Education and Science Educational standards. Ministry of Public Health Public health, including policy. Ministry of Labour and Social Protection Includes provisions for special IP pensions. Ministry of the Far East Coordination of major investment projects in the Far East. PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Commissioner's Office of the President in the Federal Monitoring compliance with federal laws regarding IPs. Districts (Far Eastern, Siberian, Ural) Internal Policy Management of the Presidential Monitors compliance with federal laws dealing with IPs; Administration responsible for harmonizing IPs’ policies. STATE DUMA OF THE FEDERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Committee on Federal Form, Regional Policy, Local Legislation related to indigenous affairs. Government, and Northern Affairs PAGE 19 B. PARTICIPATION IN B) RUSSIAN FEDERATION DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Russian federal law formally requires the participa- tion of IPs in development contexts. The federal law On A) WORLD BANK Guarantees23 is particularly important in this regard. ‘On Guarantees’ establishes the “framework of legal guarantees A central pillar of OP 4.10 is the requirement for “free, for the socio-economic and cultural development of the prior, and informed consultation” with IPs regarding pro- Indigenous Peoples of the Russian Federation, to protect jects that affect them. As part of this requirement, borrowers their original habitat, traditional way of life, economy and are expected to comply with the following procedure:17 folk art [handicrafts]” (‘On Guarantees,’ preamble). Article 8 further clarifies the rights granted to IPs, including their (a) establish an appropriate gender and intergeneration- participation in development activities. Some of these pro- ally inclusive framework that provides opportunities visions correspond to the requirements of OP 4.10: for consultation at each stage of project preparation; §8.1.2. participation in monitoring the use of various cate- (b) use consultation methods  appropriate to the social 18 gories of land required for the traditional econom- and cultural values of the affected IPs’ communities ic activities and traditional folk art [handicrafts] of and their local conditions and, in designing these indigenous peoples, as well as of common miner- methods, give special attention to the concerns of in- als in traditional places of residence and tradition- digenous women, youth, and children and their access al economic activities of indigenous peoples; to development opportunities and benefits; and §8.1.3. participation in the implementation of federal (c) provide the affected IPs’ communities with all rele- laws and laws of the Russian Federation on envi- vant information about the project in a culturally ap- ronmental protection in the industrial use of land propriate manner at each stage of project preparation and natural resources, construction and recon- and implementation. struction of economic and other objects in places of traditional residence and economic activities of OP 4.10 does not articulate the specific scope of the par- indigenous peoples; ticipatory process. The scope of IPs’ participation within Bank-financed projects includes participation in the pro- §8.1.5 through authorized representatives of indigenous cess of project preparation for the purposes of ascertaining peoples, participation in the preparation and adop- and responding to the concerns of IPs.19 Such participation tion, by public authorities of the Russian Feder- is predicated on full disclosure about the nature and inten- ation in bodies of state power of subjects of the tion of proposed project activities.20 Further, the nature and Russian Federation and in local self-government, level of IPs’ participation in Bank-financed projects based of solutions for the protection of original habitat, on the results of free, prior, and informed consultations traditional way of life, farming and folk art [hand- with IPs. Thus, the emphasis of OP 4.10 is both on the en- icrafts] of indigenous peoples; gagement and on its outcomes.21 §8.1.6 participation in environmental and ethnological Broad community support is seen as a necessary pre- assessments utilized in the development of feder- condition of project approval. The Bank regards stake- al and regional government programs on natural holder participation in Bank-funded projects and programs resources and the environment in places of tradi- as key for ensuring the long-term sustainability of the pro- tional residence and traditional economic activi- ject. Promoting participation helps build ownership and ties of indigenous peoples; enhances transparency and accountability, and in doing so enhances effectiveness of development projects and poli- §8.2.2 participation in the formation and activities of the cies. Successful community-based development requires councils of indigenous representatives in the exec- tapping into local needs, and building on the strengths of utive bodies of subjects of the Russian Federation existing institutions and community action.22 This is par- and local government bodies. ticularly important in indigenous communities. PAGE 20 | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE The Law On Guarantees also requires the participation BOX 1. REPRESENTATIVE IP BODIES IN of IPs in law making. The law provides for the inclusion RUSSIAN REGIONS of IPs, via their authorized representatives, in the “develop- ment and assessment of projects of federal laws and other Some regional governments have shown sensitivity normative legal acts of the Russian Federation” (§5.1.1). to the need to engage with IPs in the political pro- It also requires to engage IPs in decisions regarding “lim- cess. For example, in 1996 the Khanti-Mansiysky itations on non-traditional economic activities of Indige- Autonomous Region was the first region to formal- nous Peoples' organizations in federally-owned places of ize the representation of IPs by statutorily creating traditional residence and economic activities of Indigenous the Assembly of Indigenous Peoples as part of its Peoples” (§5.1.5). regional Duma (parliament).27 The region’s admin- istration works closely under a formal agreement Russian law also requires companies to conduct envi- with the indigenous organization ‘Salvation of Yu- ronmental, social, and economic assessments. The Reg- gra’ (which has 22 offices throughout the region ulations on Environmental Impact Assessment of Planned with over 3,000 active participants) when making Economic and Other Activities24 oblige companies to any decisions affecting IPs. Together, they have inform the public about the impact of the project on the adopted a general policy on IP rights, and over 10 environment, and to assess the project’s environmental, laws and 40 normative acts guaranteeing the rights social and economic consequences. Under the environmen- of IPs to priority and free-of-charge use of land, lan- tal impact assessment law, public participation is required guage education, self-organization, development of during the preparation and evaluation of the environmental reindeer herding, and promoting the pursuit of tradi- impact assessment report (§2.2.5), which itself should be tional activities.28 developed with the prior and informed consultation of af- fected peoples (see, for example, §2.3.1.1.). Khabarovsky Krai has similarly established an in- digenous body with a consultative status in the Despite legal safeguards that require informing and Governor’s office: the Regional Council of Repre- consulting IPs in development processes, there is a lack sentatives of Indigenous Peoples of the Governor’s of a systematic consultative framework. IPs remain un- Office (created in 2003 under the regional law ‘On derrepresented in executive and legislative bodies at the Representation of Indigenous Peoples’). Each vil- national level, and their representatives do not always have lage elects representatives for its municipal coun- opportunities to participate in consultative working groups cil, and the heads of municipal councils sit on the (whenever such groups are created) to review new legis- Regional Council of Representatives of Indigenous lation. Policy areas that affect IPs are distributed across Peoples, currently consisting of 15 members. All de- various state agencies (for example, ministries and depart- cisions of the Government of Khabarovsky Krai that ments)25 without any strategic coordination on indigenous have to do with IPs are discussed in consultation issues, which results in the uneven observation of IPs’ de- with the Council, and the Council can make propos- velopment priorities. More critically, the initial drafting of als to regional and federal legislative bodies.29 federal laws affecting IPs occurs without direct indigenous representative participation, and some observers contend that IPs are not adequately engaged in the review of already mature draft legislation.26 PAGE 21 C. LANDS AND RELATED NATURAL to various categories of land necessary to carry RESOURCES out their traditional economic activities and tra- ditional folk art [handicrafts] and to common- ly-occurring minerals in the manner prescribed A) WORLD BANK POLICY by federal law and the legislation of the Russian Federation; [also 8.2.1.] OP 4.10 refers to the protection of lands and related natural resources. Recognizing that “Indigenous Peoples §8.1.2. participation in monitoring the use of various cate- are closely tied to land, forests, water, wildlife, and other gories of land required for the traditional econom- natural resources,” OP 4.10 requires projects that ‘affect ic activities and traditional folk art [handicrafts] of such ties’ to pay attention to: indigenous peoples, as well as of common miner- als in traditional places of residence and tradition- (a) the customary rights of IPs, both individual and col- al economic activities of indigenous peoples; lective, pertaining to lands or territories that they tra- ditionally owned, or customarily used or occupied, and §8.1.3. participation in the implementation of federal where access to natural resources is vital to the sustain- laws and laws of the Russian Federation on Envi- ability of their cultures and livelihoods; ronmental Protection in the industrial use of land and natural resources, construction and recon- (b) the need to protect such lands and resources against struction of economic and other objects in places illegal intrusion or encroachment; of traditional residence and economic activities of indigenous peoples; (c) the cultural and spiritual values that IPs attribute to such lands and resources; and §8.1.4. access, from authorities of the Russian Federation, bodies of state power of subjects of the Russian (d) IPs’ natural resource management practices and the Federation, local authorities, organizations of all long-term sustainability of such practices. forms of ownership, international organizations, NGOs and individuals, to material and financial OP 4.10 also specifies that a plan must be put in place to resources needed for socio-economic and cultural ensure IPs’ protection in projects that affect them. This development of indigenous peoples, protection of requirement applies to projects involving (a) activities that their original habitat, traditional way of life, farm- are contingent on establishing legally recognized rights to ing and fisheries; lands and territories that IPs have traditionally owned or cus- tomarily used or occupied (such as land titling projects), or §8.1.8. compensation for damages suffered as a result of (b) the acquisition of such lands. It should be noted, howev- damage to the native habitat of indigenous peo- er, that the operationalization of these sections in prior Bank ples' economic activities by organizations of all projects has been relatively limited. forms of ownership and by individuals; [also 8.2.3.] B) RUSSIAN FEDERATION LAW §8.2.4. as necessary for the protection of minorities of their original habitat, traditional way of life, farm- Russian legislation contains some provisions that have ing and fisheries, use of quotas on land usage and a similar intent to OP 4.10. The Law On Guarantees30 environmental management, established by feder- provides for certain measures that accord with the gener- al legislation, the legislation of the Russian Fed- al intent of OP 4.10 requiring ‘special consideration’ for eration and normative legal acts of local govern- projects affecting IPs’ ties to lands and related natural re- ment bodies. sources. Specifically, the following rights are afforded to IPs’ groups under Article 8 of On Guarantees: These provisions provide minimal ‘guarantees’ of the rights of IPs affected by development activities. Their in- §8.1.1. free-use access, in places of traditional residence tention, however, appears to roughly approximate the aims and economic activities of indigenous peoples, of OP 4.10 insofar as they require—as a matter of federal PAGE 22 | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE policy—that IPs retain access to their customary territories ered to be one of the most fundamental human rights for the purposes of traditional economic activity, partici- for IPs. It is grounded in general human rights principles of pate in the enforcement of state legal protections, and re- equality, property and cultural integrity that are incorporat- tain access to material and financial resources required to ed within several multilateral treaties to which the Russian maintain such areas. Federation is a party.34 The creation of a legal environment that ensures full respect for IPs' traditional ownership, ac- However, Russian law rules out any form of land ten- cess and use rights has been the main aspiration of indige- ure other than rent and private property. The 2001 nous organizations since the inception of the Russian indig- Land Code (Земельний кодекс; zemel'nyi kodeks)31 enous movement in the late 1980s.35 It is also an issue that states (§20) that: “Citizens cannot be granted permanent remains unresolved. (indefinite) use [rights] over plots of land. Judicial per- sons, except those named under item 1 of this provision In practice, however, the majority of IPs has no per- are obliged to have their right to permanent (indefinite) manent legal rights over the land and natural resources use of land plots transferred into the right to rent (право that they depend on for their survival. Although the con- аренды; pravo arendy) the given plots or to obtain the stitution of the Russian Federation allows for varied forms plots as property.” [Incidentally, this formulation runs of land and natural resources ownership (private, state, counter to another provision of the Code (§12) that de- municipal and otherwise), most of the land and subsoil re- fines land as a public good “to be preserved as the basis sources in Russia are the property of the state. Agricultural, of the life and the activities of the peoples inhabiting forest, pasture and other land parcels utilized by private en- the respective territory.”] The contradictions of the Land tities are primarily leased from the government. IPs’ rights Code with the provisions of ‘On Guarantees’ create se- to land and natural resources are consistent with this gener- vere difficulties for IPs in asserting their rights to land al framework; they are accorded rights to use the land and and resources. Yet, government representatives maintain its renewable and common resources while title ownership that despite the fact that the current version of the Land remains with the state.36 Code has been operational for several years, indigenous groups rarely pay any fees as a practical matter. How- There is a lack of congruence among the Russian Fed- ever, IP representatives contend that IP communities do eration laws with regard to how land and tenure are pay such fees, and even if these are small, they nonethe- established. The designation of the land as a public good less impose an economic burden on indigenous commu- under the 2001 Land Code §12 runs contrary to forms of nities. land ownership enshrined in IPs' own customary law as it provides no room for the recognition of an indigenous com- Indigenous territories can also be protected as “Terri- munity as a collective rights-holder.37 This provision also tories of Traditional Nature Use.” The Federal Law “On acts as a major obstacle to the realization of land use rights Territories”32 provides that the land utilized by an indige- of IPs, enshrined in other federal laws, namely the Federal nous community for traditional economic activities can be law On Guarantees.38 The law provides certain privileg- recognized as a “territory of traditional nature use” and be es regarding land tenure and use of natural resources, in- assigned to that community to use free-of-charge for a cer- cluding the right of IPs to use land free of charge at places tain renewable period of time. IPs living in these territories traditionally inhabited and used by them. With regard to are guaranteed several privileges: the right to continue to the federal law On Territories,39 there is little evidence of occupy the land and use its renewable resources for tradi- progress toward defining workable implementing meas- tional activities, the right to participate in decision-making ures. Indigenous organisations in Russia regard the imple- when industrial development in the territory is considered, mentation of this law as an important—but by itself insuf- and the right to receive compensation when industrial de- ficient—step towards providing them with some degree of velopment that interferes with their access to land or dam- control over on-going developments in their territories and ages the environment occurs. Significantly, the law ‘On to ensure the protection and full realisation of their right to Territories’ also provides that when designated traditional adequate food and to subsistence (as provided under Article nature use territories are established, oil and other industri- 11 and Art. 1.2, respectively, of the International Covenant al development may take place only after consultation and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights).40 agreement with the indigenous communities living there.33 There are also only a few by-laws or procedures speci- The right to secure land and resource tenure is consid- fying methods for policy implementation. On-going land PAGE 23 reforms at the federal level sometimes result in conflicting Another factor affecting IPs’ access to lands and natu- or inconsistent legal and regulatory rules, which create sig- ral resources has been the establishment of parks or na- nificant legal uncertainty regarding the status of indigenous ture reserves on the basis of conservationist objectives. rights in existing regional territories of traditional use.41 For In some areas, such as in the Beloyarski municipality in example, even in places where areas of traditional nature Khanti-Mansiyski, the establishment of state nature parks use have been designated, IPs may still be subject to li- has been viewed as positive, since it has kept areas free censing and auctioning regimes that force them to bid for from industrial development and resource extraction, while hunting and fishing licenses in competition with non-indig- allowing traditional activities to continue. However, in oth- enous (usually commercial) interests, without any priority er areas, such as the Sinda village in Khabarovsky Krai, given to traditional hunting or fishing practices.42 Further, specially protected nature parks have been in conflict with in some places, fishing and hunting licenses are issued the interests of the IPs who traditionally have used resourc- with quotas that are grossly insufficient to meet nutrition- es from these areas.50 al needs. As a result, indigenous communities experience problems realizing access to the resources that they depend on for their livelihood.43 D. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL Further, the concept of “territories of traditional nature RESOURCES use” established under the Law On Territories is often not carried out in practice. In theory—while not amount- ing to full recognition of indigenous ownership of given A) WORLD BANK POLICY territories—the formation of TTNUs would at least serve to institute co-management regimes, granting indigenous OP 4.10 provides that the commercial development of communities certain decision-making powers over a giv- the natural and cultural resources of IPs is conditional en territory and installing a minimum level of protection upon their prior agreement to such development. This re- against unmitigated industrial exploitation by third parties. quirement applies to projects involving “the commercial de- Since the law was adopted over a decade ago, in 2001,44 velopment of natural resources… on lands or territories that only a few such territories have been created (in Khan- Indigenous Peoples traditionally owned, or customarily used ty-Mansiysk, the Republic of Sakha [Yakutia], Khabarovsk or occupied” as well as projects involving “the commercial Krai, and the Nenets AO). Russian authorities attribute this development of Indigenous Peoples’ cultural resources and to the absence of necessary administrative by-laws.45 More- knowledge.” The nature and content borrower agreements over, a draft policy proposed by the Ministry of Regional with IPs must be documented in the project’s Indigenous Development jeopardizes the status of TTNU as specially Peoples Plan (IPP) along with specification of “arrange- protected territories. ments to enable Indigenous Peoples to receive benefits in a culturally appropriate way and share equitably in the benefits Hunting rights,46 access to forest,47 and aquatic resourc- to be derived from such commercial development.” es48 also present an issue. These issues are regulated by codes which define similar limitations to the concepts of As part of this, OP 4.10 requires that borrowers—through usufruct and ownership and obligate indigenous obshchi- a process of free, prior, and informed consultation—in- nas to participate in commercial tenders for hunting and form project affected communities of (paragraph 18): fishing grounds with usually more competitive private businesses. These legislative provisions substantially en- (a) their rights to such resources under statutory and cus- danger the continued access of IPs to their sources of sub- tomary law; sistence, food, and income.49 In cases where policies and practices of the federal government and regional govern- (b) the scope and nature of the proposed commercial de- ments diverge, the legal weight of regulations introduced velopment and the parties interested or involved in by regional administrations is often unclear. This is espe- such development; and cially the case when different regional and/or federal laws have conflicting provisions, and also because much of the (c) the potential effects of such development on the Indig- land inhabited or used by IPs is under the jurisdiction of the enous Peoples’ livelihoods, environments, and use of federal government rather than the regional administration. such resources. PAGE 24 | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE OP 4.10 also requires borrowers to establish arrange- of appropriate guidelines. The legislative provisions that ments ‘to enable the Indigenous Peoples to share equi- exist carry no sanctions for their violation. Recent reports tably in the benefits to be derived from such commer- of industrial operations in indigenous territories operating cial development.’ At a minimum, these include ‘benefits, without consultation, consent or even information sharing compensation, and rights to due process at least equiva- have come from Tomsk oblast, Yamal Nenets okrug, Altai lent to that to which any landowner with full legal title to republic, the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), Kamchatka ter- the land would be entitled in the case of commercial devel- ritory, and Sakhalin oblast.51 Environmental impact studies opment on their land.’ show that such projects do not only affect the infrastructure and access to lands in the relevant territories, but lead to the degradation of entire habitats.52 B) RUSSIAN FEDERATION LAW The Land Code, Forestry Code, and Water Code do The rights and safeguards under the Federal Law On not limit tenders and auctions of land, forest and water Guarantees also apply to the cultural development of areas in territories where IPs live and for the natural IPs’ lands and resources. In addition to the provisions resources they use. This situation effectively reduces the cited above, two additional provisions are relevant: hunting grounds and pastures for IPs. Moreover, the law has no regulation that obliges license holders to provide §8.2.6. in the manner prescribed by civil legislation, cre- indigenous users access to the areas they inhabit and use. ate economic partnerships and associations, in- Such legislation creates grounds for endless conflicts and dustrial and consumer cooperatives, to engage lawsuits where IPs have to defend their right to traditional in traditional economic activities and fisheries livelihood.53 Further, in many regions, IPs establish small between indigenous peoples and non-indigenous local community-based enterprises called obshchinas.54 In persons, provided that the organization has not small, remote indigenous settlements, obshchinas serve as less than half the jobs given to indigenous peo- the only source of employment and income. Since 2008, ples; however, obshchinas have lost their access to fishing, hunt- ing areas and pastures in many regions and, with this, their §8.2.7. acquire primary ownership of organizations of economic basis for development.55 traditional economic and traditional handicraft in- stitutions of indigenous peoples in their places of The use of fisheries presents a particular challenge. To traditional residence and economic activity. compound the complexities of managing industrial oper- ations in IPs’ territories, the Federal Ministry of Region- To objectively assess the extent of exposure of Indige- al Development is currently promoting changes to federal nous Peoples to risks imposed by potential development fishery legislation, which de facto ban obshchinas from projects on their lands and territories, the Ministry of Re- selling their produce and thus from generating income for gional Development on December 9, 2009 adopted Order their employees. As noted above, according to three federal № 565, Methodology calculating the amount of damages laws adopted or revised since 2001 (the Forestry Code56, to all forms of property and individuals caused to associ- the Federal Law On Fishing and Conservation of Water ations of Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and the Biological Resources57 and the Federal Law On the Con- Russian Far East as a result of economic and other activi- servation of Hunting Grounds and Amendments to Specific ties of organizations in places of traditional residence and Regulations of the Russian Federation58) all forest, hunting economic activities of Indigenous Peoples of the Russian and fishing areas, including those in the territories inhabit- Federation. ed by IPs, may be granted to commercial companies on the basis of long-term licenses obtained by tender. The dura- The territories inhabited by IPs of the North are affect- tion of such licenses is usually 20 years or more, meaning ed by an on-going expansion of industrial operations, that even if the government takes measures to implement mostly in the extractive industries. IPs and their repre- the law on TTNUs, many of the land areas and resources sentative organizations note that such industrial activi- being used by IPs are already under private control, pro- ty often occurs without prior consultation with IPs about tected by long-term contracts. planned activities—let alone adequate compensation or benefits-sharing arrangements. This situation is exacerbat- Access to fish stocks and fishing grounds is especial- ed by both federal and regional government bodies’ lack ly critical, as fish constitute the single most important PAGE 25 source of nutrients for many IPs. In spite of this right E. PHYSICAL RELOCATION OF being protected by federal law,59 fishing authorities pursue INDIGENOUS PEOPLES highly restrictive policies and impose often arbitrary and non-transparent restriction on indigenous fish-depend- ent communities that make any meaningful perpetuation A) WORLD BANK POLICY of traditional fishing practices impossible. For example, even though the law ‘On Fishing’ states that IPs do not OP 4.10 requires borrowers “to explore alternative pro- require fishing permits for private consumption, the prac- ject designs to avoid physical relocation of Indigenous tice of the Russian authorities is to annually determine Peoples.” This requirement reflects the recognition that per capita quotas for ecological reasons. IPs are usually “physical relocation of Indigenous Peoples is particularly required to obtain individual permits, even for personal complex and may have significant adverse impacts on their consumption. The policy is very restrictive and sanctions, identity, culture, and customary livelihoods.” In those “ex- including fines and confiscation of equipment, are fre- ceptional circumstances, when it is not feasible to avoid quently reported.60 relocation” borrower relocation must have “broad support” from the affected IPs’ communities as part of the free, prior, The principal flaws of such quota systems from the per- and informed consultation process. OP 4.10 further speci- spective of IPs can be summarized as follows:61 fies that: • Lack of transparency and participation: Quotas and In such cases, the borrower prepares a resettlement plan their durations and effective areas of coverage are de- in accordance with the requirements of OP 4.12 Involun- termined by the authorities without participation of tary Resettlement that is compatible with the Indigenous IPs; decisions may come at short notice and appeals Peoples’ cultural preferences, and includes a land-based may not be heeded or even answered. resettlement strategy. As part of the resettlement plan, the borrower documents the results of the consultation pro- • Inaccessibility: The procedures for obtaining quotas cess. Where possible, the resettlement plan should allow are often either prohibitively bureaucratic or require the affected Indigenous Peoples to return to the lands and travel to a distant central settlement or town, which IPs territories they traditionally owned, or customarily used may not be able to afford. or occupied, if the reasons for their relocation cease to exist. • Insufficient quotas: The annual quotas often constitute just a fraction of what would be an acceptable mini- OP 4.10 also provides that involuntary restrictions to mum with regards to the IPs' nutritional and cultural IPs’ access to lands and territories, and in particular needs. their sacred sites should be avoided. In those “exception- al circumstances, when it is not feasible to avoid restricting • Inadequate and unrealistic conditions attached to the access,” borrowers are required to prepare—with the free, quota: Permits may be issued partly or exclusively for prior, and informed consultation of the affected IP commu- species which do not occur at a given place; places nities—a process framework in accordance with the provi- may be assigned which are inaccessible; fishing per- sions of OP 4.12. Specifically: mits may be received only after the season has ended, etc.; failure to comply with the imposed restrictions is The process framework provides guidelines for prepara- sanctioned by fines or confiscation of equipment. tion, during project implementation, of an individual parks and protected areas’ management plan, and ensures that the • Denial of permits: In some regions, authorities with- Indigenous Peoples participate in the design, implementa- hold issuance of fishing permits unless a person is able tion, monitoring, and evaluation of the management plan, to document her or his indigenous identity; following and share equitably in the benefits of the parks and pro- the removal of the ‘nationality’ entry from Russian pass- tected areas. The management plan should give priority to ports, there is no standard way of doing so. collaborative arrangements that enable the Indigenous, as the custodians of the resources, to continue to use them in an ecologically sustainable manner. PAGE 26 | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE B) RUSSIAN FEDERATION LAW The program for the construction of the Evenkiiskaia hydroelectric dam is another example of such a prob- Russian law does not contain provisions that require the lem. The lack of consultation with or consent from IPs support of IPs for involuntary resettlement. Contrary to raised serious issues in terms of physical displacement in contemporary international norms,62 which require consent the construction of the dam on the Lower Tunguska river in or the broad support of indigenous communities prior to Krasnoyarsk province (implemented by RusHydro). This the authorization of projects involving their resettlement dam would have created the world’s largest artificial lake, or relocation, Russian legislation does not require the IPs' submerging a number of Evenki settlements as well as Tura, free, prior and informed consent. It also does not prescribe the regional center, and potentially destroying much of the to conduct social impact assessments as an element of the fish resources, forested area, and reindeer pasture which project approval procedure.63 constituted the main sources of subsistence and livelihood for the Evenki population. The project was also widely crit- However, some protections against involuntary resettle- icized for the substantial environmental risks involved and ment do exist. The Federal Law On Territories provides that for the involuntary dislocation of the indigenous popula- “In case of withdrawal of land plots and other isolated natu- tion. An overwhelming majority of the impacted popula- ral resources located within the borders of the territories of tion strongly opposed the project. After years of conten- traditional nature for public use to persons belonging to mi- tion, with different organisations supporting opponents of nority peoples, communities and Indigenous Peoples are to the dam because of its negative effects on the customary be granted equivalent lands and other natural resources, and lifestyle of the local Indigenous Peoples, the dam project compensated the losses caused by such withdrawal” (Arti- was canceled—or at least frozen for the next decade and cle 12). Articles 9, 15, 24 protect the interests of Indigenous more.64 Similar situations may arise for ongoing projects in Peoples, requiring the selection and identification of special Altay, Kamchatka, Khabarovsk, and Yakutia. areas to be used for the conduct of traditional economic ac- tivities. There are some key issues that may arise when a project (either government or Bank-sponsored) includes physi- Protections in cases of involuntary resettlement are lim- cal displacement: ited. The lack of protections for IPs in the Russian Feder- ation against government or private sector project-related • The need for pursuing a project planning strategy that involuntary relocations is a serious issue, as physical dis- avoids or minimizes the scope of displacement. placement can cause irreparable damage to a way of life if access to ancestral territories is severed. Having already • Engagement of the indigenous project-affected com- been subject to large-scale relocations during the Soviet munities in planning and decision-making regarding period that severely underminded their cultural integrity, the entire displacement process, including determining indigenous ways of life are extremely vulnerable to any the degree of local community support for the project further disruption. Experience in Russia and globally has to be carried forward. shown that special measures need to be enacted when IPs are threatened with involuntary physical displacement. • Determination of the full roster of project-induced so- cial and ecological effects. Physical displacement of indigenous communities in Russia is more likely to occur due to project-induced • Planning for adequate livelihood restoration and/or changes in land use rather than by official government employment. fiat. This is what happened in the case of the Evenk when a local coal mining company built a railroad across the land • Determination of adequate compensation and methods. where the community grazed their reindeer and the com- munity was forced to relocate with their herds to avoid the • Monitoring and enforcement of resettlement agree- railroad and associated project activities. Although this was ments. not due to direct project impacts, this situation still had se- rious impacts on the local population. • Possibility to return to original settlements once the need for relocation has passed. PAGE 27 F. DEVELOPMENTAL ASSISTANCE (i) facilitate partnerships among the government, IPOs, CSOs, and the private sector to promote IPs’ develop- ment programs.  A) WORLD BANK POLICY OP 4.10 provides that the Bank may offer financial as- B) RUSSIAN FEDERATION LAW sistance to support initiatives that protect IPs. At a mem- ber country’s request, the Bank may support the country in The main objectives of the Russian national policy to- its development planning and poverty reduction strategies ward IPs are to strengthen their social and economic by providing financial assistance for a variety of initiatives potential and protect their environment, traditional life- designed to: style and cultural values. The key document establishing the Russian national policy toward IPs is the 2009 Federal (a) strengthen local legislation, as needed, to establish Decree on the Concept of the Sustainable Development of legal recognition of the customary or traditional land the Small Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and the tenure systems of IPs; Far East of the Russian Federation.65 The Concept Paper was formulated by the Ministry of Regional Development, (b) improve the inclusion of IPs in the development pro- with the participation of federal executive authorities and cess by incorporating their perspectives in the design RAIPON.66 The Concept Paper principles in pursuit of sus- of development programs and poverty reduction strat- tainable development are described in Section 357 as follows: egies, and providing them with opportunities to benefit more fully from development programs through policy • guaranteeing the small-numbered Indigenous Peoples and legal reforms, capacity-building, and free, prior, of the North, in conformity with the Constitution of and informed consultation and participation; the Russian Federation, the universally-recognized principles and norms of the international law and the (c) support the development priorities of IPs through pro- international treaties to which the Russian Federation grams (such as community-driven development pro- is a party; grams and locally managed social funds) developed by governments in cooperation with IPs; • providing an integrated approach to resolving complex problems of social and economic and ethno-cultural (d) address the gender and intergenerational issues that development of the small-numbered Indigenous Peo- exist among many IPs, including the special needs of ples of the North; indigenous women, youth, and children; • coordinating actions of the public and local govern- (e) prepare participatory profiles of IPs to document their ment authorities toward resolving the problems of culture, demographic structure, gender and intergener- socio-economic and ethno-cultural development of ational relations and social organization, institutions, small-numbered Indigenous Peoples of the North; production systems, religious beliefs, and resource use patterns; • ensuring active participation of the small Indigenous Peoples of the North in achieving their sustainable de- (f) strengthen the capacity of IPs’ communities and IPOs velopment goals; to prepare, implement, monitor, and evaluate develop- ment programs; • recognising the value of land and other natural resourc- es (including biological resources) and environmental (g) strengthen the capacity of government agencies re- well-being as the basis of the traditional lifestyles and sponsible for providing development services to IPs; traditional economic activities of the small-numbered Indigenous Peoples of the North; residence and tradi- (h) protect indigenous knowledge, including by strength- tional economic activities; ening intellectual property rights; • participation of the representatives and the associa- tions of the small-numbered Indigenous Peoples of the PAGE 28 | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE North in making decisions on their rights and interests the territories necessary for their traditional economic while exploring natural resources in traditional habitat activities and livelihood at no cost to them; and the areas of traditional economic activities; 5. development of a draft federal law to ensure priority • obligatory estimation of cultural, ecological and social access for IPs, their communities and other indigenous consequences of the suggested projects and activities associations to hunting grounds, game, fishing areas in traditional habitat and the areas of traditional eco- and water resources on their traditional land; nomic activities of the small-numbered Indigenous Peoples of the North; 6. development of regulations related to documents con- firming IPs’ nationalities; • compensation for damages to the traditional envi- ronment, traditional lifestyle and the health of the 7. development of proposals concerning forms of rep- small-numbered Indigenous Peoples of the North. resentation for IPs in the legislative (representative) bodies of the public authorities in the Russian Feder- Some observers believe the Government of the Russian ation’s provinces. Federation’s approval of the Concept Paper is a signifi- cant and positive development. They note that for the first In practice, however, the Concept Paper did not lead time the Government of the Russian Federation clearly es- to considerable legislative changes. Legislative propos- tablished its own standard for implementation of its public als developed by the Ministry of Regional Development policies to protect the rights of IPs. The Concept Paper also (MINREG) over the period 2009-2011 relating to the first promises direct government support for IPs, and aims to fa- five items on the above list were inconsistent with existing cilitate the mobilization of domestic resources to protect IPs.  laws and consequently rejected by the government. MIN- REG proposed draft laws that further derogated the rights Russian national policy aims for development assistance granted by current legislation. For example, according to a to IPs, as defined in the Concept Paper, largely correlate new draft law on territories of traditional nature use, which with OP 4.10. Yet, in spite of the legislative improvements would replace the law of 2001, the TTNUs would lose their envisioned in the Concept Paper—and especially the 2009- status as specially protected territories, which would mean 2011 Action Plan for the Implementation of the Concept depriving them of their environmental protection. This con- of the Sustainable Development of Small-numbered Indige- tradicts the Russian federal government instruction dated nous Peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East of the April 14, 2009, No.ДК-П-16-2033, which implied that Russian Federation68— little has been accomplished so far there would be a special focus on retaining the status of in realizing these objectives. Among the specific legislative specially protected territories in the course of developing improvements expected in the 2009-2011 period were the the new version of the law.70 Furthermore, the proposed following:69 draft law on TTNUs prevents IPs from implementing their initiative to establish TTNUs and the possibility of TTNU 1. development of the required regulatory documents to joint management. The provincial and municipal authori- establish territories for traditional use of natural re- ties will lose their power to establish TTNUs at the regional sources by IPs, according to the Federal Law on TTNU; and local levels. Consequently, the legitimacy of already established TTNUs, in some regions, is jeopardized. MIN- 2. establishment of model territories for TTNU; REG has been elaborating this draft law for three years, but it has never been presented to the State Duma. In practice, 3. development of a Relationship Strategy between rep- these delays prevent implementation of the 2001 law on resentatives of IPs and industrial companies operating traditional territories and thus the establishment of TTNUs. in their territories and regulations governing compen- As noted above, as of 2011, only a few such territories had sation for losses sustained by IPs through damage to been established.71 their traditional living environment and thereby their traditional way of life; Legislative initiatives concerning items 6 and 7 have also not been carried forward. RAIPON’s legislative pro- 4. preparation of proposals to amend the Forest Code, posals for these items have been rejected. As for the draft Land Code and Water Code in relation to IPs’ access to laws on fishing and hunting, these only allow IPs to fish PAGE 29 and hunt for food, without the right to sell the surplus, as Since the Bank started working in Russia, only a few has been the practice for the past 300 years. Consequently, projects have touched areas inhabited by IPs. This was in 2011, the government’s plans for Russia’s IPs were not largely because the Bank’s portfolio has been focused al- fulfilled and the expected legislative reform regulating in- most exclusively in the more European west-of-the-Urals digenous peoples’ rights never materialised.72 section of the country. Two oil pipeline rehabilitation pro- jects, though, repaired pipelines in Western Siberia that travel through traditional territories of IPs. An indigenous G. WORLD BANK PROJECTS emergency response team was trained under the second APPLYING THE INDIGENOUS pipeline rehabilitation project, but the interests of IPs were PEOPLES POLICY (OD 4.20 AND OP not otherwise distinguished from those of the rest of the 4.10) IN RUSSIA population. Two subsequent projects (one in oil develop- ment and another in highway improvement) triggered OD Russia was the site of three public consultations in 2001 4.20 in the preparatory assessment process, but one project to review the first main draft of OP/BP 4.10. The Russian was dropped before appraisal and the other project never Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia, became effective. and the Far East (RAIPON) organized public consulta- tions in Khabarovsk and in Naryan Mar, which coincided The application of the Bank’s Operational Policy 4.10 with RAIPON’s national gathering of leaders of local in- on IPs increased significantly in Fiscal Year 2011/2012 digenous organizations. This collaboration established an as World Bank activities expanded to the eastern and ongoing dialogue between Indigenous Peoples leaders and northern parts of Russia. During the past year, both the the Bank’s Europe and Central Asia (ECA) Regional De- Forest Fire Response Project in Khabarovsk and the Project partment and its Safeguards Unit. Since the consultations in on Education in Yakutia have triggered the policy. Brief 2001, RAIPON has sponsored a number of workshops and summaries of these OP 4.10 applications are provided in roundtables on Indigenous Peoples issues, especially relat- the boxes below. ed to extractive industries, at which Bank and IFC repre- sentatives have been invited to participate. Both RAIPON and regional IPs organizations have disseminated OP 4.10 and used the policy as a framework in discussions with regional governments and developers in their attempts to gain recognition of their traditional use rights and protect their traditional habitats from incursion and exploitation by others. In 2002, the ECA Regional Department commissioned a preliminary review of the ethnic composition of each country. The review aimed to assess the constitutions and major legislation to determine whether or not IPs are rec- ognized in any of the countries. This preliminary review demonstrated the difficulty of applying the policy (OD 4.20 at that time) in the region and found virtually no legal ba- sis to trigger the policy in any country except the Russian Federation. PAGE 30 | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE BOX 2. FOREST FIRE RESPONSE PROJECT The first project, the Forest Fire Response Project tivities on the communities living in project areas, and (Forest Project-2),73 is a GEF forest fire management preliminary consultations with IPs.75 project in the Far East. It covers some areas classified as ‘Traditional Use’ areas and for which an Indigenous The social assessment revealed no significant nega- Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF) was prepared. Pro- tive effects of project activities on IPs, while the over- ject implementation has been slow, however. The pro- all impact was considered positive. For IPs relying ject is located in 15 regions but screening for IPs’ pres- significantly on hunting, fishing and other forest-related ence in the areas of project implementation revealed IPs activities, a reduction in forest fires is seen as a highly are found only in the Khabarovsk Kray. In other regions valuable positive effect, which outweighs any tempo- IPs are either absent or localized in forest-poor areas, rary negative effects. However, the IPPF was still seen beyond the project areas, or do not rely on forests and as necessary to ensure the full participation of IPs in the forest resources for their livelihood due to assimilation. benefits and mitigate any potential occurrence of neg- ative impacts (for example, during implementation of Seven “small peoples of the north” were found to be “construction and clearing of fire breaks” or forest use project-affected: Nanai, Negidals, Nivkh, Oroch, Ude- restrictions following from “fire management plans” de- ge, Ulch, and Evenks. For Khabarovsk Krai, these seven veloped during the project). The IPPF will guide the fu- peoples comprise 1.5 percent of the population (22,000 ture development of specific Indigenous Peoples Plans individuals).74 The Bank prepared an IPPF in Decem- as the Project specifies the precise areas to be involved ber 2011 to provide the framework through which neg- and in what ways they will participate. The purpose of ative impacts on the IPs will be mitigated and positive the IPPF is to ensure that the development process fully impacts enhanced based on free, prior, and informed respects the dignity, rights, economies, and cultures of consultations with the affected IPs. As part of project IPs, and that the project is able to gain the broad com- preparation, a social assessment was performed, which munity support of affected IPs.76 included assessments of the overall impact of project ac- BOX 3. PRESCHOOL EDUCATION PROJECT The second project, the Preschool Education Pro- components will support innovations for preschool ed- ject for Yakutia77, aims to improve the accessibility ucation with a budget of nearly USD 7 million.78 and quality of the preschool education services in the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia). According to the The IP policy was triggered since out of 93 potential Russian 2002 Census, Yakutia was inhabited by 127 locations for kindergartens 17 have either majority ethnicities with Yakuts (45.6 percent) and Russians or a significant portion of indigenous population. As (41.1 percent), the major populations, and IPs (primar- not all specific locations were determined at the time ily Evens, Evenks, and Yukagir) comprising the bulk of of Project Preparation, an IPPF was prepared for this the remaining population. The majority portion of the project.79 The project will emphasize educational inno- project will build kindergarten capacity in urban and vation approaches that will be in conformity with the rural areas. Constructing new kindergartens in urban cultural preferences of the area’s local cultural groups, areas and municipal centers, building new kindergar- in accordance with Yakutia regional law. The project tens in rural areas with community participation, and hopes to bring in models of pre-school and kindergar- rebuilding other buildings to accommodate kindergar- ten education for nomadic and scattered groups, based tens will cost around USD 226 million. Other project on the Bank’s extensive international knowledge PAGE 31 H. AN INDIGENOUS VIEW still continues. At the same time, new proprietors under- stand that driving away the aborigines is impossible be- As shown in the legal overview above, there is a gap cause a row may ensue. The land grab is going on quietly. between formal IP rights under the Russian legislation and their practical implementation. Formally, IPs in the The pattern is about the same almost everywhere. The ad- Russian Federation have a wide range of special benefits ministration of the region invites applications for the lease and rights guaranteed to them, broadly paralleling the spe- of hunting or fishing grounds. As the small indigenous com- cial considerations and requirements for participation and munity lives in the taiga forest in remote villages, its people consultation called for in OP 4.10. However, they are not know nothing about the contest. But even if they chance to always attainable. Contradictory laws and regulations as find out and do try to apply, the tender committee will brush well as a lack of enforcement can result in the de facto them off under any pretext—in most cases by finding errors denial of many of the rights accorded to IPs. This gap be- in the drawing up of the document. Although legally it is the tween the formal legal framework and its implementation indigenous population that has priority rights to apply for is illustrated in a 2007 interview given by Pavel Sulyandzi- the lease of fishing or hunting grounds, this is only what the ga, First Vice-President of RAIPON and member of the law proclaims. In reality, for example in the Amur Region Public Chamber.80 Mr. Sulyandziga’s response to the ques- none of the indigenous communities managed to win any of tion “What has been the effect on the life of the Small Peo- the hunting ground leases on the Evenk-populated territo- ples of the Forest, Land and Water Codes?” is as follows. ry last year; all the leases were won by a company whose owner is said to be close to the regional administration. The Land Code has done us the greatest harm. The term “permanent free use” has been eliminated from Russian Well, what happened next was that the company came to vocabulary, with only “lease” and “property” remaining. see the indigenous people and said to them, “Comrade ab- Recently an amendment was made declaring that perma- origines! The land is mine; go on hunting, but do it for me nent ownership of land is possible, but it refers to the Rus- now. Bring the fur and other things to my office and submit sian Orthodox Church alone. The small indigenous peoples them at a fixed rate. If you refuse to do so, I’ll evict you.” have been brushed aside, so to say. Nobody is going to give What could they do? Nothing. Those that disagree, if any, reindeer-breeders their millions of hectares of pasture, with are quickly branded as poachers—in full conformity with huge mineral resources on them. The only alternative left the law now, for they have hunted without permission on is lease, which is very expensive. Thank God, the regional grounds that do not belong to them. officials have not charged the indigenous peoples anything as yet – probably due to inertia: they have never done so The saddest thing is that the business-persons act under before. But as things stand, it turns out that the indigenous the umbrella of the regional authorities and hence totally peoples are using the land illegally. So we are trespassers unabashedly. If the situation is not reversed, this will un- on our own lands. Incidentally, there have already been two dermine the foundations of the indigenous peoples’ life and instances—in the Primorsky Territory and in the Magadan will destroy them. Region—of the Federal Forest Service attempting to ex- tract rent for the use of hunting grounds. Today there is a huge problem that regional authorities would prefer to keep silent on and the Federal Govern- ment would rather ignore—it is the buying up of lands in the North, Siberia and the Russian Far East. This process became noticeable four years ago, when the situation in Russia became completely stabilized and business people must have realized that there still were tidbits not seized by anybody. Whereas big property (petroleum, natural gas and gold) had been divided long before, smaller industries (forest, fishing, hunting and tourism) were farmed out to the local authorities. As a result, there followed an ousting of indigenous peoples from their areas of habitation, which PAGE 32 | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE NOTES: 11 Федеральный закон от 30.04.1999 N 82-ФЗ ’О гарантиях прав коренных малочисленных народов Российской Федерации.’ 1 Russian Federation, 1993. Constitution of the Russian Federation. Available online at: http://base.garant.ru/180406/ [25 December 1993]. Available at: http://government.ru/eng/gov/ base/54.html [accessed June 1, 2012] 12 Adopted July 20, 2000 [№ 104-ФЗ] Available at: http://base.garant. ru/182356/ 2 This segment of Article 72 refers specifically to ‘Indigenous Peoples’ and ‘Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and the 13 Adopted May 07, 2001 [№ 49-ФЗ] Available at: http://base.garant. Far East’ and this formula is referred to in the Federal Law, ‘On ru/12122856/ Guarantees of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of the Russian 14 Government of the Russian Federation, 2009. On the Concept Federation,’ Preamble, Art. 5, 6, 8; in the Federal Law, ‘On General of Sustainable Development of the Small-numbered Indigenous Principles of Organization of Communities of Indigenous Peoples Peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East of the Russian Fed- of the North, Siberia and the Far East,’ Preamble; and in the Federal eration [04 February 2009 № 132-р]. Available at: http://stavkan.ru/ Law, ‘On Territories of Traditional Nature Use of Indigenous Peo- materials/laws/show.php?adres=148039 ples of the North, Siberia and the Far East,’ p. 95. 15 United Nations Human Rights Council, 2010. [A/HRC/15/37/ 3 Other international legal instruments are also frequently cited by Add.5] Indigenous Peoples Organizations of the Russian Federation (and others with a particular focus on Russia), including the 1992 Con- 16 These seven objectives are: protecting the natural environment and vention on Biological Diveristy (ratified by Russia in 1995). The traditional use of land and natural resources; developing and mod- three treaties discussed here count among the nine core internation- ernizing traditional commercial activities; increasing the standard al human rights treaties of the United Nations. For more informa- of living; improving the demographic situation to bring it into line tion, please refer to the website of the Office of the United Nations with the national average; improving access to educational services High Commissioner for Human rights: http://www2.ohchr.org/ taking into account specific ethno-cultural needs; supporting the de- english/law/ velopment of clan communities and other forms of self-governance; and protecting cultural heritage. 4 United Nations, 1966. International Convention on the Elimi- nation of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. New York: United 17 OP 4.10 paragraph 11 Nations Treaty Collection [web page]. Available online at: http:// 18 OP 4.10 footnote 11: ‘Such consultation methods (including using treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_ indigenous languages, allowing time for consensus building, and no=IV-2&chapter=4&lang=en selecting appropriate venues) facilitate the articulation by Indige- 5 Racial discrimination is defined as “any distinction, exclusion, nous Peoples of their views and preferences.  The Indigenous Peo- restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ples Guidebook (forthcoming) will provide good practice guidance ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impair- on this and other matters.’ ing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of 19 OP 4.10 paragraphs 6-7; 10-11 human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life” (Article 1). 20 OP 4.10 paragraph 15 6 United Nations, 1966. [Convention on the Elimination of Racial 21 OP 4.10 paragraphs 10-11 Discrimination] 22 http://go.worldbank.org/HKL3IU1T21 7 “In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the 23 Федеральный закон от 30 апреля 1999 г. N 82-ФЗ «О гарантиях right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy прав коренных малочисленных народов Российской Федерации» their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to (с изменениями и дополнениями). Available online at: http://base. use their own language” (Article 27). “In those States in which garant.ru/180406/ ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to 24 «Положение об оценке воздействия намечаемой хозяйственной such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the и иной деятельности на окружающую среду в Российской other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess Федерации» May 16, 2000, N 372. Available online at: http://base. and practice their own religion, or to use their own language” (Arti- garant.ru/12120191/ cle 27). 25 For example, federal policy and social programs are developed by 8 United Nations, 1976. International Covenant on Economic, Social the Ministry of Regional Development, fishing policies and regula- and Cultural Rights. New York: United Nations Treaty Collection tions are developed by the Ministry of Agriculture, while hunting is [web page]. Available online at: http://treaties.un.org/Pages/View- within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Natural Resources Details.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-3&chapter=4&lang=en [accessed 01 June 2012] 26 United Nations Human Rights Council, 2010. [A/HRC/15/37/ Add.5] 9 Minority Rights Group International, 2011. 27 Khanti-Mansiysky Autonomous Region is also the only federal 10 United Nations Human Rights Council, 2010. ‘Report of the subject in the Russian Federation to have legislated a quota of indig- Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and funda- enous representation at the regional Duma (3 out of 21 seats there are mental freedoms of indigenous people, James Anaya. Addendum reserved for representatives of Indigenous Peoples, although the rep- - Situation of Indigenous Peoples in the Russian Federation’ [A/ resentatives themselves are not required to be indigenous. Elections HRC/15/37/Add.5] New York: Office of the High Commissioner on the basis of nationality is prohibited in Russia by electoral law. on Human Rights. Available online at:http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ Issues/IPeoples/SRIndigenousPeoples/Pages/CountryReports.aspx 28 United Nations Human Rights Council, 2010. [A/HRC/15/37/Add.5] [accessed June 1, 2012] 29 United Nations Human Rights Council, 2010. [A/HRC/15/37/Add.5] PAGE 33 30 Федеральный закон от 30 апреля 1999 г. N 82-ФЗ «О гарантиях long-term periods (up to 49 years), meaning that even if measures прав коренных малочисленных народов Российской Федерации» to implement the Law on Territories of Traditional Nature Use (с изменениями и дополнениями). Available online at: http://base. begin to come into effect, many territories of traditional use by garant.ru/180406/ Indigenous Peoples will already be under the control of private businesses, whose rights are protected by legally binding long-term 31 Federal Law 136-FZ of October 25, 2001 agreements (RAIPON & IWGA, 2011). 32 Federal Law of July 7,.2001 N 49-FZ 50 United Nations Human Rights Council, 2010. [A/HRC/15/37/Add.5] 33 United Nations Human Rights Council, 2010. [A/HRC/15/37/Add.5] 51 RAIPON & IWGIA, 2011. [’Parallel Information’] 34 In particular, the International Covenant on Civil and Political 52 Anongos, Abigail et al., 2012. “Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigenous Rights; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Peoples and Extractive Industries,” IWGIA, available at http:// Cultural Rights; and the International Convention on the Elimi- www.iwgia.org/iwgia_files_publications_files/0596_Pitfalls_and_ nation of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, as made clear by Pipelines_-_Indigenous_Peoples_and_Extractive_Industries.pdf the treaty-monitoring bodies that oversee compliance with these instruments. 53 IWGIA, 2011. [‘Update 2011 – Russia’] 35 RAIPON & IWGIA, 2011. [‘Parallel Information’] 54 Obshchina literally means ‘community.’ Indigenous obshchinas were introduced in the early 1990s and were originally intended to 36 United Nations Human Rights Council, 2010. [A/HRC/15/37/Add.5] assume both economic functions and functions of self-administra- 37 АКМНСС & IWGIA, 2011. [‘Параллельная информация’] tion of Indigenous Peoples. In practice, however, their economic function has been much more significant. Their status is governed 38 Федеральный закон «О гарантиях прав коренных by a special federal law ‘Ob obshchikh printsipakh organizatsii ob- малочисленных народов Российской Федерации» (On guarantees shchin korennykh malochislennykh narodov Severa, Sibiri i Dal’ne- of the rights of small-numbered Indigenous Peoples of the Russian go Vostoka Rossiiskoi Federatsii’ (‘On General principles of the Federaion) от 30 апреля 1999 года, № 82-FZ organisation of obshchinas of small-numbered Indigenous Peoples 39 Federal law 49-FZ of May 7, 2001 of the North, Siberia and the Far East of the Russian Federation’) 40 RAIPON & IWGIA, 2011. [‘Parallel Information’] 55 IWGIA, 2011. [‘Update 2011 – Russia’] 41 For example, along the Amur River surrounding Sikachi-Alian 56 Лесной кодекс Российской Федерации от 4 декабря 2006 г. N village in Khabarovky Krai, indigenous residents currently enjoy de 200-ФЗ facto free-of-charge use of land resources and receive preferential 57 Федеральный закон от 20 декабря 2004 г. N 166-ФЗ “О access to fishing areas. Yet federal land reforms could have the рыболовстве и сохранении водных биологических ресурсов” effect of undermining these currently existing regional entitlements, and in this regard the rights of Indigenous Peoples within the area 58 Adopted July 24, 2009 [N 209-ФЗ] are feared to be at risk and not legally defensible. 59 Federal Law On Fishing and on the Protection of Aquatic Biologi- 42 There are multiple reports of indigenous communities that have cal Resources stipulates in §2: applied for fishing grounds with no success, especially in Buryatia Consideration (Russian: uchët) of the interests of the population, and Kamchatka. for whom fishing constitutes the basic livelihood, in particular small-numbered Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and the 43 United Nations Human Rights Council, 2010. [A/HRC/15/37/Add.5] Far East…according to which they have to be provided access to 44 Russian Federal Law «О территориях традиционного aquatic biological resources, belonging to fishery objects, allowing природопользования коренных малочисленных народов Севера, the population to carry out their subsistence activities. Сибири и Дальнего Востока Российской Федерации» от 7 мая Section §25 further specifies that individuals belonging to KMNS- 2001 г. (в ред. от 26.06.2007г. №118-ФЗ) SDV have the right to fish for purposes of pursuing their traditional way of life with or without having a license or title over a dedicated 45 RAIPON, IWGIA. 2011. ‘Parallel Information Concerning the fishing site and that no permission is required for them to fish with- Situation of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of Indigenous out such a title. (RAIPON & IWGIA 2011) and Small-Numbered Peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East of the Russian Federation,’ Paper submitted at the occasion 60 RAIPON & IWGIA, 2011. [‘Parallel Information’] of the 46th Session of the Committee on Economic, Social and 61 RAIPON & IWGIA, 2011. [‘Parallel Information’] Cultural Rights, 2-20 May 2011. Copenhagen & Moscow: IWGIA and RAIPON. Available online at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/ 62 This norm is reflected in the ILO Convention 169, the UN Decla- bodies/cescr/docs/ngos/IWGIA_RAIPON_RussianFederation_CE- ration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the jurisprudence SCR46.pdf of the UN Treaty Bodies, wherein consent is required where there are significant physical or cultural impacts on Indigenous Peoples 46 Федеральный закон от 24 июля 2009 г. № 209-ФЗ “Об охоте и of development projects in their lands. Relocation of Indigenous о сохранении охотничьих ресурсов и о внесении изменений в Peoples is widely recognized as having both profound physical and отдельные законодательные акты Российской Федерации.” cultural impacts on them. 47 Лесной кодекс Российской Федерации от 4 декабря 2006 г. № 63 RAIPON & IWGIA, 2010. ‘Proposed Questions to the Government 200-ФЗ of the Russian Federation regarding Economic, Social and Cultural 48 Федеральный закон от 20 декабря 2004 г. № 166-ФЗ “О Rights of Indigenous Small-numbered Peoples of the Russian рыболовстве и сохранении водных биологических ресурсов.” North, Siberia and the Far East.’ Copenhagen: Interntional Workng Group for Indigenous Affairs. Available online at: http://www2. 49 The licenses allowed under these codes may also be awarded for PAGE 34 | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE ohchr.org/english/bodies/cescr/docs/ngos/RAIPON-IWGIA_Rus- sianFederationWG44.pdf 64 CERD/C/RUS/CO/19, Para 24; RAIPON & IWGIA. 2010. [‘Pro- posed Questions’]. 65 ‘Concept Paper’; approved February 4 2009 [№ 132-р]. Available online at: http://stavkan.ru/materials/laws/show.php?adres=148039 66 Международная Выставка-Ярмарка “Сокровища Севера, 2009. (“Developed by the State: ‘The Concept of Sustainable Develop- ment of the KMNSRF.’”) Available online at: http://www.aborigen- expo.ru/news/news_1.html; R AIPON. No date. ‘RAIPON Presid- ium Confirmed.’ Website article. Available online at: http://www. raipon.info/en/component/content/article/8-news/34-raipon-presidi- um-confirmed.html 67 ‘Concept Paper’; A version of this decree can be found at: http:// stavkan.ru/materials/laws/show.php?adres=148039 68 RF Government Resolution dated August 28, 2009, No. 1245-p.р; also refer to RF Government Resolution dated June 23, 2008, No. 895-p.р. Available online at: http://poisk-zakona.ru/56170.html 69 IWGIA, 2011. [‘Update 2011 – Russia’] 70 IWGIA, 2011. [‘Update 2011 – Russia’] 71 IWGIA, 2011. [‘Update 2011 – Russia’] 72 IWGIA, 2011. [‘Update 2011 – Russia’] 73 Refer to: World Bank, 2011. Russian Federation - Forest Fire Response Project: Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework. Rus- sia. Available online at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/ en/2011/12/15568546/russian-federation-forest-fire-response-pro- ject-indigenous-peoples-planning-framework 74 World Bank, 2011. [Forest Fire Response Project] 75 World Bank, 2011. [Forest Fire Response Project] 76 World Bank, 2011. [Forest Fire Response Project] 77 Refer to: Nellemann, Soren, 2012. Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet (Concept Stage) - Development of preschool education system of Sakha (Yakutia) - P127405. Washington, DC: World Bank. Available online at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/ en/2012/02/15878936/integrated-safeguards-data-sheet-con- cept-stage-development-preschool-education-system-sakha-yaku- tia-p127405 78 Project Appraisal Document, Preschool education system of Sakha (Yakutia). 79 Nellemann, Soren, 2012. [Preschool education system of Sakha (Yakutia)] 80 ‘The Last of the Udege People,’ http://raipon.info/en/library.html PAGE 35 PAGE 36 | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE PART IV. KEY ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES A. DEVELOPMENT PREFERENCES fundamental issues of entitlements in cases of economic AND CHALLENGES OF RUSSIA’S development of natural resources found in areas customar- INDIGENOUS PEOPLES ily utilized by IPs. This section outlines the development priorities and IPs’ organizations (IPOs) note that the way to safeguard challenges of small-numbered IPs in Russia. While access to customary lands and resources is to harmonize small-numbered IPs share many common characteristics the existing legislation along the following lines:2 and problems, they also differ significantly from each other. It is therefore difficult (if not impossible) to frame a sin- • Amend land laws to allow forms of land tenure ade- gle concept of sustainable development for all IPs in the quate to IPs’ needs, traditions and customary law—that Russian Federation. This section focuses on five areas of is, IPs’ land tenure and land use should not be subject relevance at the federal level. to any rent or license fees. • Implement the federal law On Territories to grant IPs A) PROTECTION OF RIGHTS TO LAND AND permanent legal titles over the land which they tradi- RESOURCES tionally use and inhabit. IPs would benefit from coherence, consistency and cer- • Amend the legislation regarding subsoil rights in ar- tainty in regard to state legislation concerning their eas of traditional residence and traditional economic access to land and resources. While the Russian Feder- activities of IPs, so as to i) require the free, prior, and ation has formal legal commitments for safeguarding the informed consent of IPs in decision-making regarding rights and fundamendal freedoms of IPs to their custom- the development of mineral resources in those territo- ary lands and resources, the lack of coherence, consistency ries, as well as ii) provide compensation for damages and certainty—including the lack of clear and fair imple- caused to the native habitat of IPs. menting mechanisms—hinders the ability of IPs to enjoy these rights. In accordance with international standards, • Work with regional governments to develop regulatory guarantees for indigenous land and resource rights should frameworks that will help ensure IPs are guaranteed full be (i) legally certain; (ii) implemented fully and fairly for and sustainable access to their traditional sources of food. all indigenous communities; (iii) coherent in their formu- lations of property rights, land leases and auctions among o Include a special focus on ensuring indigenous ob- fisheries and forestry administrations, national parks and shchinas  access to fishing grounds and other re- environmental conservation efforts as well as inclusive of sources needed to maintain their livelihoods and regulation of extractive industries and other commercial business. enterprises; and (iv) consistent between federal and region- al frameworks.1 o Help to re-structure regulatory environments to eliminate any requirements for IPs to file individ- The absence of fair and equitable compensation for ual applications to obtain fishing permits for their damages and impacts of project-related activities pre- personal consumption. If for reasons of biodiver- sents a challenge for IP communities. While this devel- sity conservation, limits on personal consumption opment priority resonates with others already discussed, it are established, the process should be fully trans- extends beyond the notion of effective safeguards to more parent and participatory. PAGE 37 IPs representatives emphasize that aside from the need for Lastly, IPOs are also interested in preserving their free- the above legal reforms, indigenous communities also ex- dom to deviate from traditional lifestyle and occupation. perience great difficulty in properly executing the required That is, IPs should not be narrowly restricted to “tradition- paperwork and related activities (for example, preparation al” subsistence-based strategies but instead should be free to of maps, land surveys, environmental, technical, and other choose non-traditional economic activities such as ethno-tour- studies) to act on their potential rights. ism, industrial fish processing, industrial reindeer herding, and establish community-based micro-credit programmes, or even to provide services to energy development projects. IPs B) PARTICIPATION AND CO-GOVERNANCE do not want their cultures to be embalmed and placed in mu- seums; they desire to actively direct their engagement with IPs would benefit from the right to participate fully and the contemporary world and to forge 21st century versions of effectively in decisions that affect their lives and liveli- their indigenous ways of life. Yet due to current legal under- hoods. This includes their direct involvement in the pro- standings of indigeneity, IPs are concerned that if they do car- cess of law and decision-making at both the federal and ry out non-traditional, mainstream economic activities their regional levels. Another core indigenous development pri- special status as small-numbered IPs would be threatened.6 ority is to achieve widespread acceptance of this right, to realize support for communities wishing to exercise this right, and to witness the creation of mechanisms guaran- C) RIGHTS AWARENESS AND ACCESS TO teeing this right.3 JUSTICE Mandatory quotas could help achieve this objective. IPOs report that IPs often do not comprehend what The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Dis- rights they have, nor do they realize that they can pro- crimination recommends that the Russian Federation tect these rights. Many indigenous communities do not considers the introduction of guaranteed seats or manda- have the financial and technical resources to access legal tory quotas for the representation of indigenous minor- reference materials, to follow changes in the laws, nor to ities of the North, Siberia and the Far East of Russia in utilize modern communication technologies to receive in- the legislative and in executive branchs of government formation about development initiatives that may affect as well as in state agencies on the regional and federal them. In other words, many IPs lack the very tools used levels, to ensure IPs’ effective participation in all deci- by government officials and corporate representatives to sion-making processes affecting their rights and legiti- communicate effectively and to promote their self-inter- mate interests.4 ests. Moreover, many IPs lack the training needed to parse for relevant information within the often voluminous docu- IPOs would be interested in the recognition of the prin- ments that are distributed to them. In cases where IPs rights ciple of co-governance for all matters affecting their to participate in development processes, are not respected, lands and natural resources. The preference of IPOs they are often unaware (and lack access to) effective forms would be for the Government of the Russian Federation of recourse. These deficiencies need to be addressed. to recognize the principle of free, prior, and informed con- sent as described in the UNDRIP as the accepted principle for indigenous co-governance of all projects affecting their D) BENEFITS-SHARING AND DEVELOPMENTAL lands and the natural resources on which they depend.5 ASSISTANCE IPOs would also be interested in obtaining governmental assistance in ensuring that industrial companies do not in- Initiatives in support of education and access to health fringe their rights. This would include an enforceable re- services are the most frequently cited community social quirement that industrial companies operating on IPs’ lands needs. Some context and recommendations in these areas undertake sociocultural impact assessments, share the out- are as follows: comes of these assessments to help ensure local territories’ sustainable long-term usefulness, and provide adequate 1) Education compensation for project-induced negative impacts for any developmental initiative to occur in their territories of tra- IPs’ advocates have called for strengthening educational ditional use. opportunities for IPs. IPs as a whole have more challenges in PAGE 38 | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE succeeding at school than other members of the population in services when such are needed, including annual medical Russia. Support from federal and regional governments could checkups; measures to support small and remote settle- be important to establish educational institutions that best suit ments in regions such as the Nenets Autonomous Okrug, IPs’ communities, including by experimenting with new mod- the Evenkia and Taimyr municipal districts of Krasnoyarsk els of education more suited to IPs’ lifestyles, customs and cir- territory, and the Koryak district within Kamchatka territo- cumstances (for example, schools for nomads, in the taiga, and ry have been explicitly requested.10 other remote ‘education points’). The integrity of indigenous families also needs to be protected by preventing indigenous Other health concerns are related to alcoholism and the children from being separated from their parents at an early health consequences of environmental contamination. age, such as occurs under the boarding school (интернат; In addition, the revival of traditional medicine, provision of internat) model. Federal and regional governments can sup- first aid training, and the training of more indigenous doc- port this by helping small and remote settlements maintain at tors in mainstream medicine also need to be encouraged. least primary ungraded schools (малокомплектные школы; malokompleknye shkoly), especially by exempting them from 3) Gender requirements for a minimum necessary number of students as established by the Federal Law ‘On Education.’7 The increasing loss of access to customary subsistence strategies such as hunting, herding, and fishing has IPs also recommend to develop mechanisms that would affected indigenous men and women differently. The engage indigenous communities—and especially par- increased use of tenders to parcel out natural resources ents—into education-related decisions. It may be helpful deprives more and more communities of these econom- to provide parents with opportunities for greater and more ic resources. This greatly impacts men in the community, regular input in curriculum decisions for schools, and allow who are becoming marginalized economically in their own sufficient flexibility for parental participation in decisions communities while women have experienced an easier time regarding subjects that are taught, the language in which getting public service jobs in education, health or adminis- these subjects are taught, and other matters.8 trative facilities and can thus often contribute a larger share to family budgets. Combined with the decline in the social Enhancing opportunities for indigenous youth to re- prestige of subsistence activities, men face greater risks for ceive higher education is also a key educational pri- alcoholism and suicide. ority.9 Living in areas far from major educational institu- tions, and suffering from low quality and low budget local Indigenous women also face special challenges. As schools—which often lack qualified teachers and basic health clinics are increasingly closed down in smaller and textbooks—the educational opportunities of IPs are often more remote districts, women in indigenous communities severely undermined. Even assuming these difficulties are are disproportionately affected. Limited access to health overcome, indigenous youth is frequently challenged by a care services like prenatal care and childbirth support con- lack of funding for tuition and school subsistence funding. tributes to higher infant mortality rates amongst indigenous Many are forced to leave universities as a result of this fi- populations. For some communities domestic violence nancial pressure. However, some positive examples should against women is also an important issue. also be noted. In the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), for in- stance, all textbooks are provided in local languages, and members of indigenous communities offer classes in local E) CULTURAL SURVIVAL indigenous languages in primary schools. Declining population and increased acculturation have brought some IPs’ future into question. Some groups are 2) Health on the point of extinction, with less than a dozen members The accessibility of health services presents a major surviving. Out of the 40 IPs of the North, Siberia and the challenge. Indigenous representatives have indicated that Far East, seven peoples number less than 1,000, and twelve federal and regional health-care programs should ensure peoples number less than 2,000 each.11 Even for those peo- more regular visits of medical brigades to remote areas to ples whose populations are increasing—the Nenets, Orok, provide health checks and have also expressed a desire for Selkups, Khanty, Yukaghirs, Negidals, Tofalars, Itelmen, initiatives that would allow for easier access to medical and Kets—cultural survival remains a concern. PAGE 39 IP representatives are concerned about their ability to port (and perhaps FPIC). Such measures would reflect carry their culture to the next generations and hope to the norms of international human rights as they pertain advance that goal. Furthermore, they would like to work to IPs,14 but more importantly, they would assist de- closely with federal authorities to promote the inclusion velopment projects. Relying on community support, of cultural heritage preservation measures in federal leg- investments would proceed more smoothly and thus islation.12 While some significant efforts have already been more efficiently and effectively for all stakeholders, made to preserve and promote indigenous languages, fur- including regional governments and indigenous com- ther initiatives may be needed to address endangered or munities. Traditional leadership structures and cus- dying languages. tomary law, to the extent that they are experiencing a revival and limited growth, could also be effectively recognized in developing mechanisms to ensure indig- B. POSSIBLE DIRECTIONS FOR enous participation and local self-governance. In the FURTHER ACTION same spirit, some IPOs also urge federal and regional governments to consider establishing indigenous par- Based on the above review and analysis, the following di- liamentary councils or assemblies to represent IPs so rections for further actions could be considered. that they could participate in ongoing legal and poli- cy developments (as has already been done at least to some extent in a few regions). Some IPOs also advo- A) SUPPORT FOR INDIGENOUS PRIORITIES cate for the establishment of additional guarantees to protect the electoral rights of IPs. They also suggest (a) Protection of Rights to Land and Resources: At the restoring the Federal Law On guarantees of the Rights local level, it can be useful to work with regional gov- of Indigenous peoples of the Russian Federation that ernments and indigenous organizations to develop pro- contained rules on quotas and representation of IPs in grams that provide support to indigenous communities the legislative bodies of the Russian Federation. to prepare their land claims. This can be accompanied by the development of regulatory frameworks that (c) Rights Awareness and Access to Justice: An important would guarantee IPs full and sustainable access to their development priority for IPs in Russia is to improve traditional sources of food. At the federal level, the access to justice and defend their rights to use natu- government could be encouraged to engage in discus- ral resources and maintain their cultures. Cooperation sions with indigenous communities and their represent- among federal and regional governments and indige- atives regarding modifications to the land code, forest nous communities to mitigate factors that hinder ac- code, laws on mineral resources, hunting and fishing, cess to justice would be valuable in this respect. As part and other legal provisions that currently contradict or of this, it could be particularly useful to expand the use hinder indigenous land and resource rights.13 Technical of the institution of human rights ombudsman, already assistance could be provided to the federal government widely extant in the country, to matters of concern to regarding international experience with similar situa- indigenous communities. International experience with tions, wherein both indigenous access to subsistence similar arrangements could form the basis of technical resources and appropriate government oversight (for assistance at the regional level. It could also be useful example, of benefits sharing and tax payments) were to support the development of programs that promote enhanced. Such technical assistance could also focus legal awareness, such as special courses on ethnog- on elaborating a process which avoids encouraging in- raphy/ethnology and legal regulations both for local tra-indigenous factionalism (competition over land and communities and officials, as well as guidebooks with access to resources) and which enhance legitimacy in recommendations for people and companies coming to the eyes of the wider society. work in places inhabited by IPs. (b) Participation and co-governance: It could be useful to (d) Benefits-sharing: Innovative approaches could be support the design of laws and regulations that would supported in the delivery of educational, health, and oblige third parties operating in IPs' territories to share financial services to indigenous communities. Such information on the potential physical and social conse- approaches could take into account IPs’ cultural and quences of their projects and obtain community sup- social needs and opportunities as indicated above. PAGE 40 | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE (e) Cultural Survival: It could be helpful to ollaborate • improve IPs’ participation in policy and legal re- with government authorities and local communities to forms by designing clear definitions and process- enhance: (i) language and cultural preservation pro- es of how to select “authorized representatives of grammes; (ii) protection of IPs’ sacred sites from vi- IPs” (as titled in federal legislation); and olations by third parties (such as extractive industries operating in IPs’ territories) by developing a compre- • assist local government agencies in drafting guid- hensive protection regime for IPs' cultural heritage ance notes for policy makers that describe how sites with the full participation of IPs. the process of policy making can work hand-in- hand with customary law and decision-making To assist in IPs’ cultural heritage preservation efforts, institutions of IPs, such as when adjudicating dis- federal and/or regional implementation guidelines putes where IPs or issues are involved. could be developed pursuant to the 2002 law on the protection of cultural properties andcultural heritage (b) Strengthen local legislation and its implementation databases (including of indigenous knowledge) could to establish legal recognition of the customary or be established. In addition, technical assistance could traditional land tenure systems of IPs. This would be offered to extend cultural heritage protection to include the securement of IPs’ long-term renewable more fully encompass non-material heritage, such as rights to possession and use of renewable natural re- cultural landscapes (including places of spirtitual val- sources. Further, as existing legislation is often not ful- ue), and ensure that areas of cultural heritage value ly applied to protect IP rights, it could be important to are protected. At the federal level, the Government undertake efforts to strengthen the practical implemen- of Russia could consider engaging in a dialogue with tation of such legislation. IPOs and representatives of the Secretariat of the Con- vention on Biological Diversity, the United Nations (c) Work with the public and private sectors on pi- World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and lot initiatives. A pilot could be developed to test in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultur- the Russian context the implementation of enhanced al Organization (UNESCO). In particular, it would be standards for social impact assessment (including spe- useful to consider an amendment of the Federal Law cial attention to indigenous needs and vulnerabilities), On guarantees of the rights of the Indigenous Peoples grievance procedures, transparent Code of Conduct, of the Russian Federation to reflect international law awareness training about indigenous cultures for pro- and international treaties signed by the Russian Fed- ject staff, etc. eration in the sphere of protection of cultural heritage and traditional knowledge of IPs. (d) Support the development priorities of IPs through programmatic activities. Such activities may include locally managed social development funds, programs B) SUPPORT OF CONCRETE INITIATIVES to support the traditional economic activities of indige- nous communities (including through the incorporation Based on discussions with federal and regional government of these communities in the list of subjects of small and agencies, the following initiatives could be supported: medium-sized businesses), and governmental encour- agement to purchase of the traditional economic pro- (a) Support the inclusion of IPs in the development duction of IPs. Cooperation between government and process. A systematic approach could be developed IPs in the design and implementation of such programs to incorporate IPs’ perspectives in the design of de- could also be bolstered. velopment programs and poverty reduction strategies. As part of this, it would be needed to ensure IPs’ free, (e) Engage IPOs, CSOs, and/or others to prepare par- prior, and informed consultation in such processes, and ticipatory profiles of IPs. Such profiles would reflect promote the effective exercise of indigenous self-gov- their culture, demographic structure, gender and inter- ernance. Two avenues specifically noted by indigenous generational relations and social organization, institu- advocates include supporting efforts to: tions, production systems, religious beliefs, resource use patterns, and other aspects of Indigenous Knowl- edge.15 Such studies would continue a process that PAGE 41 started in the 1990s, and help establish a baseline for This could include encouraging private sector relation- evaluating trends in economic and social development. ships with project-affected IPs through voluntary com- pliance with the provisions of IFC Performance Stand- (f) Address gender and intergenerational issues that ard 7. Recent experience in the application of Performance exist among many IPs (including the special needs of Standards by IFC partners in Russia has already resulted indigenous women, men, youth, and children). in a range of good practices, including effective stake- holder engagement with project-affected indigenous com- (g) Strengthen the capacity of IPs’ communities and munities, mitigation of negative impacts on fisheries and IPOs to prepare, implement, monitor, and evaluate hunting grounds, and the provision of social development development programs. opportunities. Examples include IFC client Novatek devel- oping a comprehensive Indigenous Peoples Development (h) Strengthen the capacity of government agencies re- Plan for its operations in Yamalo-Nenetsy AO. As part of sponsible for providing development services to IPs. this initiative, IFC clients Kinross Gold and Petropavlovsk This could include evaluations of current and existing have estalished corporate social development foundations barriers to effective implementation of existing devel- as instruments for sustainable development of the affect- opment services. ed communities. Information on these and similar efforts should be analyzed and shared among private sector firms Annex C includes several case studies drawn from Russian to encourage more strategic engagement with IPs within good practices in the area of IP protection, which can serve the framework of PS 7. as examples of the types of projects that could be imple- mented. A new paradigm of community engagement with the private sector could be explored. Such a new approach could call for a dynamic three-way partnership between C) ENSURING THE ENGAGEMENT OF IPOS indigenous communities, local governments, and com- panies. Innovations such as the development foundations To ensure that developmental initiatives are devised described above could also lead to collaborative co-own- with IPs’ active participation, representative IPOs could ership and profit-sharing possibilities, particularly in the be engaged as intermediaries on projects affecting IPs. extractive industries. Given its position as an umbrella organization for the ma- jority of IPs groups in the Russian Federation, RAIPON could act as one such advisor on IP issues in Russia. Other organizations could also take an active part in such endeav- or, especially if they are not part of the RAIPON network but deal with matters that affect IPs. D) ENGAGEMENT WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR The impact of the private sector on the development of IPs and its potential to contribute to their wellbeing are both significant. A unified approach could be devised to support corporate engagement with indigenous commu- nities regarding projects that affect those communities. In many instances, private sector projects in remote locations of the Russian North, Siberia and the Far East provide the only available development opportunities for local commu- nities of IPs. In this context, a key concern is how local Indigenous communities can benefit in a sustainable way from activities that take place on or near their traditional lands and territories. PAGE 42 | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE NOTES: 1 United Nations Human Rights Council, 2010. [A/HRC/15/37/Ad.5] 2 RAIPON & IWGIA, 2011. [‘Parallel Information’] 3 In support of this right, the UN’s Special Rapporteur has recom- mended that Russia consider the introduction of guaranteed seats or mandatory quotas for the representation of Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East. of Russia in the legislature, as well as executive agencies and public institutions at regional and federal levels and to ensure their effective participation in all deci- sion-making processes affecting their rights and legitimate interests. 4 Final recommendations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination/[CERD/C/RUS/CO/19]. 5 United Nations Human Rights Council, 2010. [A/HRC/15/37/ Add.5] 6 United Nations Human Rights Council, 2010. ‘Report of the Spe- cial Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People, James Anaya. Addendum—Sit- uation of Indigenous Peoples in the Russian Federation’ [A/ HRC/15/37/Add.5] New York: Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights. Available online at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ Issues/IPeoples/SRIndigenousPeoples/Pages/CountryReports.aspx 7 RAIPON & IWGIA, 2011. [‘Parallel Information’] 8 United Nations Human Rights Council, 2010. [A/HRC/15/37/Add.5] 9 Yet this desire for a quality university-level education relies on su- perior mastery of the Russian language, acquisition of which might be undermined by the previous paragraph’s call for increased use of ethnic languages. The goal would be parallel development in the acquisiton of both languages. 10 RAIPON & IWGIA, 2011. [‘Parallel Information’] 11 ‘Concept Paper;’ approved February 4, 2009 [№ 132-р] Available online at: http://stavkan.ru/materials/laws/show.php?adres=148039 12 United Nations Human Rights Council, 2010. [A/HRC/15/37/Add.5] 13 Such legal and regulatory adjustments could also be of crucial sup- port in environmentally critical zones such as the Arctic insomuch as it would tend to support ecologically positive approaches to economic development. 14 Several articles of the UNDRIP highlight the importance of Indigenous Peoples’ traditions and customs. Articles 26 and 27 are especially relevant as they define the rights of indigenous peoples to the lands they have traditionally been occupying and using. 15 Cf. ‘The value of traditional knowledge for sustainable develop- ment of indigenous peoples.’ Available online at: http://www. raipon.info/biblioteka.html. PAGE 43 PAGE 44 | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE ANNEX A. POPULATION PROFILE OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION THE POPULATION DISTRIBUTION OF MAJOR IP GROUPS IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION IS PRESENTED IN THE FOLLOWING TABLE.1 INDIGENOUS MINORITY PEOPLES OF THE NORTH, SIBERIA, AND THE FAR EAST, RUSSIAN TOTAL FEDERATION ALEUT 540 In: Kamchatka Oblast 446 Koryak Autonomous Okrug 6 CHELKAN 7,261 In: Republic of Altay 830 CHUVAN 1,087 In: Chukotka Autonomous Okrug 951 Magadan Oblast 39 CHUKCHI 15,767 In: Chukotka Autonomous Okrug 12,622 Kamchatka Oblast 1,487 Koryak Autonomous Okrug 1,412 CHULYM 656 In: Tomsk Oblast 484 Krasnoyarsk Kray 159 DOLGAN 7,261 In: Krasnoyarsk Kray 5,805 Taymyr (Dolgan-Nenets) Autonomous Okrug 5,517 EVENK 35,527 In: Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) 18,232 Krasnoyarsk Kray 4,632 Evenk Autonomous Okrug 3,802 Khabarovsk Kray 4,533 1 Source: Encyclopedia of indigenous peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East of the Russian Federation (2011). Centre for Support of Indigenous Peoples of the North (CSIPN). Moscow. PAGE I Amur Oblast 1,501 Sakhalin Oblast 243 Republic of Buryatiya 2,334 Irkutsk Oblast 1,431 Chita Oblast 1,492 Tomsk Oblast 103 Tyumen Oblast 109 EVEN 19,071 In: Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) 11,657 Khabarovski Kray 1,272 Magadan Oblast 2,527 Chukotka Autonomous Okrug 1,407 Kamchatka Oblast 1,779 Koryak Autonomous Okrug 751 ENETS 237 In: Krasnoyarsk Kray 213 Taymyr (Dolgan-Nenets) Autonomous Okrug 197 ITEL’MEN 3,180 In: Kamchatka Oblast 2,296 Koryak Autonomous Okrug 1,181 Magadan Oblast 643 KAMCHADAL 2,293 In: Kamchatka Oblast 1,881 Koryak Autonomous Okrug 132 KEREK 8 In: Chukotka Autonomous Okrug 3 KET 1,494 In: Krasnoyarsk Kray 1,189 KHANTY 28,678 In: Tyumen’ Oblast 26,694 Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug 17,128 Yamal-Nenets Autonomous Okrug 8,760 Tomsk Oblast 873 Republic of Komi 88 KORYAK 8,743 In: Kamchatka Oblast 7,328 Koryak Autonomous Okrug 6,710 PAGE II | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE Chukotka Autonomous Okrug 55 Magadan Oblast 888 KUMANDIN 3,114 In: Altay Kray 1,663 Republic of Altay 931 Kemerovo Oblast 294 MANSI 11,432 In: Tyumen’ Oblast 10,561 Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug 9,894 Sverdlovsk Oblast 259 Republic of Komi 11 NANAI 12,160 In: Khabarovsk Kray 10,993 Primorye Kray 417 Sakhalin Oblast 159 NGANASAN 834 In: Krasnoyarsk Kray 811 Taymyr (Dolgan-Nenets) Autonomous Okrug 766 NEGIDAL 567 In: Khabarovsk Kray 505 NENETS 41,302 In: Tyumen’ Oblast 27,965 Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug 1,290 Yamal-Nenets Autonomous Okrug 26,435 Arkhangelsk Oblast 8,326 Nenets Autonomous Okrug 7,754 Krasnoyarsk Kray 3,188 Taymyr (Dolgan-Nenets) Autonomous Okrug 3,054 Republic of Komi 708 NIVKH 5,162 In: Khobarovsk Kray 2,452 Sakhalin Oblast 2,450 OROCH 686 In: Khobarovsk Kray 426 SAMI 1,991 In: Murmansk Oblast 1,769 PAGE III SEL’KUP 4,249 In: Tyumen’ Oblast 1,857 Yamal-Nenets Autonomous Okrug 1,797 Tomsk Oblast 1,787 Krasnoyarsk Kray 412 SHOR 13,975 In: Kemerovo Oblast 11,554 Republic of Khakassiya 1,078 Republic of Altay 141 SIBERIAN YUPIK 1,750 In: Chukotka Autonomous Okrug 1,534 Kamchatka Oblast 19 Koryak Autonomous Okrug 3 SOYOT 2,769 In: Republic of Buryatiya 2,739 TAZY 276 In: Primoriye Kray 256 TELENGIT 2,399 In: Republic of Altay 2,368 TELEUT 2,650 In: Kemerovo Oblast 2,534 TOFALAR 837 In: Irkutsk Oblast 723 TUBALAR 1,565 In: Republic of Altay 1,533 TUVAN-TODZHIN 4,442 In: Republic of Tyva (Tuva) 4,435 UDEGHE 1,657 In: Primorye Kray 918 Khabarovsk Kray 613 UL’CHI 2,913 In: Khabarovsk Kray 2,718 YUKAGHIR 1,509 In: Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) 1,097 Magadan Oblast 79 PAGE IV | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE According to the 2010 census, the population of IPs in Education levels of IP communities are relatively low, Russia has been modestly growing. The IP population but vary from one group to another. Among Nentsy, for was measured as part of censuses conducted in the Russian example, more than 25% of the population lacks prelimi- Federation. A comparison between the results of censuses nary education. In other groups (such as besermyany, vep- held in 2002 and 2010 reveals that the IP population in- sy, kety, nagaybaki, and khanty), more than of the popula- creased during the period by 9,567 (representing a popu- tion 10% lacks preliminary education. Russian is the first lation growth in 16 out of 47 recognized IP communities). and main language for more than 90% of IP communities. The census also revealed that the number of women in most IP communities outweighs the number of men. The IP pop- Governmental subsidies are the main source of income ulation is currently concentrated in original territories des- for a considerable percentage of the IP population. The ignated for IP communities, and only 4.3% of IPs reside Vepsy peoples noted that pensions constitute their main outside of these territories. Nearly 65% of the recognized source of income. Other types of governmental subsidies IP population resides in rural areas, often constituting the represent the primary sources of income for IP groups such majority of farmers in mixed communities. as Dolgany, Kety, Mansy, Nanaytsy, Nentsy, Tuvintsy, Khanty, and others. Accordingly, levels of unemployment The median age of the IP population is relatively young, among the IP population are 1.5-2 times higher than aver- ranging between 21 and 29 for most IP groups. Com- age in the Russian Federation. A considerable part of the pared to averages in the Russian Federation, IP commu- working IP population indicates that its primary income nities have more population below working age, and less derives from private farming. population above working age. This statistics also reflects the fact that IP groups have higher birth rates and high- er mortality rates compared to the average in the Russian Federation. Infant mortality is 1.8 times higher among IPs compared to the Russian Federation average. The percentage of married men among the IP popula- tion is lower than the average in the Russian Federa- tion. It ranges from 33% among the Kety (Кеты) and 60% among the Abaziny (Абазины). Some IP groups also differ from the general population having relatively high percents of women who have never married (more than 30% of women among IP groups such as dolgans, nentsy, tuvintsy, ulchi, chukchi, evenki, etc.). PAGE V ANNEX B. MAP OF GEOGRAPHIC ISTRIBUTIONS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES POPULATIONS PAGE VI | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF THE NORTH, SIBERIA AND FAR EAST OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Source: Encyclopedia of indigenous peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East of the Russian Federation (2011). Centre for Support of Indigenous Peoples of the North (CSIPN). Moscow. PAGE VII ANNEX C. CASE STUDIES Four case studies are included in this annex. All case stud- • Security of land tenure is a necessary precondition if ies examine government, civil society, and private sector IPs are to make their own decisions about their life- partnerships to improve IPs’ lives and help safeguard their styles and possible future changes based on their abili- cultures and identities in the Russian Federation. The case ty to maintain their traditional livelihoods and cultures. studies highlight lessons-learned and then present more in- depth discussions on topical issues. • Local governments can successfully facilitate indig- enous economic development through carefully de- Lessons learned: signed support of traditional economic activities. This opportunity may only be available to regions already • Projects that aim at capacity-building of IP commu- economically well-off and those that can afford to nities have a greater likelihood of sustainable success maintain ongoing subsidies. than those that do not specifically target capacity build- ing. This is also true for those projects where building • While in theory carbon trading offsets could be utilized capacity of government partners is also encouraged. to protect indigenous forested lands, projects imple- menting such programmes in the pas have encounted • True partnership between governments, companies many practical obstacles. and indigenous communities relies on shared deci- sion-making, transparency, and mutual respect. • Including ‘local knowledge’ into the project’s design and locating project activities within indigenous com- munities will help obtain community ‘buy-in’ and ownership of a project. • Extractive industries (mining, oil and gas) projects that help indigenous communities to demarcate the lands and natural resources that they use may experience fewer conflicts with their host communities, as the demarcation process clarifies community claims and helps stakeholders to identify a way forward to mutu- ally beneficial outcomes. PAGE VIII | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE CASE STUDY 1. BUILDING international lenders. SEIC responded favorably: re-con- INDIGENOUS CAPACITY: sidering the project’s approach to community engagement THE SAKHALIN INDIGENOUS and hiring an external consultant to advise the company on MINORITIES DEVELOPMENT PLAN how to achieve true partnership with the local indigenous [RUSSIAN FEDERATION] community. At this turn, cooperation with IPs’ became one of the Sakhalin 2 project’s key priorities. The Sakhalin Indigenous Minorities Development Plan (SIMDP)—now in its second five-year iteration—has been Between 2006 and 2010, SEIC, working with the Indige- hailed as a model for both the Russian Federation and for nous Minorities of Sakhalin Island, the Regional Council the world due to its successful implementation of: of Authorized Indigenous People’s Representatives4 and the Indigenous Peoples Department of the Sakhalin Oblast • meaningful engagement; Government co-implemented the first Sakhalin Indigenous Minorities Development Plan (SIMDP) [constituting a tri- • a plan for governance and decision-making that is partite Indigenous–Corporate–Government governance jointly shared among indigenous groups, the regional program]. The second SIMDP (SIMDP 2) was launched government, and the project proponent—a true part- in 2011 following a process of widespread consultation nership; and participatory planning, and after representatives of the Indigenous Peoples of Sakhalin gave their formal consent • an emphasis on enhancing IPs’ capacity for self-gov- to its format and governance structure. This was the first ernance.1 corporate-sector project globally to be offered a ‘consent’ award by IPs affected by a development project. The choice to offer this award was a voluntary gesture from the Minor- THE SAKHALIN-2 PROJECT ity Indigenous Peoples of the Sakhalin Island.5 Sakhalin-2 is a ‘project of many firsts’: the first Russian offshore oil and gas production, the first liquified natural MEANINGFUL ENGAGEMENT: CREATING A gas (LNG) plant in Russia, the first Russian gas intended LIVING PARTNERSHIP for export to customers in the Asia Pacific region, and the first project in Russia to be financed by international lend- Key to this organizational structure was a conscious ef- ers. Sakhalin-2 was for some years the largest foreign in- fort not to impose a company-dominated decision-making vestment in Russia (until the end of 2006 when Gazprom mechanism. Rather, the project allowed for the content and acquired a majority share). In the years since, Sakhalin En- structure of the Indigenous Peoples Development Plan to ergy Investment Company (SEIC) has continued to receive be developed by the IPs of the island themselves—as the acclaim from industry peers as well as from the Govern- SIMDP addressed their respective future and present needs. ment of Russia. Areas praised include environmental per- The central mechamism whereby this commitment was re- formance, social and safety management and engineering alized was via a project ‘Working Group’ tasked with de- excellence. In 2007, the International Finance Corporation signing the emerging social development plan. Composed (IFC) selected Sakhalin Energy’s approach to project-level of four company representatives and four indigenous rep- engagement with IPs as a ‘good practice case study’ for its resentatives, the Working Group met openly and repeatedly stakeholder engagement handbook.2 over a year to work out the details of the Sakhalin 2 Pro- ject’s plan for indigenous development. Importantly, SEIC The Sakhalin 2 project’s approach to social and environ- was vigilant to enable the Working Group to operate as a mental management, however, was not always so well re- legitimate decision-making body and refrained from ‘pre- garded. Indigenous community members were worried that deciding’ the results of the meetings of the Working Group project operations would irreparably alter the lands and in closed company meetings. livelihoods of the inhabitants of the Sakhalin Island,3 but did not feel that they had any ‘say’ in this process. Tensions In addition to the Working Group, two specialized commit- culminated in the winter of 2005, when the Sakhalin In- tees were set up to assist project planning efforts—one with digenous Minorities staged a protest against the project— remit of economic/environmental issues; the other focused spurring increased scrutiny of the project from potential on social issues. These committees were also constituted in PAGE IX the spirit of partnership—with each comprised of approx- 1) The ‘Social Development Program’ (SDP), which was imately equal numbers of company and indigenous repre- used to finance cultural, educational and healthcare ini- sentatives along with some government attendees (which tiatives (45 percent). These ranged from student tuition included the head of the island’s Indigenous Peoples’ coun- payments, to merit-based scholarships, to subsidies for cil, the Regional Council of Authorized Representatives eye surgery. (RCAR) as well as the indigenous representative to the re- gional duma [legislature]). 2) The ‘Traditional Economic Activities Support Pro- gram’ (TEASP), which supported two components: the After nearly a year of intense efforts (2005-2006), the Work- first provided business plans on a competitive grant ba- ing Group and the committees developed an outline of a sis for projects such as fishing, hunting, reindeer herd- social action plan for indigenous development (dubbed, ac- ing, and foraging of wild plants; the second offered cording to indigenous preference, the Sakhalin Indigenous self-sufficiency grants to families living ‘traditional’ Minorities Development Plan) that reflected the Indigenous lifestyles and who needed supplemental support (45 Peoples’ communities’ interests. This first SIMDP was thus percent). Every aspect of the TEASP sought to improve formulated out of a positive working relationship between Indigenous Peoples’ capacity for entrepreneurial activ- all local stakeholders. It was responsive to the communi- ities; support was offered for individuals and groups to ties’ stated desires, which included not just social benefits write business plans for access to financial capital as like education and health, but that also asked half of the well as skills-training workshops to build local capaci- funds6 be reserved for the support for traditional econom- ty for managing programmatic activities. ic activities such as fishing, hunting, reindeer herding, and wild plant gathering. The SIMDP also defined priority areas 3) The ‘Mini-Grant Fund’ (MGF), which was directly for indigenous development based on authentic stakeholder managed by the Indigenous Peoples and each year outreach. This process involved a series of large-scale pub- opened a competitive application process for themed lic consultations that were held in areas densely populated proposals to support indigenous heritage (10 percent). by IPs. Regular meetings were also held with the Regional Council of Authorized Representative, which was asked to SIMDP 2 is budgeted at US$ 1.56 million. This investment comment on the emerging SIMDP and to provide concrete will be distributed over five years (2011-2015). On this suggestions and support for its development. By engaging second iteration, the Mini-Grant Program was eliminated with the Council and regularly issuing open reports to the in accordance with community preference and the budget RCAR and to communities, the Sakhalin-2 Project helped previously allocated to this component was evenly split be- to lay the basis for ensuring that broad community support tween TEASP and a Social Development Fund (SDF). The could be achieved and maintained throughout the project principle of empowering only indigenous representatives life cycle. This measure of transparency helped to ensure to make funding decisions—one of the ‘growth’ objectives that SEIC’s contacts were not restricted to just a handful of of the Mini-Grant Program—was applied for the first time people from the indigenous communities. under the TEASP and the SDF. The SIMDP 2 also added an innovative micro-loan program as a pilot sustainable devel- opment initiative in collaboration with the Batani Fund (an THE FIRST AND SECOND SIMDP affiliate of the Russian Federation’s preeminent Indigenous Peoples Organization, RAIPON).7 When the first SIMDP was launched in May of 2006, it was highly praised by the regional government, by IPs on the is- land and in the national indigenous federation (RAIPON), SHARED GOVERNANCE AS THE BASIS FOR and by representatives of multilateral banks and members PARTNERSHIP of international civil society. SEIC’s Project Director, the regional Vice-Governor, and the head of Regional Council Planning for indigenous development needs to be worked all stood on the dais and joined hands in celebration of their on together with government authorities. The greatest chal- joint achievement. lenge for the preparation of the first SIMDP, however, was engaging the regional government in active participation in This first SIMDP was a five-year, US$ 1.5 million plan the joint effort. Just as with the island’s indigenous com- composed of three components: munities, SEIC needed to demonstrate to those responsible PAGE X | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE in the local government for indigenous affairs the company ASSESSING SIMDP PERFORMANCE was serious in committing to more than by provide charity or managing public relations. The intention was to staff the Evaluations of the SIMDP point to significant increases in Working Group and its committees by fully participating the capacity of IP from across the island to take part in deci- government representatives as well as corporate and indig- sion-making processes, to work with local government and enous ones, but this did not happen at first. Regional and private-sector businesses, to organize their own communities, local administrations have their own plans and approaches and to promote positive awareness of indigenous cultures to indigenous or local development. They also face their among their own peoples and the larger society.8 Indeed, the own set of risks—capture of independent initiatives by the success of both SIMDP can be measured largely to the ex- bureaucracy, crowding out of the indigenous voice. Yet tent that IPs, themselves, driving relevant decision-making once the government realized that the company was indeed processes. Recalling the experience of SIMDP preparation serious about funding a major program for the island’s IPs, and implementation, the head of the Sakhalin Oblast Govern- government representatives were interested engaged fully ment’s Indigenous Peoples Department once stated: 9 with the Plan. To avoid problems from occurring, govern- ment partners were especially cautious to ensure that pow- “Thanks to the SIMDP, people changed. It helped er-sharing process among the three sides. unite people and give them some direction for the fu- ture. The SIMDP also helped improve relations with The increased capacity for cooperative forms of govern- government agencies at all levels as Sakhalin’s Indig- ance between the Sakhalin Indigenous Minorities, SEIC, enous Minorities and governments both learned more and the regional government engender genuine partner- about each other. Significantly, Sakhalin’s Minorities ship—an aspect of project governance that was the explicit now have more experience running programs and have focus of both iterations of the SIMDP. As noted, the first greater awareness of their rights and the laws which SIMDP was managed by a Governing Board supported by affect them—all due to participation in the Plan. Now an Executive Committee and two committees to run the when we attend regional or national conferences with TEASP and SDP—bodies in which all three parties (gov- other Indigenous Minorities of the Russian Federation, ernment, Indigenous Peoples and the company) were repre- people comment on how progressive we are!” sented, with IPs having a representative majority. To clarify its commitment to direct, open, and collaborative engage- At the end of its 5-year iteration, the SIMDP had realized ment with the representatives of the island’s IPs by, SEIC significant success, among the social programs (health, cul- made the following commitments: ture, education, and training). These programmes had all had engaged the active support of regional and local gov- • Real decision-making authority must be shared be- ernment agencies. The benefits of these initiatives spread tween the IPs and the project. widely throughout the island. The Mini-Grants Fund Com- mittee—the indigenous self-managed 10 percent of the • Interactions and decisions must be transparent. Sakhalin Indigenous Minorities Development Plan—had learned how to distribute money, devise selection criteria, • The company must adopt and maintain a stance of neu- and to administer a granting facility. Independent monitor- trality in intra-indigenous community disputes, con- ing revealed that the overwhelming majority of the Indig- flicts, and rivalries. enous Peoples on the island thought well of the Plan and credited it with increasing indigenous unity and bolstering The second SIMDP advanced indigenous governance of indigenous cultural survival.10 the SIMDP a step further by converting the two committees of TEASP and SDP (now SDF) to all-indigenous bodies With the SIMDP 2, government, corporate and indigenous with membership composed solely of indigenous repre- worlds continue to have an opportunity to learn from each sentatives selected by the indigenous population of each of other. On Sakhalin, an interesting dynamic emerged in the the island’s seven districts with concentrations of Indige- functioning of the SIMDP Supervisory Board (now Gov- nous Minorities. This is one of the SIMDP’s most signif- erning Board), which was governedin majority by indig- icant innovations and one which indigenous leaders point enous minorities’ community representatives. Sometimes, to as both a substantial and symbolic gain for indigenous when the positions towards a specific issue of the company, capacity for self-mangagement. government, and the indigenous representatives diverge PAGE XI but where the indigenous representatives have the major- Sakhalin 2 Project for attaining this degree of ‘good govern- ity of votes (should they only choose to cast them), the ance’. In November 2010 nearly a hundred representatives indigenous members often choose to postpone decisions. of indigenous communities from all communities and eth- They then broker among all three sides to work out mu- nicities gathered to discuss and decide on whether or not they tually-acceptable arrangements. Thus, by placing indig- would accept the proposed renewal of the SIMDP 2. They enous minorities as majorities on all governance bodies, voted overwhelmingly to do so, and at the promulgation the company and government forced themselves to work of the second SIMDP, history was made: along with their by consensus—a culturally atypical approach for company decision, the Sakhalin Indigenous Minorities presented the stakeholders. project with an FPIC award. This is the world’s first private sector instance of FPIC was granted to an industrial project’s During both the first and second plans, some of the greatest development plan. With billions of dollars in corporate and challenges have revolved around the TEASP—the 45 and government investment and the lives, livelihoods, and cul- then 50 percent of project development funds allocated to tures of many IPs. At the time of the award, the indigenous support of traditional economic activities. The first SIM- leaders noted that the Sakhalin 2 project deserves regonition DP involved a steep learning curve as the company and the for exemplifying the role private-secor projects can play over community dealt with uncertainty about how to fund com- the next few decades in aiding humanity struggles to find the mercial and non-commercial business enterprises, whether balance between energy supplies and sustainable lifestyles, and how to support non-profit subsistence activities, and this type of intersection between local governments, energy how to avoid conflicts of interest and capture of the pro- companies and indigenous communities. This is an aspect of gram by a particular clan or regional group. The Second the developmental practice that will only increase in strate- Plan and the indigenous representatives that increasingly gic importance. make its funding decisions are more and more focusing their emphases on sustainability and long-term planning for island-wide indigenous development. CASE STUDY 2. DEMONSTRATING CUSTOMARY INDIGENOUS LAND SEIC’s success can also be appreciated in terms of how USE [NENETS AUTONOMOUS the project approached claims of environmental damage OKRUG, NORTHWESTERN RUSSIA] or social disruption. Rather than simply and categorically refuting previous indigenous claims of damage, the Pro- The project MODIL—NAO11 (also widely referred to as ject adopted an approach whereby it solicited all grievances the ‘IPY-Nenets Project’12) was implemented in collabo- that any indigenous group or individual chose to level at ration between the Norwegian Polar Institute and the As- the company. Within two months, this produced a compre- sociation of Nenets People Yasavey in 2007/08. Reindeer hensive list of potential and claimed damages and enabled husbandry is the most prominent traditional occupation the universe of claims to be delimited and converted into a in the Nenets Autonomous Okrug (NAO) and most herd- mitigation matrix. In this way, IPs were able to easily track ers follow their reindeer year-round from winter pasture how their concerns were being systematically addressed, to summer pasture. However, this nomadic subsistence and to see that each issue was being treated seriously. Over strategy brings them into conflict with the many oil com- the next year, a committee of company and indigenous rep- panies and other entities using the area. Given this mo- resentatives worked through each claim, dismissing some, bile lifestyle to pursue herding and fishing, with no fixed accepting responsibility for others, assigning some for fur- residence, it is difficult for Nenets groups to negotiate an ther investigation, and agreeing to disagree on a few points. equitable sharing of the area with oil companies, as the non-indigenous population does not recognize customary To respect the differences between different cultures some- land tenure when the Nenets move from area to area over times requires doing business in new ways. The SIMDP the course of a year. demonstrates that it is possible to define arrangements where a private sector project can cooperate with indigenous The IPY-Nenets project became the first full-scale demon- communities and local governments in the development stration in the Russian Federation of Geographic Informa- process. Such processes are also one way to help ensure IPs tion Systems (GIS) mapping of indigenous land. Using can exercise their right to free, prior and informed consent. computer technology and the Internet, the project aimed Sakhalin Indigenous Minorities wished to recognize the to give the indigenous population of Nenets Autonomus PAGE XII | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE Okrug a tool to promote its interests against the pressure of lands. This was the problem the project attempted to solve: intensive industrial development. the lack of a mechanism for the investigation of reindeer herders’ opinions on land allocation issues and oil compa- nies’ operations. INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND BIG OIL IN NAO This is, unfortunately, a rather typical situation for the Rus- The Nenets Autonomous Okrug in northwestern Russia is sian North. Indigenous Peoples as well as extractive com- home to approximately 8,000 Nenets and 3,000 Komi-Izh- panies need a way to coordinate their activities and avoid ma indigenous people. Many of them depend directly or conflicts. One of these tools could be a GIS-map available indirectly on reindeer husbandry, fishing and hunting for via the Internet to identify the territorial interests of both their livelihood. Previously, reindeer pastures covered al- sides. The creation of such a tool became a primary goal for most all the territory of the region. Now, however, much of the IPY-Nenets project. the area is occupied by oil prospecting and production or has become difficult to access due to the ubiquitous pres- ence of oil pipelines. GIS AND ELECTRONIC TOOLS TO DEMARCATE INDIGENOUS LAND USE NAO currently is one the largest oil development areas of the Russian North. More than 80 oil and gas fields have The IPY-Nenets project was developed in collaboration been discovered. About 25 different oil companies have li- between the Norwegian Polar Institute (Tromso) and censes to develop the oil resources. A volume of about 18 the Association of Nenets People Yasavey in NAO that million tons of crude oil was extracted in 2009 alone. The began in 2007. Representatives of RAIPON, Russia’s oil and gas industry accounts for 98.5 percent of incomes preeminent association of Indigenous Peoples,13 and the (2009), and revenues for the regional budget continue to in- legal center ‘Rodnik’ served the project as experts. The crease. The activity of the oil companies on the customary Research Council of Norway and the Norwegian Polar lands of Indigenous Peoples leads to seizure of large tracts Institute financed the project in the framework of the In- of land, pollution of the territories and conflicts with the ternational Polar Year (2007/08). The main coordinator, a indigenous population. Norwegian, worked closely with the president of Yasavey, who served as the co-coordinator and carried out all the Although pipelines themselves do not occupy large tracts local work and organization. of land, their effects are significant because they frequently traverse reindeer crossing routes and disrupt those migra- Solving the conflict over land use was the key objective of tory paths. When conflicts with indigenous communities this project. The project devised an electronic tool for the arise, oil companies make the case that the oil extraction indigenous population of the NAO to demonstrate clearly or infrastructure itself takes up so little actual territory that which territory they used for their traditional livelihoods. they are not really appropriating a large portion of indige- GIS database maps were created via a questionnaire sur- nous lands and therefore do not interfere significantly with vey carried out among traditional land users, primarily traditional nature use. The companies also claim not to reindeer herders. The questionnaire was developed by a pollute the area and render the areas unsuitable for herd- group of experts including anthropologists, lawyers, and ing. Oil companies typically maintain that they are sim- GIS systems specialists. Topics covered all aspects of their ply using ‘unused land’ and are thus rarely concerned with lives, such as occupations, socioeconomic factors, recent the damages they may cause to the land or livelihoods of changes in traditional modes of livelihood like fishing, local Indigenous Peoples. The non-indigenous population land animal hunting, sea mammal hunting, gathering and rarely recognizes that the nomadic lifestyle of the reindeer reindeer herding, supplementary economy, the location of herders does not entail a lack of integral and sustained re- sacred places, the condition of the local natural environ- lations to the large tracts of land that both they and the oil ment, the source of household incomes, the influence of companies utilize. The aforementioned methos of reindeer the oil industry on livelihoods, and general reflections on herding means that they need occasional rather than con- future development. tinuous access to any particular tract of land. However, in most cases the herders have no legal rights and the requisite Satellite images in Google Earth were also used to mon- documentation to legally possess or use their customary itor visible physical damage of the tundra. The data was PAGE XIII combined with various publicly available data in a GIS A TOOL FOR NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN database. These maps are now shared transparently as INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES AND BUSINESSES an open resource on the web and used by all sides: In- digenous Peoples, government authorities, and oil com- Analysis of the gathered information showed that many panies. The database is now used by Indigenous Peoples respondents are engaged in customary economic activities to demonstrate to regional authorities and oil companies and continue to rely substantially on traditional subsistence the territories they use for their livelihood and economic food procurement for their everyday diet. Such a high reli- interests and thus allow stakeholders to make informed ance on customary food indicates a high degree of vulner- decisions about the use of the territories, and to resolve ability under the pressure of the oil development, and they questions of appropriate compensations for industry-used risk loss of their traditional territories. The satellite images lands. showed clearly the damage already incurred and the level of tundra degradation in the areas given over to oil develop- The respondents were mostly interviewed by local admin- ment. Analysis of the licenses granted to extractive industry istrators from the same villages who were specially trained companies revealed that the majority of issued licensees do for this purpose during two seminars in the Okrug capita not pay sufficient attention to respecting Indigenous Peo- of Naryan-Mar at the beginning of the project. During ples’ rights as guaranteed by legislation. The legal analy- the first seminar these administrators were taught basics sis gave Indigenous Peoples a foundation upon which they about customary knowledge and juridical aspects of In- could raise questions aimed at resolving conflict situations digenous Peoples’ issues, and about the project in general. with oil companies. The questionnaires were discussed in detail, with instruc- tions and exercises on how to fill in and draw information Oil companies also benefited from the use of the satellite on maps. During the second seminar that was arranged a images and GIS tool, which showed them the places where few months later the same executives were gathered with Indigenous Peoples live and engage in their traditional life- the aim to continue interview training on the basis of their styles. The database is thus used by all parties—Indigenous recent experiences. Peoples, administration, and companies—to provide online geographical information about traditional nature use, rein- Interviews were recorded on tape, transcribed by hand deer herding routes, fishery camps, industrial development (later entered into computers) and then drawn on maps. on traditional lands, and to align the interests of different The map information was transferred subsequently to the sides. Google Earth system by the Yasavey team in Naryan-Mar under the direction of the main GIS expert form the Nor- wegian Polar Institute. The project team also used satellite CHALLENGES, LESSONS AND OPPORTUNITIES images at a high-resolution scale to locate the industrial infrastructure and visually monitor physical damage to The main challenge during the project was to provide ac- the tundra. cess to the data and data gathering. During the initial stage of the project the Governor of Nenets Okrug supported the During the project a legal analysis was also conducted of project and nominated relevant administrative departments federal and regional legislation relevant for Indigenous as contact points to assist in acquiring their already extant Peoples, with an emphasis on industrial development in data and to help gather further information. However, after indigenous homelands. The legal experts also evaluat- the Governor was replaced, administrative support fell off ed the licenses granted to extractive industry companies substantially and the project team was restricted to the use to assess how well they guaranteed Indigenous Peoples’ of open sources of information, in addition to the informa- rights. During the concluding stage project experts also tion that Yasavey already possessed. evaluated the legality of publishing the data in the report and in the GIS database. They determined that some ma- Map information in the Russian Federation also contin- terial was confidential and this was withheld from data ues to be a delicate subject and environmental map data is made public. The data was published on the internet with available to the public only to a very limited extent. Much the legal analysis and recommendations included in the of the data is off-limits due to military or other special final report. needs. In this situation it was very important to only use open and legal sources of information and then to confirm PAGE XIV | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE the legality of using and publishing collected images and by Russia’s preeminent Indigenous Peoples Organization data on the Internet. (RAIPON)14 in cooperation with the Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC-Canada). Another difficulty arose during the interview portion of the data gathering effort when many of the respondents refused to indicate the exact coordinates of their fishing or hunting LEARNING FROM CANADIAN INUIT lands, fearing that they would become known to the public EXPERIENCE and could be used by poachers. The project team addressed this reluctance by deciding to publish these references to The first phase of ‘Institution-Building for Northern Rus- these areas with only approximate coordinates. This was sian Indigenous Peoples' Project’ (INRIPP-1) was initiated done in an effort to restrict access to those for whom these by ICC-Canada and RAIPON between 1996 and 2000. The are ancestral territories. Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) fund- ed the project with support from the Canadian Department Still another significant problem was the difficulty of gath- of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND) and ering people from the remote settlements for seminars or to the Russian Federal State Committee on Northern Affairs find local administrators willing to carry out the interviews. (Goskomsever). The project succeeded in creating an en- As a result, the project was chronically behind schedule hanced partnership capacity for RAIPON and Goskomsev- and it was decided to extend the project for a year to com- er at the national and regional levels for tackling jointly the plete the work. economic challenges facing northern Indigenous Peoples. The project also bolstered RAIPON’s ability to represent Nevertheless, the project was considered a success. The Indigenous Peoples at the national and international lev- project trained local Indigenous Peoples to prepare and els, as Russia’s Indigenous Peoples had no fully staffed of- use the complicated information technology of GIS da- fice or non-governmental organization (NGO) structure in tabases. The project strengthened the local indigenous place prior to INRIPP-1. organization Yasavey in their negotiations with oil com- panies and gave them the mechanism to support com- Phase Two of the project (INRIPP-2) was implemented be- munities in their negotiations with the oil companies tween 2000 and 2005 and sought to apply to Russia the who usually got their way regarding all local regulatory Canadian Inuit experience of creating their own institu- decisions. The implementation of the project gave local tions, programs and systems to educate indigenous lead- people the experience of organizing and managing a large ers and experts in ways that meet the concrete needs of international scientific project and developed practical ap- indigenous communities. The objective was to support the proaches to collaboration between scientific institutions sustainable political, economic and cultural development and Indigenous Peoples Organizations. Today, represent- of northern Russian Indigenous Peoples by establishing an atives of the Indigenous Peoples in the NAO continue to indigenous-run training and economic development center. maintain and update the database to track ongoing devel- Another objective was to assist the Russian Government opments and to make the data more complete. This project to implement its new ‘Economic and Social Development could readily serve as a pilot project for other areas of the Program for the Small-Numbered Peoples [Indigenous Russian North. Peoples] of the North’ by strengthening the government’s capacity to promote community development and nurture indigenous small businesses and co-management. The CASE STUDY 3. INSTITUTION- project included three components: i) indigenous to indig- BUILDING FOR NORTHERN enous, ii) government to government, and iii) co-manage- ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN RUSSIA ment. (INRIPP-2) CDN$ 6.5 million were allocated for the INRIPP 2 project, This project focused on ensuring the direct involvement with CIDA providing about 75 percent of the total budget. of Indigenous Peoples in economic development and their The in-kind contributions of project partners were of an esti- participation in decision-making processes at the national, mated value in excess of CDN$ 1 million. ICC-Canada was regional and local levels. The project constituted the sec- responsible for the project’s governance and worked in coop- ond phase of an institution-building project implemented eration with DIAND, RAIPON and the Russian Government. PAGE XV INDIGENOUS-TO-INDIGENOUS COMPONENT RITC, in cooperation with project partners, elaborated the special criteria to select indigenous leaders and represent- atives of authorities to participate in education programs. Education Center During the five years the project was being implemented, Within theindigenous-to-indigenous component, the the Center organized five training courses in Moscow with Russian Center for Support of Indigenous Peoples of the a total of about 75 students. Russian and Canadian experts North (CSIPN/RITC) was established to provide training taught the Center courses, each bringing their different ex- and support services for indigenous communities. Since periences into the educational process. Most of the training its establishment in 2001, RITC organized dozens of dif- graduates became leaders in their own communities and re- ferent education programs and workshops for Indigenous gional Associations of Indigenous Peoples, received jobs in Peoples in Moscow as well as in the regions. This result regional and municipal administrations, or set up their own was possibly the most significant outcome of the project. small businesses. During the more than 10 years of INRIPP’s implementa- tion, RITC became a prominent capacity-building body Publishing Activities for Russia’s Indigenous Peoples. The Center implement- ed projects promoting capacity-building, sustainable eco- Another part of the Center’s work was the publishing of nomic development and self-governance of Indigenous new training and analytical materials. During the project, Peoples in Russia. The main activities of the Center were the Center published a series of publications adapted for organizing trainings for indigenous leaders and prepar- Indigenous Peoples’ needs and understanding which in- ing publications for education processes and for raising cluded: awareness. • Economic Development of Indigenous Communities. Managed and staffed by Indigenous Peoples, special ad- ministrative procedures were developed to support its pro- • Indigenous Peoples’ Right to Land and Natural Re- gram functions as an educational center. A website was sources Co-management. created and an information campaign organized to create awareness of RITC and INRIPP-2 amongst the indigenous • Indigenous Peoples: Lessons in Self-Governance and populations of Russia’s northern regions. Furthermore, the Social Partnership; the Role of Indigenous Peoples in Center created a strong network with regional organiza- the Development of Civil Society17 Taxation and Ac- tions of Indigenous Peoples to share information, experi- counting: A Manual for Indigenous Peoples Organiza- ence and organize the joint projects. tions. The Center’s experts, in cooperation with Canadian advi- Arguably, the most important publications were the Donor sors, elaborated basic educational programs: Manual for Indigenous Peoples Organizations and the Cat- alogue of Indigenous Goods and Services.18 In addition to • Training and assistance in organizing businesses based these publications being used as training materials for the on traditional economic activities. RITC courses, they were also distributed widely among in- digenous communities as well as Russian authorities on the • Training and assistance in setting up obshchini and other federal, regional and municipal levels. non-commercial organizations of indigenous people.15 • Training and support for the development of social part- STUDY OF THE CANADIAN EXPERIENCE nerships and cooperation with public organizations. RITC also arranged internships and guest visits to Canada • Training and assistance in establishing cooperative links to better understand the Canadian experience of sustaina- between Indigenous Peoples and large companies. ble economic development of Indigenous Peoples, the sys- tem of cooperation between indigenous communities and • Training and assistance with regard to the participation government, as well as their self-governance and self-de- of Indigenous Peoples in environmental protection and termination processes. The visitors were the indigenous the organization and operation of nature preserves.16 leaders as well as representatives of administrations. An PAGE XVI | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE important part of this component was the short-term stu- local indigenous corporations could be organized on the dent internships in Canadian indigenous, governmental and Canadian model. After a long consultation process, two business organizations. One important feature of both the regional corporations, using different models, were or- internships as well as the training courses was their focus ganized in Yamal-Nenets and Khanty-Mansiysk autono- on achieveing gender balance—including special support mous okrugs. for women’s project proposals. In Yamal, the corporation was organized as a state insti- tution with an annual budget from the regional govern- The System of Remote Support ment. The main activity of this ‘Economic Development A ‘system of remote support’ provided some financial Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North’ was the scholarships for some student interns.19 Over the course provision of educational consulting and other services of a 24-month program, students worked in their home that the organization provided for indigenous commu- communities while taking part in a regional-level remote nities and enterprises. The ‘corporation’ became an of- support programme coordinated by the Moscow office. The ficial subordinate structure of the regional government’s main task for students was to develop their own revenue ‘Department of Indigenous Peoples’ (Отдел по делам generation projects. Assessments of their communities’ коренных малочисленных народов Севера; Otdel po potential goods and services fed into the Catalogue of In- delam korennykh malochislennykh narodov Severa). This digenous Goods and Services for wide distribution among organization successfully made the post-program transi- interested potential partners (including national and inter- tion and continues to provide services and training at the national buyers). Trained interns prepared individual sug- regional level. gestions for further development, which were submitted to the INRIPP-2 governance committee. A project committee In Khanty-Mansiysk, the corporation was organized as a selected three pilot regional Indigenous Peoples’ economic state enterprise with a charter capital of RUR 20 million.20 development proposals to receive financial support. The main activity of ‘the incorporated obshchin’ in Khan- ty-Mansiysk became the harvesting, purchasing, processing and selling of traditional products of Indigenous Peoples. Revenue Generation Activity RITC prepared the publication Donor Manual for IPOs— practical recommendations for communities to apply for ADAPTING CANADIAN NORTHER TECHNICAL donor funds and to undertake fundraising. The aim was to EXPERTISE FOR THE RUSSIAN NORTH assist RITC to become financially self-sustaining prior to the completion of INRIPP-2. RITC also sought to cooperate Within the third co-management component, special train- with communities in the sale [monetization] of local goods ing courses based on the Canadian experience of co-man- and services. By supporting indigenous communities and agement were developed and a group of indigenous and enterprises in the promotion and sale of their goods, RITC governmental interns visited Canada to receive informa- could receive some financial resources from that activity as tion on how to implement the co-management approach. their agent.. The final aim of this component was to organize the pilot project of co-management in one of the Russian regions. Technical experts visited Khanty-Mansiysk and Yamal Government-to-Government Component regions to pilot this approach. They made an assessment This component included several activities and among of facilities harvesting and processing wildlife meat and them was an effort to transfer the experience of the Cana- other products in order to help Russian partners to design dian north with community economic development cor- systems based on the Canadian experience at existing fa- porations to Russia and to help Russian authorities and cilities. On-site seminars to teach local specialists how to indigenous communities to pilot similar corporations in use the Canadian technologies were organized. During the northern Russia. Two Canadian experts spent extended seminars, the trainers shared their knowledge of quality periods of time in Yamalo-Nenets and Khanty-Mansiysk butchery of northern animals, the use of special recipes for okrugs, investigating local resources and facilities of local dishes, product marketing, etc. At the end of the project, governments and indigenous enterprises. These experts the Canadian experts prepared practical recommendations were tasked with developing recommendations for how on how existing Russian technologies might be better em- PAGE XVII ployed, how to organize high-quality processing, and how CASE STUDY 4. REGIONAL to package wild meat under Russian conditions, etc. Later, SUPPORT FOR THE TRADITIONAL local entrepreneurs made use of these recommendations for ECONOMY market development. In recent years, the Yamal-Nenets Autonomous Okrug (YANAO) has made significant progress in reindeer herd- INDIGENOUS CAPACITY BUILDING: ing due to significant financial investments from the re- CHALLENGES AND LESSONS LEARNED gional budget, together with the development of a coher- ent policy towards reindeer herding at the regional level. The project faced some challenges during its implementa- The okrug regional plan entitled ‘The Development of the tion. The project team felt that the weakest point in project Agro-industrial Complex of YANAO for 2006-2010’ be- implementation was the frequent changes among the feder- came the main driver of reindeer herding development in al government agencies that were responsible for collabo- the region. ration on implementation. At the local level, many students noted that although the Canadian experts provided valuable knowledge, it was often difficult or impossible to imple- INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, REINDEER HERDING ment them within the context of Russian realities and legal AND THE AGRO-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX OF restrictions. YAMAL Revenue generation also failed to live up to expectations The Yamal-Nenets Autonomous Okrug is situated in the and RITC was thus not able to generate the revenue it arctic and subarctic zone north of the West Siberian Plain. had hoped to derive from becoming a trade partner for This is the key region for the development of Gazprom and the regional communities. The uncertainty of commu- the Russian natural gas industry in general, and oil and gas nity goods supply, the instability of suppliers, the high dominates the local economy. The Nenets are the majority prices for traditional goods, and the long transportation indigenous population of Yamal. They are also the largest distances involved all hindered the development of a sta- indigenous group among the small-numbered Indigenous ble network of suppliers. After a while, the Center refo- Peoples of the Russian North, Siberia and the Far East. It cused its efforts on the training activity and fundraising is estimated that there are over 44,000 Nenets in Russia, as an NGO. At the regional level, although many local of which 30,000 live in Yamal.21 Historically, the Nenets partners did not become sustainable organizations, many people have based their economy on the herding of large others did, continuing to benefit years later from their numbers of reindeer on the tundra and the majority of project experience. them continues to lead a nomadic life style.22 The census of 2011 indicates that about 53 percent of the total number The main outcome of INRIPP-2 was the creation of an of Northern reindeer in the Russian Federation is located indigenous-run institution that continues to provide pro- in Yamal. Reindeer herding in Yamal thus constitutes a fessional trainings for Indigenous Peoples and utilize a key feature of the agricultural sector.23 Reindeer herding is classroom equipped with all the necessary educational also a key sector of Indigenous Peoples’ economy in other technologies. A pool of professional Russian and foreign Russian regions, such as Nenets, Chukotka, Krasnoyarsk, experts/trainers came together to work on RITC projects Kamchatka, Khabarovsk, Yakutia, Magadan and the Amur, and educational courses, and helped promote sustainable but the Yamal region predominates in the development of indigenous economic development and small business reindeer herding in post-Soviet Russia. enterprises on the regional, national and international levels. Overall, the project could be considered as a model of using foreign expertise in the Russian Feder- THE YANAO DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ation to assist in providing new models for Indigenous Peoples’ capacity-building and education of indigenous The main objective of the YANAO program was to create leaders. new and improved agro-businesses as well as to increase the efficiency of operation of the agro-industrial enterprises in a sustainable manner through improvement in the use of the existing resource base. The program included the im- PAGE XVIII | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE provement in operation of the traditional Nenets economy ceive special subsidies from the regional budget (in 2009, of reindeer herding. they received RUR 600 per month, and nomads received RUR 2000). These payments were made to each member The activities to achieve this objective included the of a household, unlike other regions where only heads of strengthening of the material and technical base of ag- households received payments. In 2009, all social pay- ribusiness in YANAO; the implementation of advanced ments from the regional budget for the indigenous peo- technologies; reconstruction and building of facilities ple who were involved in the traditional economy were for processing of reindeer products (processed meat and about RUR 61,000 per year. All the financial assistance blood); increase in the production and quality of reindeer from the regional budget was channeled into buying rein- products; and the provision of employment to the indige- deer whose numbers and quantity of meat increased dra- nous population. matically. When the program started in 2006 there was about 4,500–5500 tons of reindeer meat produced annu- Another objective of the program was to develop factories ally in the region, with 548,000 (202,000 in state farms and other special facilities to improve the livelihood and and 346,000 in private herds).29 The average salary in the conditions of the indigenous population. These included reindeer municipalities in 2006 was about RUR 20,400 the establishment of factories for improved processing of monthly, including RUR 10,695 for those in reindeer reindeer meat, fish, and other goods with which to feed the herding.30 indigenous population, as well as to provide medical and veterinary services for the local people.24 By 2010, with the okrug program in operation, reindeer meat production had soared to 7,000 tons and the number The program was controlled and executed by the YANAO of reindeer shot up to 658,000 (289,000 in state farms and Agriculture Department. Initially, RUR 1,663.2 million25 369,000 in private herds). Twenty-six factories had grown were allocated for the program.26 to over 40. Reindeer herders organizations had increased, along with a 20 percent in the number of herding families.31 The program developed a varied collection of activities and Average salary rates in 2009 increased to RUR 32,739, services, including: while for those in reindeer herding the figures had climbed to RUR 16,429.32 • the purchase of deer; • purchase of medicine and vaccines; Challenges and Opportunities • purchase of fertilizer and equipment; • transportation services; Modern technologies like contemporary meat facilities, • protection from wolfs; along with certification of these facilities according to Eu- • development of production facilities; and ropean Union rules, training of workers to expose them to • training and training brochures, including scientific Scandinavian experience, and significant regional govern- support of Yamal reindeer herding. ment support all made for a successful development pro- gram. These factors enabled the reindeer-herding sector of YANAO to become the reindeer leader in the Russian Marketing Reindeer Federation, while also helping Yamal’s indigenous commu- Meat processing facilities in Se-Yaha village (Yamal dis- nities to not only preserve but also develop the customary trict) were completed in 2009 and in Anipayuta (Tasovskiy lifestyle and economy of Indigenous Peoples. district) in 2010.27 These facilities greatly increased the lo- cal capacity for meat processing in Yamal, providing lo- YANAO provides a model for other regions as to how to cal herders a market for the product. Fourteen specialists create a vibrant market for a traditional product. The pro- that were educated in the Sami Education Center in Inary gram has taken on directly the key barrier to maintaining (Finland) helped raised the level of expertise; five of them customary lifestyles—making them economically viable. rounded out their training by completing a course of study If indigenous products are not competitive in the market- at Yamal Polar Agro-economic College.28 place, for example due to the logistical difficulties present- ed by the vast distances the products must be transported, Households and people who continue to carry out tradi- their economic underpinning is kicked out from under them tional economic activities such as reindeer herding re- and a key portion of the culture begins to wither. PAGE XIX Yamal has tackled this question in two ways: i) by grant- lihood for the local people. Following a period of support ing subsidies which lower production costs, and ii) through for the training of young hunters, development of a cul- support for the creation of processing facilities and transpor- tural center and creating jobs for local women, the WWF tation supports which bring the market closer to the reindeer assisted the local indigenous communities to respond to the herders. The question that arises from this experience is threat posed to their way of life. whether other regions with less funds available can repro- duce this Yamal success. And if they can find the financial German government support was secured under its pro- support, can the environment keep pace with the increase in gram to fight global climate change when the case was the demand on natural resources? In Yamal, limited pastures made that Bikin forests play a significant role in the process now compete with the development of oil and gas. A long- of reducing atmospheric carbon and could help the Russian term solution may lie in the reduction in the size of herds to Federation preserve forest areas. Accordingly, in 2011 and maintain the pastures’ long-term ecological viability. How- 2012, the Russian and German governments approved the ever, this solution runs counter to the high value indigenous project with funding from the German Government. The cultures place on increasing the size of herds. In addition, Bikin project is the only CO2 quota trading in Russia with there has been a gradual exodus from the agricultural sector Indigenous Peoples’ participation. It is a good example of to other better-paid and more competitive sectors. where preservation of virgin forests complements protec- tion of indigenous ways of life. Nevertheless, there is much we can learn from the regional government in the Russian North which,working closely with local Indigenous Peoples and benefitting from extrac- THE BIKIN BASIN AND THE UDEGE tive industries’ development,could provide a model of cul- COMMUNITY OF KRASNY YAR tural preservation in a 21st century Russian Federation. This project was realized in the Krasny Yar Udege com- munity in Primorsky Krai. Primorsky Krai, situated in the CASE STUDY 5. CARBON TRADING south of the Russian Far East is ecologically noteworthy for TO PRESERVE INDIGENOUS many reasons, including being the major area for nutting in HUNTING AREAS OF THE UDEGE the Russian Far East, while local fauna is also unique with COMMUNITY ‘TIGER’ (PRIMORSKII the area being home to the worlds’ largest population of KRAI, RUSSIAN FEDERATION) Amur tigers. The Krai’s Bikin River basin also contains the last extensive array of cedar-broadleaf forest in the region. CONSERVATION OF THE BIKIN RIVER FORESTS The Udege people have deep historical ties to the Bikin AND THE TRADITIONAL LIFESTYLE OF UDEGE River basin. Their lifestyle and economy customarily was PEOPLE IN PRIMORSKY KRAI based on forest hunting, fishing and gathering, while Ude- ge cultural and spiritual beliefs are also integrally bound To avert a perceived threat to the way of life of the local with hunting. Considered a sacred animal, the tiger was not Udege communities, a project was initiated by the World hunted by the Udege. Wildlife Foundation Amur branch in the Russian Far East in cooperation with World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Germa- Threatening the sustainability of the forests, however, has ny and with support of the Russian Ministry of Economic been the emergence in recent decades of logging as a major Development, the office of the President of Russia, and the line of trade in Primorsky Krai. With the gradual reduction German Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Con- in the area of forest cover, the basin’s 1.4 million hectares servation, and Nuclear Safety (BMU).33 In 2009, pending has grown increasingly attractive for the logging industry. tenders by timber companies to acquire the major part of Since the early 1990s a struggle emerged between com- the local forests alarmed local people since hunting in the mercial companies seeking logging licenses for the Bikin forests of the Bikin River basin is the main traditional eco- basin and the Udege community, in partnership with en- nomic activity for the Udege people and the Bikin River vironmental organizations, sought to protect its traditional basin is home to the last extensive pristine forest area in the hunting areas via protest actions and court challenges. territory of Primorsky Krai. For the community it was very important to preserve the forest as the main source of live- PAGE XX | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE USING THE ‘TERRITORIES OF TRADITIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE INITIATIVE NATURE USE’ CONCEPT OF FEDERAL LAW: A SOLUTION? The project was realized between 2008 and 2012. The total sum of the project was RUR 63 million and it was from Since the beginning of the 1990s, environmental or- this sum that three years of payments to rent the hunting ganizations, in cooperation with the Udege communi- area from the state was provided. This limit of support was ty, the regional Association of Indigenous Peoples, and predicated on the supposition that after three years the com- RAIPON (Russia’s preeminent federation of IPOs), had munity would be able to pay the rent itself by selling CO2 been working to protect the Bikin forest from over-log- quota through the Kyoto mechanism. Special teams of in- ging because of its special value for nature conservation spectors were organized as well as aerial monitoring to pro- and indigenous lifestyle preservation. The community tect the area from forest fires according to the requirements wanted to organize a Territory of Traditional Nature Use of Russian legislation. The inventory and mapping of lands (TTNU) according to the Federal law passed in 2000, were organized and business plans of sustainable econom- ‘On territories of traditional nature use of the small ic activity were prepared. Special equipment and transport numbered Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and were purchased to organize monitoring of territorial land the Far East of the Russian Federation’ which allows In- usage, hunting, nutting and processing. digenous Peoples to continue to pursue their traditional economy while at the same time granting an area the sta- At the same time the project team, in cooperation with tus of a specially protected natural area. Although local WWF Germany, and with the support of Russian and Ger- communities prepared the appropriate documentation, man officials prepared the application for the Kyoto pro- implementing regulations for the law have not yet been tocol mechanism to sell the Russian Federation CO2 quota formulated and the application for TTNU status remains to Germany to preserve the carbon units in Bikin’s basin in limbo. forests. In July 2011, during a meeting of Russia’s Presi- dent Dmitry Medvedev and Germany’s Chancellor Ange- In the interim, a compromise solution was attempted at la Merkel, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed the regional level. After long negotiations a regional na- to support the project, “The Protection of Virgin Forests ture landscape reservation called “Verkhnebikinsky” was of the Bikin River Basin to Reduce Climate Change.” In established to protect Bikin’s natural areas from business May of 2012, the Ministry of Economic Development of activity. The total area of the reservation was 746,482 hec- the Russian Federation approved the application covering tares. Reservation regulations allowed for the indigenous 560,569 tons of CO2. In January 2013, the documents were population to continue their traditional hunting lifestyle on approved by both governments and an agreement between the reservation, but after few years the regional adminis- the Udege community, Sberbank and the buyer was signed. tration changed the rules and prohibited traditional hunting and fishing in the area. CHALLENGES, LESSONS AND OPPORTUNITIES Faced with these circumstances, the Udege community changed their strategy and in cooperation with WWF pre- The experience of the Udege Community in Bikin basin is pared other plans to protect the forests of the Bikin basin. a uniquely positive experience of preservation of the natu- The community applied to the court to cancel the new rules ral resources and traditional lifestyle of an indigenous com- for the reservation and at the same time participated in the munity in the Russian Federation, and could be considered open regional commercial competition (tender) to receive as a model of an indigenous community’s sustainable de- territory in Bikin basin as a special hunting area according velopment. However, the experience of the Udege cannot to the federal law, “On Hunting and Preservation of Hunt- be promoted as an unmitigated success story. It took about ing Resources.” In 2009, the Udege community of Krasny 20 years of very difficult negotiations and conflicts with Yar received 461,154 hectares to rent for 49 years of com- and among the timber industry, the regional administration mercial hunting and nutting. Additionally they also applied and the indigenous population, and after a twelve year pe- to the German federal government to receive funds for sus- riod the Community failed to organize a TTNU and was tainable development of the community under the interna- forced to maintain access to some of their territory only tional initiative of the German Government to reduce the through the commercial tender route. It needs to be noted, global climate change.34 for instance, that the Udege Community received less than PAGE XXI half of the whole territory of Bikin basin, leaving much of their historical hunting area and a substantial part of the rest of the territory at risk. Another factor limiting the Bikin Case Study’s use as a model is the reliance on access to land and resources being tied to participation in a commercial tender with its accom- panying annual rental payments; such a pathway would be difficult for other communities to follow. Nevertheless, the Bikin case shows the way to raise funds through the Kyoto protocol for ‘forest projects’ with Indig- enous Peoples’ participation to protect the forest environ- ment, reduce climate change, and to preserve the custom- ary style of life and for sustainable economic development of the community. PAGE XXII | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE NOTES: 18 A listing of RITC publications can be found at http://www.csipn.ru/ publications 1 “Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for exercising their right to development. In 19 The system of remote support was organized for about 25 students. particular, indigenous peoples have the right to be actively involved After they finished the courses they received some support for in developing and determining health, housing and other economic phone, Internet and some office expenses to continue connections and social programmes affecting them and, as far as possible, to with the main office in Moscow and to prepare projects in their own administer such programmes through their own institutions” (UN- communities. DRIP, Article 23). 20 About CDN$ 650,000 in 2003 prices. 2 IFC, 2007. Stakeholder Engagement: A Good Practice Handbook 21 Results of the all-Russian census 2010, http://www.gks.ru for Companies Doing Business in Emerging Markets. Washington D.C.: IFC; and http://www.sakhalinenergy.ru/en/. 22 These include people herding reindeer, considered to be an agricul- tural sector in Russian legislation. 3 On this island in the Far East of Russia (north of Japan), four groups of Indigenous Peoples (Nivkh, Uilta, Evenki, and Nanai) 23 It is important to note that over 63 percent of reindeer are privately live nearly 4000 strong among a population of nearly one-half owned and only 36 percent belong to agro-business (sovkhozes; million. collective farms). 4 The Regional Council of Authorized Representatives (RCAR) is 24 The regional law of YANAO ‘About the regional purpose-oriented the official body representing Sakhalin Indigenous Peoples; elected program “Development of Agro-Industrial Complex of Yamal-Nen- quadrenially on an ethnic basis at a regional Indigenous Peoples’ ets Autonomous Okrug in 2006-2010 years.’ Congress. 25 US$ 50 million (2006 prices). 5 ‘Sakhalin Indigenous Minorities’ is the preferred English-language 26 The regional law of YANAO ‘About the regional purpose-oriented term of self-reference for the Minority Indigenous Peoples of program “Development of Agro-Industrial Complex of Yamal-Nen- Sakhalin Island. ets Autonomous Okrug in 2006-2010’.’ 6 The first SIMDP reserver 45 percent of development funds for the 27 Before that there was only one such facility in Yamal, which was TEASP; this was increased to 50 percent under SIMDP 2, built in Yar-Sale in 2002. 7 Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia, 28 Status and perspectives of agribusiness complex of Russian and the Far East. Arctic territories (on example of Yamal-Nenets autonomous 8 ‘SIMDP Plan Completion Report,’ Sakhalin Energy Investment okrug) http://knowledge.allbest.ru/economy/3c0a65635a3bd68a- Company, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, 2011. 5c43a89421306d36_0.html 9 ‘SIMDP Plan Completion Report,’ Sakhalin Energy Investment 29 The regional law of YANAO ‘About the regional purpose-oriented Company, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, 2011: p.30. program “Development of Agro-Industrial Complex of Yamal-Nen- ets Autonomous Okrug in 2006-2010 years.’ 10 ‘Fourth SIMDP 2 External Monitor Report (September 2012),’ Sakhalin Energy Investment Company, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, 2012; 30 Status and perspectives of agribusiness complex of Russian ‘SIMDP Plan Completion Report,’ Sakhalin Energy Investment Arctic territories (on example of Yamal-Nenets autonomous Company, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, 2011. okrug) http://knowledge.allbest.ru/economy/3c0a65635a3bd68a- 5c43a89421306d36_0.html 11 Monitoring of Development on Indigenous lands in Nenets Auton- omous Okrug. The official title is ‘Monitoring of Development of 31 The resolution of Administration of YANAO Administration ‘About Traditional Indigenous Land Use Areas in the Nenets Autonomous the regional purpose-oriented program “The Development of Okrug, Northwest Russia.’ Agro-Industrial Complex of Yamal-Nenets Autonomous Okrug for 2006-2010 years’ (in reduction from 04.02.2010 г. №55-А) 12 International Polar Year-Nenets. 32 Status and perspectives of agribusiness complex of Russian 13 Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North. Arctic territories (on example of Yamal-Nenets autonomous 14 Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North okrug) http://knowledge.allbest.ru/economy/3c0a65635a3bd68a- 5c43a89421306d36_0.html 15 Under the Russian law “On Basic Principles of Organizing Com- munities of Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far 33 Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and East of the Russian Federation,” Indigenous Peoples are permit- Nuclear Safety (BMU) - http://www.bmu.de/uebrige-seiten/ ted to establish non-commercial organizations to organize their die-globale-lifeweb-initiative-zu-schutzgebieten-und-der-be- self-government and traditional economic activities. Usually these itrag-aus-der-internationalen-klimaschutzinitiative-des-bmu-pro- ‘communities’ (obshchinas; Общины) are organized by a group of jekte-europa/; Germany bank of development (KfW Bankengruppe) relatives and act as small enterprises. https://www.kfw.de/KfW-Konzern/Newsroom/Aktuelles/News/ News-Details_12862.html; WWF Germany - http://www.wwf.de/ 16 The total list of the courses can be found at http://www.csipn.ru/ themen-projekte/projektregionen/amur-region/massnahmen-und-er- training/schedule folge/ 17 Коренные малочисленные народы Севера: Уроки 34 This was under a contract between Sberbank and the German самоорганизации и социального партнерства. Роль КМНС в Development Bank (KfW Bankengruppe) as part of a general формировании гражданского. agreement between BMU and the Russian Ministry of Natural Resources. PAGE XXIII ANNEX D. LITERATURE CITED Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP). http://www2.brandonu.ca/library/cjns/21.2/ 2004. ‘Persistent Toxic Substances, Food cjnsv21no2_pg217-233.pdf Security and Indigenous Peoples of the Rus- sian North.’ [Chapter 2 of the Final Report]. Federal Law of June 17, 1996. On National Cultural Oslo: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Autonomy. [О Национально-Культурной Programme Website. Available online at: Автономии; O Natsional'no-Kul'turnoy http://amap.no/documents/index.cfm?dir- Avtonomii, N 74-FZ]. Available online at: http:// sub=%2FPersistent%20Toxic%20Substanc- base.garant.ru/135765/ es%2C%20Food%20Security%20and%20 Indigenous%20Peoples%20of%20the%20 Gerhard Simon. 1991. Nationalism and Policy toward the Russian%20North&sort=datelastmodifie- Nationalities in the Soviet Union: From Total- d&CFID=8305&CFTOKEN=113E1F0F-1653- itarian Dictatorship to Post-Stalinist Society. 1298-0AFC124363948720 Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Bartels, Dennis and Bartels, Alice. 1986. Soviet Policy Golovnev A. 2012. ‘Ethnicity: Stability and Variability toward Native People: Something Different. (The Experience of the North)”. [«Этничность: [Manuscript in the Shingwauk Collection устойчивость и изменчивость; Etnichnost': (Shingwauk SP 126).] Sault Ste Marie, Ontario: ustoychivost' i izmenchivost' (опыт Севера)»] Algoma University College. Этнографическое обозрение (Etnografich- eskoye obozreniye). 2012, № 2. С. 3–12. Avail- Bogoraz-Tan V.G. 1923. On Study and Preservation of the able online at: http://ethnobs.ru/library/237/_ Borderland Peoples. [Report presented at the aview_b19541 extended Narkomnats Board, 24 March 1923. Zhizn' natsionalnostej (Life of Nationalities), Government of the Russian Federation. 1993. Constitu- Book III-IV, 168-180 (in Russian)]. tion of the Russian Federation. [December 25, 1993]. Available at: http://government.ru/eng/ Council of Europe. 1995. Framework Convention for the gov/base/54.html [accessed June 1, 2012] Protection of National Minorities [CETS 157]. --- 1999. On the Guarantees of the Rights of Available online at: http://conventions.coe.int/ Indigenous Peoples of the Russian Federation Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/157.htm [О гарантиях прав коренных малочисленных народов Российской Федерации; O garanti- D. L. Schindler. 1991. ‘Theory, Policy and the Narody Se- yakh prav korennykh malochislennykh narodov vera,’ Anthropological Quarterly 64(2): 68-79. Rossiyskoy Federatsii, N 82-FZ]. Available at: http://base.garant.ru/180406/ Dallmann, Winfried and Goldman, Helle. No date. ‘Indig- --- 2000. On a Unified List of Indigenous Peoples enous—Native—Aboriginal: Confusion and of the Russian Federation. [О едином перечне Translation Problems.’ ANSIPRA website: коренных малочисленных народов Россий- http://ansipra.npolar.no/english/items/Confu- ской Федерации; N 255]. Available online at: sion.html http://base.garant.ru/70112946/ --- 2000. On General Principles of Organization Diatchkova, Galina. 2001. ‘Indigenous Peoples of Russia of the Obshchina of Numerically-Small Indige- and Political History,’ Canadian Journal of Na- nous Peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far tive Studies 21(2): 217-233. Available online at: East of the Russian Federation. [Об общих PAGE XXIV | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE принципах организации общин коренных малочисленных народов Севера, Сибири и малочисленных народов Севера, Сибири и Дальнего Востока Российской Федерации; N Дальнего Востока Российской Федерации; 536-p] Available online at: http://base.garant. Ob obshchikh printsipakh organizatsii obshchin ru/6198896/. korennykh malochislennykh narodov Severa, --- 2008. To approve the changes made to the Sibiri i Dal'nego Vostoka Rossiyskoy Federatsii, complex priority measures on preparation and № 104-ФЗ] Available online at: http://base. holding in the Russian Federation of the Second garant.ru/182356/ International Decade of Indigenous Peoples the --- 2000. On the Decision of the State Coun- world, approved by Decree of the Government of cil of Dagestan on October 18, 2000 N 19 the Russian Federation on November 19, 2007 [Постановление Государственного Совета N 1639-p [Утвердить прилагаемые изменения, Республики Дагестан №191 от 18 октября которые вносятся в комплекс первоочередных 2000 г; N 236] Available online at: http://lawru. мер по подготовке и проведению в Российской info/base89/part7/d89ru7364.htm. Федерации Второго Международного десяти- --- 2000. On Approval of the Impact Assessment летия коренных народов мира, утвержденный of Planned Economic and other Activity on распоряжением Правительства Российской the Environment in the Russian Federa- Федерации от 19 ноября 2007; Utverdit' pri- tion. [Положение об оценке воздействия lagayemyye izmeneniya, kotoryye vnosyatsya v намечаемой хозяйственной и иной kompleks pervoocherednykh mer po podgotovke деятельности на окружающую среду в i provedeniyu v Rossiyskoy Federatsii Vtorogo Российской Федерации; Polozheniye ob otsen- Mezhdunarodnogo desyatiletiya korennykh ke vozdeystviya namechayemoy khozyaystven- narodov mira, utverzhdennyy rasporyazheniyem noy i inoy deyatel'nosti na okruzhayushchuyu Pravitel'stva Rossiyskoy Federatsii ot 19 noya- sredu v Rossiyskoy Federatsii, N 372] Available brya 2007 г. N 1639-р; N 895-p] online at: http://base.garant.ru/12120191/ --- 2009. On Approval of an Action Plan for --- 2001. On Territories of Traditional Nature Implementation in 2009-2011 of the Con- Use of the Numerically-Small Indigenous cept of Sustainable Development of In- Peoples of the North, Siberia and the Russian digenous Peoples of the North, Siberia Far East. [О территориях традиционного and Far East. [Об утверждении плана природопользования коренных мероприятий по реализации в 2009-2011 гг. малочисленных народов Севера, Сибири и Концепции устойчивого развития коренных Дальнего Востока Российской Федерации; O малочисленных народов Севера, Сибири и territoriyakh traditsionnogo prirodopol'zovani- Дальнего Востока РФ; Ob utverzhdenii plana ya korennykh malochislennykh narodov Severa, meropriyatiy po realizatsii v 2009-2011 gg. Sibiri i Dal'nego Vostoka Rossiyskoy Federat- Kontseptsii ustoychivogo razvitiya korenny- sii, N 49-ФЗ] Available online at: http://base. kh malochislennykh narodov Severa, Sibiri garant.ru/12122856/ i Dal'nego Vostoka RF N 1245-r]. Available --- 2004. On Fisheries and the Conservation of online at: http://base.garant.ru/6727393/ Aquatic Biological Resources. [О рыболовстве --- 2009. On the Concept of Sustainable Develop- и сохранении водных биологических ресур- ment of the Small-numbered Indigenous Peo- сов; N 166-FZ]. Available online at: http://base. ples of the North, Siberia and the Far East of garant.ru/12138110/ the Russian Federation [О Концепции устой- --- 2006. Forestry Code of the Russian Federa- чивого развития коренных малочисленных tion [Лесной кодекс Российской Федерации; народов Севера, Сибири и Дальнего Востока Lesnoy kodeks Rossiyskoy Federatsii, № 200- Российской Федерации; O Kontseptsii ustoy- ФЗ]. Available online at: http://base.garant. chivogo razvitiya korennykh malochislennykh ru/12150845/ narodov Severa, Sibiri i Dal'nego Vostoka --- 2006. On the List of Indigenous Peoples of Rossiyskoy Federatsii, № 132-р]. Available the North, Siberia and the Far East of the at: http://stavkan.ru/materials/laws/show. Russian Federation. [О Перечне коренных php?adres=148039 PAGE XXV --- 2009. On the Conservation of Hunting Grounds особенности»; Dinamika demografichesko- and Amendments to Specific Regulations of the go vosproizvodstva populyatsiy korennykh Russian Federation [Об охоте и о сохранении malochis-lennykh narodov Severa Rossii i yeye охотничьих ресурсов и о внесении regional'nyye osobennosti]. Available online at: изменений в отдельные законодательные http://www.shu.ru/old/pages/magazin/n20/klokov.pdf акты Российской Федерации; Ob okhote i o sokhranenii okhotnich'ikh resursov i o vnesenii Komarov, V. 1988. ‘U narodoswi Severa (Among the izmeneniy v otdel'nyye zakonodatel'nyye akty peoples of the North),’ Sel'skma Zhizn', October Rossiyskoy Federatsii, N 209-ФЗ] Available 27, 1988. online at: http://base.garant.ru/12168564/ Köhler, Thomas, and Wessendorf, Kathrin (eds.). 2002. Gumilev L.N. and A.N. Kurkchi. 1989. ‘Ethno-Social Towards a New Millenium: Ten Years of the Problems of Indigenous Peoples of the Russian Indigenous Movement in Russia. Copenhagen: North, Siberia and Far East: Ethno-Social Alter- IWGIA. natives.’ New Social Development Technology for North, Siberia and Far East. Part 1. Sverd- Krushanov. 1987. ‘Isotoriia i kul'tura Chukchei (The His- lovsk, p. 47 (in Russian). tory and Culture of the Chulcchi).’ Leningrad: Nauka. Hicks, Susan M. 2011. ‘Between Indigeneity and Na- tionality: The Politics of Culture and Nature in Minority Rights Group International. 2011. ‘World Russia’s Diamond Province,’ Theses submitted Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peo- in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the ples—Russian Federation: Overview.’ [Updated degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Vancouver: August 2011]. UNHCR Refworld. Available Faculty of Graduate Studies, University of online at: British Columbia. Available online at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,COUN- https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/37777 TRYPROF,RUS,,4954ce18c,0.html [accessed June 1, 2012]. Hirsch, Francine. 2005. Empire of Nations. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. RAIPON (Pavel Vasilyevich Suliandziga). 2007. ‘The Last of the Udege People.’ Available online at: International Labor Organization. 1989. Convention http://raipon.info/en/library.html Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries [C 169]. Available RAIPON & IWGIA. 2010. ‘Proposed Questions to the online at: http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/ Government of the Russian Federation re- en/f?p=1000:12100:0::NO::P12100_INSTRU- garding Economic, Social and Cultural Rights MENT_ID:312314 of Indigenous Small-numbered Peoples of the Russian North, Siberia and the Far East.’ International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IW- Copenhagen: International Working Group for GIA). 2011. ‘Update 2011 – Russia’ [web arti- Indigenous Affairs. Available online at: http:// cle: Frontpage > The Indigenous World > Arctic www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cescr/docs/ > Russia] Available at: http://www.iwgia.org/ ngos/RAIPON-IWGIA_RussianFederation- regions/arctic/russia/892-update-2011-russia] WG44.pdf --- 2011. ‘Parallel Information Concerning the Situ- Klokov KB, Hrushchev SA. No date. ‘Demographic ation of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of Reproduction Dynamics of Populations Repro- Indigenous and Small-Numbered Peoples of the duction of Native Small Peoples of the North of North, Siberia and the Far East of the Russian Russia and its Regional Features’ [«Динамика Federation.’ Paper submitted at the occasion of демографического воспроизводства the 46th Session of the Committee on Econom- популяций коренных малочис-ленных ic, Social and Cultural Rights, May 2-20, 2011. народов Севера России и ее региональные IWGA and RAIPON: Copenhagen & Moscow. PAGE XXVI | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE Available online at: http://www2.ohchr.org/eng- --- 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity. lish/bodies/cescr/docs/ngos/IWGIA_RAIPON_ Available online at: http://www.cbd.int/conven- RussianFederation_CESCR46.pdf tion/text/ --- 1995. Establishment of a Working Group of the RAIPON, INFOE. 2008. Parallel Information: Discrim- Commission on Human Rights to Elaborate a ination Against Indigenous Small-numbered Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of the Russian North, Siberia and the Peoples [1995/32]. Available online at: http:// Russian Far East. (Johannes Rohr, Mikhail To- cwis.org/GML/UnitedNationsDocuments/ dyshev, Olga Murashko, eds.). Available online: --- 1996. "Fact Sheet No.2 (Rev.1): The Interna- http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/ tional Bill of Human Rights.” Available at: Session4/RU/RAIPON_IWGIA_RUS_UPR_ http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/fs2.htm S4_2009anx_Indigenous_Peoples_Russia_ [accessed June 1, 2012] RAIPON_INFOE_2008.pdf --- 1996. ‘Standard-Setting Activities: Evolution of Standards Concerning the Rights Of Indig- RAIPON. No date. ‘RAIPON Presidium Confirmed.’ enous People: Working Paper by the Chair- Website article. Available at: http://www. person-Rapporteur, Mrs. Erica-Irene A. Daes, raipon.info/en/component/content/arti- on the concept of ‘indigenous people’’ [E/ cle/8-news/34-raipon-presidium-confirmed.html CN.4/Sub.2/AC.4/1996/2], Working Group on Indigenous Populations, Fourteenth Session. Stalin, Joseph. 1913. ‘Definition of a Nation,’ Marxism Available online at: http://www.unhchr.ch/ and the National Question, [Russian original: J. Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/e06a5300f90fa- Stalin, Collected Works in 16 Volumes, volume 0238025668700518ca4/2b6e0fb1e9d7db0f- 2]. c1256b3a003eb999/$FILE/G9612980.pdf --- 1996. ‘Discrimination Against Indigenous Peo- Sergeev, M. A. 1995. ‘Nelcapitalisticheskii put' rarvitiia ples: Report of the Working Group on Indige- malykh narodov Severa,’ Trudy Instituta Et- nous Populations on its fourteenth session’ [UN nografi AN SSSR, New Series, XXVII, Mos- Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1996/21]. Available online cow-Leningrad. at: http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca. nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.Sub.2.1996.21.En?Open- Slezkine, lu. 1992. ‘From Savages to Citizens: The Cultur- document al Revolution in the Soviet Far North, 1928- --- 1997. ‘Review of Developments Pertaining to 1938,’ Slavic Review 51(1), p. 52-76. the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous United Nations. 1966. International Convention on the People: Environment, Land And Sustainable Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrim- Development. Addendum: Information received ination. New York: United Nations Treaty from indigenous peoples and non-governmental Collection [web page]. Available online at: organizations.’ Available online at: http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails. http://www.suri.ee/doc/saamide.html aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-2&chap- --- 2004. ‘The Concept of Indigenous Peoples.’ ter=4&lang=en Background paper prepared by the Secretariat --- 1966. International Covenant on Economic, of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Social and Cultural Rights. New York: United for the Workshop on Data Collection and Dis- Nations Treaty Collection. Available online at: aggregation for Indigenous Peoples (New York, http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/MTDSG/Vol- January 19-21, 2004). New York: Department ume%20I/Chapter%20IV/IV-3.en.pdf of Economic and Social Affairs. Available --- 1986/7. ‘Study of the Problem of Discrimina- online at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/ tion against Indigenous Populations.’ UN Doc. documents/workshop_data_background.doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/1986/7 and Add. 1-4. Available --- 2008. ‘Consideration of Reports Submitted by online at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/ States Parties Under Article 9 of the Conven- en/second.html. tion: Concluding Observations of the Com- PAGE XXVII mittee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimi- hensive Development Framework, Synthesis nation (Russian Federation).’ [CERD/C/RUS/ Report. Available online at: http://siteresources. CO/19, Para 24]. Available online at: http:// worldbank.org/IDA/Resources/OED_evalua- www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/docs/co/ tion_of_CDF.pdf CERD.C.RUS.CO.19.pdf --- 2005. Operational Directive 4.10—Indigenous --- 2010. ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Peoples. Available online at: http://go.world- Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental bank.org/TE769PDWN0 Freedoms of Indigenous People, James Anaya. --- ‘Expanding the Use of Country Systems in Addendum—Situation of Indigenous Peoples in Bank-Supported Operations’. World Bank the Russian Federation’ [A/HRC/15/37/Add.5]. website: Home > Projects. Available online at: New York: Office of the High Commissioner on http://go.worldbank.org/RHRJVXDW60. Human Rights. Available online at: --- 2011. Russian Federation: 2012-2016 Country http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/IPeoples/SRIndigenous- Partnership Strategy (CPS). Available at: http:// Peoples/Pages/CountryReports.aspx www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/ WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2011/11/29/0 Uvachan, V.A. 1977. ‘Perekhod malykh narodov Severa 00350881_20111129092154/Rendered/PDF/ at rodovogo stroia K razvitomu sotsializmu,’ 651150CAS0P12300disclosed0110280110.pdf Letopis' Severa 1 8, p. 21-36. --- 2011. Russian Federation—Forest Fire Response Project: indigenous peoples plan- Vdovin, S., ‘Legislative, Economic, Social and Cultural ning framework. Russia; s.n. Available online Policies of the USSR to Encourage the Devel- at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/ opment of the Chukchi and the Eskimo,’ The en/2011/12/15568546/russian-federation-for- MuskOx, l3:41-48(1973). est-fire-response-project-indigenous-peo- ples-planning-framework Working Group on Indigenous Populations. 1995. ‘Note --- 2012. Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet by the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Work- (Concept Stage) - Development of pre- ing Group on Indigenous Populations, Ms. school education system of Sakha (Yakutia) Erica-Irene Daes, on criteria which might - P127405. Washington, DC: World Bank. be applied when considering the concept of http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/ indigenous peoples.’ [Presented in the context en/2012/02/15878936/integrated-safe- of: Standard-Setting Activities: Evolution of guards-data-sheet-concept-stage-develop- Standards Concerning the Rights of Indige- ment-preschool-education-system-sakha-yaku- nous People - New Developments and General tia-p127405 Discussion of Future Action, June 21, 1005. --- No date. ‘Participation at Project, Program & E/CN.4/Sub.2/AC.4/1995/3, p. 3]. New York: Policy Level.’ World Bank website: Home > Economic and Social Council. Available online Topics > Social Development > Participation at: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/ & Civic Engagement. Available online at: http:// GEN/G95/128/02/PDF/G9512802.pdf? Ope- go.worldbank.org/HKL3IU1T21 nElement --- No date. ‘Still Among the Poorest of the Poor.’ Indigenous Peoples Policy Brief. http://sitere- World Bank and Oxford University Press. 2003. World sources.worldbank.org/EXTINDPEOPLE/Re- Development Report 2004: Making Servic- sources/407801-1271860301656/HDNEN_in- es Work for Poor People. Available online digenous_clean_0421.pdf at: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/ WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2003/10/07/0 ‘Высочайше утвержденный 22 июля 1822 года Устав 00090341_20031007150121/Rendered/PDF/ Об управлении инородцев’ [Regulations of 268950PAPER0WDR02004.pdf Indigenous population of 1822; Vysochayshe utverzhdennyy 22 iyulya 1822 goda Ustav Ob World Bank. 2003. Toward Country-led Development: upravlenii inorodtsev], 1998; ‘Национальная A Multi-Partner Evaluation of the Compre- политика в императорской России’ [National PAGE XXVIII | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE Politics in the Tzarist Russia; Natsional'naya politika v imperatorskoy Rossii], Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology, ed. VII. Semenov, Moscow, Staryi Sad, p. 141-176. PAGE XXIX PAGE XXX | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF RUSSIA COUNTRY PROFILE