Report - UNDP Russia

Legislative control of impact auditsfor energy projects affectingtraditional human habitatand habitat and way of lifeRussian federal laws do not containprecise standards for assessing the impact ofindustrial projects on the traditional habitat andway of life of local minorities, or for compensatingdamage. The Federal Law, ‘On guarantees of therights of indigenous small-numbered peoples ofthe Russian Federation’ (Article 1) introduces thenotion of ‘ethnological expert assessment’, whichis defined as ‘assessment of the impact of changesin the natural habitat and socio-culturalenvironment of indigenous minorities on theirethnic development’. The same law, as well assome other Russian laws, gives indigenousminorities the right to take part in decisionmakingon issues concerning protection of theirnatural habitats and traditional way of life, as wellas indemnification of losses incurred by them as aresult of damage to their natural habitat (Article 8of the abovementioned law). Theoretically, this isa good foundation for resolving the problem, butin reality, since local populations have no legalownership rights to the land where they live, hunt,fish or breed reindeer, companies do not considerthemselves obliged to obtain the approval of localinhabitants before proceeding with developmentprojects. There is also an absence of statedprocedures for conducting an ‘ethnological expertassessment’, assessment of specific damage tohabitat and people who live by it, andmechanisms for use of any compensation.At the regional level, only 5 out of 27northern administrative regions with their ownindigenous peoples have local laws that obligeindustrial companies to negotiate withrepresentatives of these peoples and obtain theirapprovals (Nenets, Yamal-Nenets and Khanty-MansiAutonomous Districts, Republic of Sakha (Yakutia)and Sakhalin Region). In practice, lack of appropriatelaws at federal level means that industrialcorporations can challenge these regionalprovisions or dictate their own conditions. It is muchsimpler for large corporations to pay specifiedamounts of money to regional and localgovernments, or, in some cases, to make paymentsto organizations that represent indigenousminorities, than to negotiate and seek specificagreements with those peoples. Companies try toavoid active cooperation with native peoples onissues such as joint environmental monitoring ofprojects, joint resource management, designverification, and training and employment of localinhabitants.Positive instances of energy companiescooperating with indigenous minority organizationshave been the exception rather than the rule to date.Example are: agreements on social and economicassistance to communities and reindeer farms in theNenets and Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Districts(made by the companies Northern Lights, LukoilKomi, LUKoil Western Siberia); a tripartite agreementon cooperation between the administration ofYamal-Nenets Autonomous District, the indigenousminority organization ‘Yamal – for our Descendants!’and the companies Gazprom, NOVATEK, Rosneft,Lukoil, TNK-BP; organization of the firstenvironmental council in Yamal District; andimplementation since 2006 of the Programme forAssistance to Indigenous Minorities in SakhalinRegion by representatives of local indigenousminorities together with Sakhalin Energy and theadministration of Sakhalin Region. However, all ofthese initiatives have been put together by regionaladministrations, companies themselves andindigenous minority organizations, without federalgovernment coordination. The same companies,which participate in these programmes, take acompletely different stance in regions whereregional government and minority organizations donot have a strong voice 2 .The issue of legitimate interaction betweeninitiators of energy projects and local populationsshould be resolved at federal government level.Leadership from federal government is essential if2O.A. Murashko (compilation). Environmental co-management of resource companies, local administrations and indigenous minorities,M. 200949