O

Wip

NI

a

ARRAA

KIOCLA

1

ti

tN

p

tnRiainPA2t

h2

Energy Research & Social Science 16 (2016) 98–110

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Research & Social Science

jo ur nal home p age: www.elsev ier .com/ locate /erss

riginal research article

ho is responsible for the Russian Arctic?: Co-operation betweenndigenous peoples and industrial companies in the context of legalluralism�

atalya Ivanovna Novikovanstitute of Ethnology and Anthropology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 20 September 2015eceived in revised form 19 March 2016ccepted 21 March 2016vailable online 14 April 2016

eywords:ndigenous peoplesil and gasorporate responsibility

a b s t r a c t

This article explores the existing normative system’s regulation of relations between indigenous peoplesof the North and industrial companies in Russia. Special attention is given to the issue of responsibilityin Arctic development by government, by industrial companies (company policies), and by indigenoussmall-numbered peoples (customary law). For all those involved in nature management in the RussianNorth, the potential for overcoming the dangers they face depends on a combination of these norma-tive frameworks. The study is based on legal anthropology methods, which combine ethnographic fieldresearch (including participant observation and expert interviews) and analysis of texts of national laws,regulations, internal corporate documents as well as traditional customs. It is grounded in principlesof legal pluralism, which allows for the co-existence of multiple legal regimes governing interaction

egal pluralismrctic

between indigenous people and industrial companies. The article concludes that what is required inthe Russian North is full implementation of existing legislation and industrial companies’ social togetherwith environmental commitments, plus an integrated approach that takes into account local legal, ethno-cultural and historical practices, in addition to assessment by ethnological experts in the field of legalanthropology.

© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

. Introduction

“Northerners” in the Nenets language is ngem ter, meaning “con-ents of the North”. At least, that is how Nenets, Khanty and otherndigenous peoples1 living in the Arctic see themselves.2 They do

� It is prepared within the project “Indigenous Peoples and Resource Extraction inhe Arctic—Evaluating Ethical Guidelines”. Aırran Lule Sami Centre, funded by theorwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

E-mail address: natinovikova@gmail.com1 In this article the terms indigenous peoples, indigenous small-numbered peo-

les of the Russian North, Siberia and the Far East, and aboriginals are synonymous.2 The Arctic zone in the Russian Federation was demarcated in 2014. It includes the

erritories of eight Federation subjects, including regions where indigenous small-umbered peoples of the North live. The area comprising the Arctic zone of theussian Federation consists of about nine million square kilometres; its population

s more than 2.5 million people, which is less than 2% of the population of Russiand approximately 40% of the population of the whole Arctic. The Russian Arctics home to 82,500 persons from indigenous small-numbered peoples out of a totalumber of some 250,000 of this category in the Russian population as a whole//Ukazrezidenta Rossiiskoi Federatsii ot 02.05.2014 No 296, O sukhoputnykh territoriiakhrkticheskoi zony Rossiiskoi Federatsii’ (Russian Federation Presidential Decree on.5.2014, No. 296 “On the Land Territories of the Arctic Zone of the Russian Federa-ion”) http://www.garant.ru/products/ipo/prime/doc/70547984/#ixzz3k5yl3Jza.

ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.03.017214-6296/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

not impose on the land; they integrate into the land’s nature. Inliving their traditional way of life, they do not harm the land. Dur-ing the lengthy history of development in the northern territories,they came to know how to treat the land and the creatures livingthere. This traditional knowledge (TK) of indigenous peoples, whichis effectively a responsible approach to natural resources underextreme Arctic conditions, is particularly important in today’s Rus-sian North. For them, it is also a priority to establish dialogue insocial interaction. Research on most Arctic communities portraystheir development as much more likely to be based on partnershiprather than antagonism. Coastal and tundra nomadic peoples haveplayed a substantial role in this engagement. Historically, northernmulticulturalism has been based on dynamic interaction betweencultures and has shown great capacity for change [1].

The overarching purpose of this article is to explore how thelegal anthropology of traditional knowledge can aid indigenouspeoples of the Russian North to adapt to fast-changing environmen-tal, social, and economic conditions. In particular, the article aims at

identifying ways in which the current legal regime, as well as envi-ronmental assessment and ethnographic review, can be deployedto achieve this goal. Such adaptation needs to occur in a manner

h & So

co

npIcrppmtbailar

fRppepotoavinp[

sowdatcNoats

pmIo[ria

cwbNw

N.I. Novikova / Energy Researc

onsistent with their history, cultural heritage and traditional wayf life.

This article considers relations between industrial compa-ies and indigenous peoples in Russia in the context of legalluralism—namely the existence of state and other legal norms.

ndigenous peoples, oil corporations and government authoritiesomprise a single system of relations; currently this system isesponsible for the future existence and development of theseeoples. My research in the Russian North [2] shows that anthro-ologists can play an essential role in these relations, acting noterely as academics but also as expert-mediators. There is poten-

ial to use their ethnological expertise so as to construct a dialogueetween all participants in resource use. By this means an accept-ble framework for industrial development in the regions wherendigenous people live and make their livelihoods can be estab-ished. Under present Arctic development conditions this process ofctive co-operation brings various consequences, as well as mutualisks.

The role of the Arctic in global politics is determined first andoremost by its position as a repository of natural resources. In theussian Federation, which makes nearly two thirds of all wealthroduced in the circumpolar Arctic, the following tendencies arearticularly evident: the formal economy is based on large-scalexploitation of natural resources; processing of these plays a com-aratively minor role; and the benefits accrued are often utilizedutside the Arctic. In a report on human development in the Arc-ic, prepared as an initiative of Ministers of Foreign Affairs as partf the work of the Arctic Council at the beginning of the 1990s, annalysis of the economic situation in the Arctic was expressed inery broad terms [3]. It notes general tendencies and problems, andn particular “the need to strengthen the relationship between eco-omic and social development in the Arctic, and not to follow therinciple of: what’s good for the company is also good for society”4].

Historically, both in Russian ethnographic literature and in advi-ories addressed to government authorities, scholars have focusedn problems involved in Arctic exploration and on the “exoticay of life” of inhabitants of northern latitudes. The study of theynamics of interaction/co-operation between indigenous peoplesnd industrial companies, the changes in indigenous communi-ies, the unfolding new policies from government and the businessommunity, remains marginal within socio-cultural anthropology.evertheless, for the majority of Arctic regions from the second halff the twentieth century onward, industrial development and thectivity of industrial companies is a realm connected to the exis-ence of indigenous peoples, their cultural development and theirelfhood.

Recently in Russia scholars in a variety or disciplines have beenaying particular attention to scientific and technical develop-ent in the Arctic and to accompanying ecological problems [5].

n the field of scientific and technical Arctic studies, the most pri-ritized region is Yamalo-Nenetskiy Autonomous Okrug3 (YaNAO)6], which is also well researched by anthropologists. Selecting thisegion as an example, one notes the main tendencies arising fromnteraction between indigenous peoples and oil and gas companies,s well as mutual risks associated with the process.

In Russia since the 1990s, the preparation has begun of spe-ific legislation to protect indigenous peoples’ rights. This is in lineith the Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993 and has

een influenced by public action from indigenous peoples of theorth. To a large extent the process of lawmaking at a Federal levelas based on the legislative potential of the regions. So for many

3 A unit of Federal subject or administrative division in the Russian Federation.

cial Science 16 (2016) 98–110 99

of these regions, this process of lawmaking was even more con-structive than for those at the centre. Nevertheless legislation isnot itself enough to protect indigenous peoples; new practices andmechanisms are required. Over the years there has been a notice-able change in the position of industrial companies, some of whichproclaim their desire to work according to global standards. Withinthe framework of the United Nations such standards are articulatedwithin the Global Compact [7] and the Guiding Principles4 of Busi-ness and Human Rights, implementing the UN “Protect, Respectand Remedy” Framework [8].

2. Main themes, objectives and methodology

This article analyses interaction between indigenous peoplesand industrial companies in the Russian Arctic. The data researchedcomprise: international legal acts; regulatory documents articulat-ing Russian Federation development strategies in the Arctic zone;Russian legislation governing relations between industrial compa-nies and indigenous peoples; documents from non-governmentalorganizations in Russia consisting of business communities andindigenous peoples; as well as current and past norms of tradi-tional land use and relations with ‘neighbours’ in the Russian North.This article gives specific attention to the issue of responsibility inArctic development of government bodies, of industrial companies(company policies) and of indigenous peoples (customary law).

The author’s fieldwork data in this paper were gathered in dif-ferent regions of Arctic Russia and the Canadian North-WesternTerritories. I used ethnographic field methods including researchin situ; participant observation; in-depth interviews; expert pollsof politicians and leaders of social movements; and interviews andquestionnaires.

The study was carried out under the rubric of legal anthropology.This multidisciplinary research field aims to understand the rules ofbehaviour in varying societies. It gives preference to legal aspects,declaring the impossibility of isolating law as such since it is justone element of a shared cultural and social system, and in variousways is perceived and enforced by every sub-group of society [9].Legal anthropology brings together traditional and modern legalsystems with the goal of providing an adequate characterization ofhumanity’s actual (as opposed to formal) legal existence [10].

Legal anthropology emerged from the intersection of jurispru-dence and social anthropology, sociology, history and philosophy.Since the second half of the 20th century the basis for its method-ology has been legal pluralism (S. Moore, J. Griffiths, S. Merry,G. Woodman, K. and F. von Benda-Beckmann et al.), which isthe co-existence of two or more legal systems, when humanbehaviour (according to Griffith’s definition), corresponds to morethan one legal order [11]. Legal pluralism allows not only for theco-existence, but also for the mutual interaction of different legalsystems that create a “semi-autonomous social field” [12,13]. Dif-ferent legal systems are altered in the process of interaction witheach other. The uniqueness of the methodology of legal anthro-pology is such that regardless of whether or not government andacademia accept this situation, the existence and study of theselegal systems depends on the “empirically observable fact that oneway or another people are using a number of legal systems, whichis reflected in their behaviour” [14]. A new field has developed, andthe Russian North can supply numerous examples of such semi-autonomous systems [15].

Another methodological framework for this research consistsof approaches, elaborated in symbolic anthropology (according toGeertz), where cultural analysis is not an experimental science in

4 The principles were the work of John Ruggie, Special Representative of the UNSecretary-General.

1 h & So

siartiolaittiamiih

nroNbseislimf

cig[ttd

tetcc

mtaiGontttc

Mtkpspn

00 N.I. Novikova / Energy Researc

earch of laws, but a scientific interpretation in pursuit of mean-ng [16]. Such an approach allows us to rely on small local researchnd preserve sensitivity to the material, given the wide range ofights and interests of the various parties. According to Geertz, cul-ural interpretation has a number of features determined by thedea that theory should be closer to the ‘soil’. “The main purposef theoretical constructions in this field is not to codify abstractaws but to describe them as thoroughly as possible; not to gener-lize over the set of all cases but each and every case.” Therefore,n his opinion, the “challenge of interpretative anthropology is noto provide answers to our deepest questions but to allow accesso the responses of others—to those who are guarding other sheepn other valleys (in our case indigenous peoples and oilmen—N.N.),nd thereby transform these responses into a single chronicle ofan that we will be able to consult” [17]. Backed by these theoret-

cal constructs, I conceive the interaction of indigenous people andndustrial companies as a broad field of research where everyoneas the right to have a voice.

The methodology in studying the interaction between indige-ous peoples and industrial companies is also framed by theelative position of boundaries between these groups and the rolesf these boundaries in constructing past and new identities [18].ormally boundaries in ethnographic literature are understood toe and are described as cultural and ethno-cultural boundaries. Aeparate problem is the construction of ethnicity under the influ-nce of the state and within the framework of the state. Of particularnterest is Tishkov’s rationale of a “person–centred” approach to thetudy of ethnic identity. He writes: “When we speak of the ethnicimits in constructing a group, we must bear in mind that even if its the result of internal selection, it is not a general selection, but a

oment of agreement of the socially active part of the populationor whom ethnic discourse is important for various reasons.” [19].

In this paper, all these approaches became the methodologi-al basis for studying interaction between indigenous groups andndustrial companies. Although these relations are, by definition,roup relations, yet an attempt is made to examine these groups as20] stratified, combining different social and cultural actors. Sincehe methodology of legal anthropology is used in this study, thenhese communities are analysed via their own and/or via externalominant laws and customs.

Here the challenges of indigenous small-numbered peoples ofhe North are discussed in the context of international law andthnic legislation, which guarantee special rights and demonstratehe rationale for creating equitable conditions for management andontrol of resources between indigenous peoples and industrialompanies.

In Russian legislation indigenous peoples are distinguished pri-arily on the basis of livelihood. And in this study, it is specifically in

he sphere of nature use or nature management that there are issuest stake. For the purposes of legal-anthropological analysis, the def-nition of indigenous people is laid down in the Federal Law, “Onuarantees of the Rights of Indigenous Small-Numbered Peoplesf the Russian Federation”. This states that “indigenous small-umbered peoples of the Russian Federation are people living onhe territories of their ancestors’ traditional settlement, preservingheir traditional way of life, economy and crafts, who number lesshan 50,000 persons and consider themselves as separate ethnicommunities” [21].

It is no accident that in a paper presented at the entitled “Aanifesto for Northern Anthropology”, Tim Ingold first wrote about

he need for dialogue between traditional knowledge and scientificnowledge in the North. He emphasizes that for indigenous peo-

les of the North, the earth is not an object but a source of lifeustenance. They live within the land and not above it; and in therocess of moving through the land, they would rather not generateew knowledge about their world but to remember the knowledge;

cial Science 16 (2016) 98–110

therefore the land does not belong to them but they belong to theland [22]. He proposed a relational model as opposed to a genealog-ical one. The people and the land are not juxtaposed in a dichotomyof the living and the non-living; but their relationship with the land,with all living creatures on it, with the spirit world, and their expe-rience and expertise, amount to a life source for them, since thereis no contradiction between continuity and change [23]. The neces-sity of creating common knowledge is of particular value in the legalfield. In the Russian context today it is particularly urgent to under-stand that indigenous peoples’ knowledge of the environment is adefining feature of their special legal status.

This approach complies with the principles of internationallaw, as reflected in Convention 169 of the International LabourOrganisation (ILO), which highlights the importance of indigenouspeoples’ customary law for their legal status. In order to constructan adequate system of interaction between indigenous peoples andindustrial companies, it is also important to consider the rules ofintra-company regulations and practices operating inside oil com-panies. In writing this article, works on the social responsibilityof companies were crucial. The “stakeholder theory”, was particu-larly significant, for its analysis of the relationship between societyand business, including groups and individuals, who can benefit,influence or are affected by business. The moral criterion here isthe obligation in corporate social responsibility to share its profitswith all stakeholders [24,25].

3. Arctic policy concerning indigenous peoples andindustrial development of the Russian North

In this section in order to analyze Arctic policy in Russia, I exam-ine legislation and official policy statements and compare themwith functionally similar Canadian instruments.

To determine conceptual approaches and strategic objectives ingovernment Arctic policy, and socio-cultural adaptation to global-ization and industrial development, I analyze international norms,the rules of international law, Russian and regional legislation, aswell as recent major government domestic policy documents onstrategic development in the Russian Federation’s Arctic zone.

Historically the Russian Arctic was populated by many smallindigenous groups whose way of life was based on the comprehen-sive sustainable use of natural resources. In the twentieth centuryindustrial development in the region resulted in a sudden increasein the population residing there and a concomitant large-scale drainon these resources. In March 1996, at the Third Ministerial Confer-ence of the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS)—theprecursor to the Arctic Council—the eight Arctic countries pub-lished the Inuvik Declaration on Environmental Protection andSustainable Development in the Arctic. The Inuvik Declaration rec-ognizes the importance of the Arctic region for each and every Arcticcountry, for indigenous peoples and other inhabitants of the Arc-tic, and also for the whole world [26]. Arctic development may beviewed not only as a strategic resource for Russia, but also as ageopolitical liability. Arctic policy should include provision of secu-rity in the region and effective guarantees of socio-economic andcultural development for the local and the indigenous populations.

During the last decade industrial company policy has also beengradually changing, as companies become ever more aware thatthey are pioneers in the Arctic region. There is a growing aware-ness that their activities should be incorporated in the legal field,primarily in connection with environmental standards, but alsoin compliance with moral standards. Since industrial develop-

ment in the Arctic began before the adoption of modern socialand environmental legal standards, companies must adopt com-pensatory measures and actively work together with local andindigenous peoples. In a number of industrial enterprises manage-

h & So

macpasrpi

4

sgrRl“l7iReCo[Sop

cgiob

iatotRaes

cnpnoshtco

ocpdcsm

N.I. Novikova / Energy Researc

ent does recognize its responsibility and accepts documentationnd regulation governing principles of operation, and codes ofonduct for employees, particularly in areas where indigenous peo-le are carrying out traditional economic activity. Governmentuthorities play their part in establishing the necessary legal andocio-economic guarantees, as well as promoting a favourable envi-onment in the media and in the education system. Governmentolicy, as enshrined in several documents, plays a significant role

n the Arctic.

. International law and Russian government policy

The 1993 Constitution of the Russian Federation guarantees toafeguard ancestral habitats and traditional ways of life, to safe-uard indigenous peoples’ rights in accordance with universallyecognized principles and norms of international law and of theussian Federation’s international treaties (Article 69). A particu-

ar jurisdiction of bodies of state power has been recognized asthe protection of ancestral habitats and the traditional way ofife of indigenous small-numbered ethnic communities” (Article2) [27]. To further this, three Federal Laws were adopted defin-

ng the legal status of indigenous peoples: “On Guarantees of theights of Indigenous Small-numbered Peoples of the Russian Fed-ration” [28], “On General Principles on the Organization of Clanommunities (obshchiny) of Indigenous Small-Numbered Peoplesf the North, Siberia and the Far East of the Russian Federation,”29] and “On Territories of Traditional Nature Use of Indigenousmall-Numbered Peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far Eastf the Russian Federation” [30]. Clauses dealing with indigenouseoples have also appeared in a number of other laws.

From this point on we can adduce that indigenous peoples havehanged from being objects of policy to being its subject. They haveained the right of control over their own destiny. This could not butnfluence the ethics of research, and policy, together with the ethicsf industrial enterprises operating in places traditionally inhabitedy indigenous peoples.

The adoption of the Constitution by the Russian Federationn 1993 requires a commitment to considering fundamentalpproaches drawn up by the international community on the pro-ection of the rights of indigenous small-numbered peoples in itswn legislation, provided that they do not conflict with the Consti-ution [31]. Article 15, Section 1, states that “the Constitution of theussian Federation shall have the supreme juridical force, directction and shall be used on the whole territory of the Russian Fed-ration. Laws and other legal acts adopted in the Russian Federationhall not contradict the Constitution of the Russian Federation”.

When considering the issue of interaction between industrialompanies and indigenous peoples, a number of things dictate theeed for recourse to the international legal status of indigenouseoples. In today’s world industrial development itself has an inter-ational character. Both international and domestic companies areperating in the Arctic; the international commitments of the Rus-ian Federation are closely connected to international business,owever. Indigenous peoples themselves are part of the interna-ional community; other indigenous peoples live in a number ofountries, where they are viewed as having specific rights becausef their distinctive historical and cultural situation.

In 2007 the General Assembly of the UN passed a Declarationn the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which formulated provisionsharacterizing general norms for nation-states where indigenouseople live. The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

etermines their right to maintain and develop their distinctiveulture; it is the duty of governments to draw up and implementystems that help preserve, and develop indigenous culture. Ofore importance and value in this Declaration is the principle of

cial Science 16 (2016) 98–110 101

free, prior and informed agreement by indigenous peoples on deci-sions that affect them. Under Article 19 of the Declaration, “statesshall consult and co-operate in good faith with the indigenous peo-ple concerned through their representative institutions in order tosecure a free, prior and informed consent before adopting or imple-menting legislative or administrative measures that may affectthem” [32]. Hence at the most international level, there is a require-ment to provide the broadest rights for indigenous peoples duringindustrial development, the chief right of which is their free, prior,informed consent to decisions affecting their interests. In clarifi-cation, the Secretariat of the UN Permanent Forum on IndigenousPeoples stated in May 2011 that: a general understanding of theprinciple of free, prior and informed consent is that consent must begiven freely without coercion, intimidation or manipulation (free);sought sufficiently in advance prior to final approval and before thecommencement of the action (prior); based on an understandingof all the complex problems posed by a specific action or decision(informed)” [33].

Legal specialists in Russia substantiate the fact that there arethree levels of international law that are applicable to indige-nous people in the Russian North: general laws applicable to allnations, laws orientated towards ethnic minorities; and laws tai-lored specifically to the livelihoods of indigenous minorities [34].The focus on international regulation, declarations and other doc-uments, including those of financial and business communities,identifies a major direction in government policy. One can agreewith Kriazhkov that such rules reflect the expectations of indige-nous peoples: “There is nothing to prevent the use of such rules bythe courts (as, for example, in the case of the Russian Federation’sConstitutional Court’s practice, where decisions are not only basedon legally–binding international legal acts), by public authoritiesand by industrialists. In any event it is clear that declarations, reso-lutions and other international instruments are aimed at improvingsocial relations; the more often they are applied (and this shouldbe encouraged), the faster the rules in the documents will gain thestatus of international legal custom and common currency” [35].

Nevertheless in Russia the most important legal source is Rus-sian ethnic legislation. In the Russian legal system priority is givento the law, “On Guarantees on the Rights of Indigenous Small-Numbered Peoples of the Russian Federation”, which defines thefundamental right of indigenous peoples to protection of theirancestral home and traditional way of life. Primarily, let us notethe following collective rights: the right to participate in monitor-ing the use of different types of land required to carry out traditionalland management using traditional skills in places where they havealways lived and worked; the right to receive financial and materialmeans needed for their social, economic and cultural developmentand in order to protect their land, their traditional way of life, andtheir livelihoods and crafts, from the Russian Federation’s stateauthorities, from state bodies for Russian Federation subjects, fromlocal government, from property organizations, from internationalorganizations, NGOs and individuals; the right to compensation forlosses caused by the destruction of their native environment bythe economic activity of organizations of all types and by individ-uals. The latter right is also given to individuals belonging to theseindigenous peoples (Article 8). Furthermore, a specific Article of lawsets out the rights of individuals from indigenous small-numberedpeoples to preserve and develop their distinct culture [36]. Even so,it should be noted that current Federal legislation proceeds from thedefinition of indigenous small-numbered peoples as those who leada traditional way of life. Issues such as adaptation to modern condi-tions associated with urbanization, industrial development of the

northern territories, migration and modernization as a whole, hasreceived little attention in legislation, necessitating the adoption ofprogrammes and instruments at regional level.

1 h & So

istoinppta

fciich

cTdptcrappittco

5

tSPanaAemctonaitroitmSbllpn

02 N.I. Novikova / Energy Researc

The Russian Federation’s Strategy on State Ethnic Policy adoptedn 2012 exemplifies the current approach. This document containseveral provisions directly related to indigenous peoples. Amonghe key issues of State ethnic policy requiring the special attentionf government and municipal bodies, four are mentioned regardingndigenous peoples, one of which is the provision of rights to indige-ous peoples and national minorities. One of the tenets of ethnicolicy is to guarantee the rights of indigenous small-numberedeoples (numerically small ethnic groups), including support forheir economic, social and cultural development, protection of theirncestral home and traditional way of life.

Ethnic policy objectives on improving governance include theollowing: the creation of conditions so that indigenous peoplesan participate in matters affecting their rights and interests; anmprovement in levels of adaptability of traditional economic activ-ties of indigenous small-numbered peoples to current economiconditions taking into account the protection of their ancestralome, traditional way of life, etc. [37].

Arctic peoples, living in an extreme environment, occupy a spe-ial position amongst all the indigenous small-numbered peoples.he adoption of the State Ethnic Policy Strategy involves furtherevelopment of the country’s legal system. For indigenous peo-les, their actual control over the use of resources that constitutehe basis of their livelihoods is a particularly urgent issue. Thisomplex political and legal problem requires both an integratedestructuring of public opinion and a change in the paradigm ofnthropological research. It is important to move from a formalroclamation of equality for all peoples, to the right to actual free,rior and informed consent and to the adoption of decisions on

ssues that affect their legitimate interests. This requires a transi-ion from the depiction of indigenous people as inferior and fromhe politics of paternalism, to an acknowledgement of their greateronfidence when it comes to natural resources and the dynamicsf their own development.

. Russian Arctic and Canadian development strategies

In 2013 a detailed document on the prospects for developinghe Russian Arctic was drafted and approved—“The Developmenttrategy of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation and therovision of National Security for the period up to 2020”. It isimed at implementing the Russian Federation’s sovereignty andational interests in the region. The document identifies risksssociated with an increase in industrial activity in the Russianrctic and the number of people living there, stemming fromxtreme weather conditions, high levels of accumulated environ-ental damage and from the technical, economic and transport

omplexities of developing natural resources. The Russian Federa-ion highlights humanitarian concerns about improving the livesf those living and working in the Arctic including the indige-ous small-numbered population. This is in addition to priorityreas of State policy on Arctic economic development, namely:mproving education and health, maintaining a balance betweenhe labour market and the provision of employment based onetraining unemployed citizens of working age, supporting vari-us forms of self-employment and entrepreneurship, particularlyn single-industry towns and cities of the Russian Federation’s Arc-ic zone, and among indigenous peoples. The Strategy also proposes

onitoring and carrying out specific management decisions [38].o far it may be said that significant steps in this direction have noteen carried out, and that in practice is leading to conflict in the

egal sphere. In fact, when it comes to the territories of traditionaland use, the law is not working and the rights of indigenous peo-les under industrial development are not adequately protected;or are they in practice.

cial Science 16 (2016) 98–110

In contrast, this article now examines the Arctic policy ofCanada, which in many respects is the Arctic region closest to Rus-sia. In 2009, the document “Canada’s Northern Strategy: Our North,Our Heritage, Our Future” was published. To ensure socio-economicprogress there, the Canadian North allows an annual subsidy of 2.5billion dollars to be spent on education, health and social services.The main sources of wealth are derived from the development of oiland gas fields in the Mackenzie Valley and from diamond mining.Subsidies for environmental issues and climate change adaptationare separately allocated. More importantly, in the Northern Ter-ritories strategic development of the North is directed towardsself-government, and towards industrial and political participation.For these purposes, in addition to federal subsidies, revenue frommineral extraction is transferred to indigenous people’s communi-ties who have profitable sites [39].

This latter trend is reflected, for example, in the pipeline devel-opment project in the Mackenzie Valley. In 2000 an indigenousgroup was established to monitor the gas pipeline (AboriginalPipeline Group—APG), which represents the interests of indige-nous people there. In 2003, the group became a partner in thepipeline project, with revenues from gas production to be shared asfollows: APG—33.3%, Imperial oil Company—34.4%, ConocophillipsCanada—15.7%, Exxon Mobil Canada—5.2%.

Now it is difficult to judge how events will unfold in real-worldoutcomes. The indigenous peoples themselves speak out both forindustrial development and against it. Clearly they are alreadyinvolved in co-management of resources, though this does notmean that their socio-economic and cultural needs are satisfied,nor are their problems solved. For example, in a fieldwork inter-view, the Director of the Language Centre in Inuvik, in response toa question on the prospects for the Inuvialuit language once thepipeline is up and running, remarked: “The language will die” [40].The situation with the gas pipeline and the rights of indigenouspeoples to land and other resources has attracted the attentionof many researchers because it represents perhaps one optionfor future co-operation between companies and indigenous peo-ples in the Arctic [41–43]. The organised public consultations arehighly praised by experts, although M. Nuttall notes contradictionsthat have emerged in discussions. First, many young people votedagainst the construction of the pipeline. Secondly, the First NationDehcho from the central Mackenzie Valley (which consists of thir-teen communities) was the first to oppose the project. They did notagree with decisions made as they considered them an infringe-ment of their rights. The First Nation Dene Tha’ in Northern Albertawas also unhappy about the way hearings were conducted and fileda lawsuit against the project [44]. The First Nation De Cho’s positionproduced a backlash from the federal ministry and it became thesubject of extensive discussion among the public.

In a circumpolar context, studying the experience of interac-tion between indigenous peoples and industrial companies in avariety of northern countries reveals that local inhabitants are notonly interested in paid employment, but also in the ability to use“resources that have sustainable nutritional, cultural and economicvalue”. In any of the various models of co-operation we find thatindigenous people prefer to develop and work with local sustain-able resources. The prospect of sustainable development is boundup with using local resources [45]. Indigenous people see indus-trial development more often than not as risky, on which a lot ofpeople’s expectations are resting, but they have no confidence thatthese expectations will be fulfilled.

Any opportunities for indigenous peoples to participate inco-management of resources, in decision-making, in receiving

compensation or shares in the profits, is to a large extent dependenton constitutional guarantees and on the security of land claims.

In northern Canada the co-operative process is guaranteed bythe Constitutional Act of 1982 and by agreements made with the

h & So

fGtga

bbalbtYpn

lbCRmieofsmp

6i

ssalursSstc

dotaatdt

“atoacilttl

N.I. Novikova / Energy Researc

ederal government. The Invialuit signed up to this Act in 1984, thewich’in in 1994, and the Sahtu [46]. These documents guarantee

he right of peoples to resources and ensure that it is the duty ofovernment and companies to negotiate with them regarding anyctivity on their land [47].

Russia has also a practice of entering into such agreements,ut so far agreements in the Arctic regions are more likely to beetween a company and the state or local authorities, or between

company and an indigenous organization. The transition to a tri-ateral agreement is a matter for the future. In YaNAO, work hasegun on creating an Assistance Plan for Indigenous People onhe NOVATEK project—the construction of a gas liquefaction plant,amal LNG. For the moment almost nothing is known about thisroject, and this secrecy raises concerns about its future effective-ess.

If Russia is to bring off such agreements as Canada has, seriousegal and organizational work among the indigenous people wille required. However the essential difference between prevailinganada’s and Russia’s co-operative practices lies in the fact that, inussia, no conclusions are usually drawn when it comes to environ-ental conflicts, and moreover, the rights of indigenous peoples

n Russia have actually decreased recently. This is evidenced, forxample, by the removal of traditional territories from the categoryf Special Protected Areas that has resulted in widespread criticismrom activists, as well as from numerous lawyers [48,49]. Changesuch as the above suggest that ultimately the company’s rights areore important and more guaranteed than the rights of indigenous

eoples.

. Arctic indigenous peoples’ knowledge and issues ofndustrial development

In this section we examine the traditional knowledge pos-essed by indigenous people of their land and especially, of theiracred places, and the opportunities they have of regulating themccording to their customary law and also according to regionalegislation. It is becoming increasingly imperative that ethnic reg-latory documents must be developed to render internationalegulation more effective in Russia. The Convention on Biodiver-ity (CBD) was open for signature in 1992 stipulating that thetate aims, as far as possible and as appropriate, to respect, pre-erve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices relatedo the preservation of biodiversity and the sustainable use of itsonstituents [50]. Russia joined the CBD in 1995.

The global community has acknowledged the importance of tra-itional knowledge for sustainable development. In the documentsf the UN Conference on Environment and Development it stateshat: “The indigenous population and their communities, as wells other local communities, have a vital role to play in managingnd improving the environment in view of their knowledge andraditional practices. Governments should recognize support theiristinctiveness, culture and interests and enable their effective par-icipation in attaining sustainable development” [51].

The outcome of the work of the UN Conference on CBD wasVoluntary Guidelines for the Conduct of Cultural, Environmentalnd Social Impact Assessments regarding developments proposedo take place on, or which are likely to impact on sacred sites, andn lands and waters traditionally occupied or used by indigenousnd local communities”. This document admits the possibility ofombining cultural, environmental and social impact assessmentsnto a single process. A cultural impact assessment involves: the

ikely impact on continued customary use of biological resources;he likely impact on the preservation, respect, protection and main-enance of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices; theikely impact on sacred sites and associated rituals and ceremonies;

cial Science 16 (2016) 98–110 103

respecting the need for privacy for purposes related to their culture;the likely impact on customary law” [52].

Indigenous society is socially diverse. Only part of that societywants to preserve the land for its traditional economy and wantsto develop its culture. But it is this group that is associated in thepublic’s mind with the hope of preserving the unique northernenvironment and culture. The fiercest conflicts with companieshave occurred with those indigenous people who are actuallyengaged in traditional nature use.

Indigenous concepts of the land are reflected in the legal aimsof indigenous peoples: the need not to incur great losses, compli-ance measures in the use of resources, the need to monitor theland and the awareness of “land rights” as an effective regulatorycontrol between people. Indigenous environment management ischaracterized by ideas such as the permeability of boundaries, themobility of people and, at the same time, the limitations of mas-tered space. The boundaries of the area called “native habitat” inthe legislation are the natural and economic features of the culturallandscape.

Customary law regulation regarding relationships in land useinvolves the social nature of land-use norms, combined collectiveand individual rights, the separation of the social status of devel-oped territories and property interests, the inalienable nature ofland-use where land may be inherited or transferred within thegroup, but not sold. In general, indigenous people of the North per-ceive the expropriation of land for purposes other than traditionalland use very negatively; destruction of pasture is taken particu-larly badly. Today it is not the just the anthropogenic impact ofoil and gas companies that threatens them, but the impact of cli-mate change as well. With regard to these problems, it is especiallyimportant to consider the views of indigenous peoples, using a com-bination of scientific and traditional knowledge to achieve genuinepartnership in the “production” of knowledge, as well as in jointmanagement of the Arctic regions. The organization of “World Rein-deer Herders” initiated a special project “EALAT” (Reindeer Herdingin a Changing Climate), which was largely carried out in Russia.There are also other studies, yet the results of these studies arepoorly co-ordinated and, in practice, are hardly ever employed.The Chairman of the Board of the “World Reindeer Herders Asso-ciation”, M.A. Pogodayev, has highlighted that “although reindeerherders are not against economic development in principle andunderstand that it is necessary and inevitable, they have growingconcerns about the increasing needs of society and the need for bal-anced development of such activity in relation to the interests oftraditional forms of economy of Arctic peoples and to biodiversityconservation” [53]. Ethnological expertise may be one way to cir-culate indigenous peoples’ traditional knowledge. Another routeforward for harmonious development in the Arctic, is for thoseinvolved in industrial development to understand the concept ofsacred sites. In scientific literature quite a lot of importance isattached to the environmental knowledge of indigenous people intheir traditional management of nature. Against this background,the protection of the intangible cultural heritage of the indigenoussmall-numbered peoples of the North requires particular atten-tion, because at the present time this heritage is being subjectedto pressure, and is insufficiently studied by researchers. For manynewcomers, such as company employees, who have only relativelyrecently arrived in the North, indigenous cultural heritage seemsrather bizarre. At the same time, the intensive industrial develop-ment of areas where indigenous small-numbered peoples of theNorth are living, calls for effective mechanisms to protect thosemulticultural spaces.

For many indigenous peoples of the Russian North sacred placesare a central tenet of nature use. Sacred places perform variousfunctions: they can be nature reserves, or places of worship andof communion with gods or spirits. For indigenous people, sacred

1 h & So

soiglesiirsiratbi

tnotR[tastpllitA

(

(

(((

tt

Htci

(

(

((

itti

04 N.I. Novikova / Energy Researc

ites that can be said to be “nodes” connecting up different partsf the space where they live, are considered to be of particularmportance. This is discussed in detail in contemporary ethno-raphic literature [54,55]. We need extensive anthropological andegal research, with attention to traditional indigenous legal knowl-dge to identify legal capacity, in order to formulate a proper legalystem for such historical and cultural phenomena. With regard tondustrial development on sacred sites, such work requires increas-ngly active co-operation with Arctic indigenous peoples. One of theeasons for low levels of provision of rights regulation concerningacred sites is possibly due to the lack of relevant scientific researchn this area. At the Federal level such sites may be regarded as ter-itories of traditional nature use; yet this provision does not play

significant role, because of the de facto non-use of the law. Dueo the idiosyncrasies of Arctic development, these regulations haveeen adopted at regional level in the Sakha Republic (Yakutiya) and

n YaNAO.The Constitution of the Sakha Republic (Yakutiya) guarantees

he right to protection from any kind of forced assimilation or eth-ocide, from attacks on their ethnic identity, from infringementsf their historic and sacred sites, and of spiritual and material cul-ural monuments belonging to the indigenous peoples of the Sakhaepublic and indigenous small-numbered peoples of the North56]. In 2009, YaNAO adopted a law “On Cultural Heritage Sites inhe Yamalo-Nenetskiy Autonomous Okrug” [57]. It highlights char-cteristics and key features of traditional ways of life of indigenousmall-numbered peoples of the North. The law “On Objects of Cul-ural Heritage in the Yamalo-Nenetskiy Autonomous Okrug” shouldlay a crucial role in the preservation of Nenets culture, particu-

arly since historical and cultural expertise is guaranteed by theegislation. There are some Articles in law designed specifically forndigenous small-numbered peoples of the North. Thus Article 8 ofhe law defines “Cultural Heritage Sites in the Yamalo-Nenetskiyutonomous Okrug”:

1) Family, clan and ethnic sacred and cult places of indige-nous small-numbered peoples in the Autonomous region(hereinafter—the sacred sites of ISNP)

2) Family and clan burial sites in places of indigenous small-numbered peoples in the Autonomous region (hereinafter—theburial places of ISNP)

3) Family, clan and ethnic memorial sites4) Locations where ethnic handicrafts are carried out5) Other objects that have exceptional value to ISNP.

The Act also determines the right of these peoples to preserveheir sacred sites and also to do this in accordance with their cus-om.

“The Convention for the Safe-guarding of Intangible Culturaleritage of 2003” plays a major role in preserving and developing

he culture of indigenous peoples. It uses the expression “intangibleultural heritage” to denote the following areas that are relevant tondigenous small-numbered peoples:

a) “oral traditions and terms of expression including language as avehicle of “intangible cultural heritage”

b) performing arts(c) social practices, rituals, festive eventsd) knowledge and practice concerning nature and the universe;e) knowledge and skills relating to traditional craftsmanship” [58].

The preservation of the intangible cultural heritage of Arctic

ndigenous small-numbered peoples requires very extensive worko identify, study and organize State protection, in accordance withheir own traditions and custom. Self-evidently, for people practic-ng traditional ceremonies, festivals and rituals, who preserve the

cial Science 16 (2016) 98–110

important role of folklore in everyday life, as well as using theirknowledge and skills in contemporary nature management, theconcept of intangible cultural heritage is not merely academic butapplied.

It is no coincidence that indigenous peoples’ organizations,for example, the “Association of World Reindeer Herders”, areactively engaged with this issue, alongside academia. Their projectshighlight the role of traditional indigenous knowledge in makinglong-term forecasts, and in devising adaptation and sustainabilitystrategies for local reindeer herding communities. Reindeer herdersare working on the development of “Arctic” ethical legislation,treaties and principles to be applied to the process of industrialdevelopment [59].

The most bitter disputes date back to the industrialists’ idea ofthe Russian North as a “no-man’s land”. I have often heard it saidthat the natives live on the company’s land, or that the company hasissued a license, yet it turns out that reindeer herders are roamingthe area. Industrialists are often not very aware and do not take thenomadic way of life into account, and Russian law does not requirethem to conduct expert evaluation. Legally binding ethnologicalexpertise would be able to able to identify potential threats fromindustrial development.

Certainly conflict exists between traditional and commercialuse of resources, between the traditional principle of “not leavingany tracks behind” (ne nasledit’) and the large footprint of mineralextraction. Indigenous people are sometimes accused of standingin the way of industrial development while they themselves enjoyits benefits, driving around in cars and snowmobiles. The greatestindignity for indigenous people is the misuse of resources, exacer-bated by the everyday pollution of forests and tundra, in addition tothe vast quantity of industrial and domestic waste that employeesof industrial enterprises leave behind.

Under present conditions, indigenous people combine their self-image of “contents of the North” with the need to co-exist alongsidethe newcomers. Their laws and practices are based on knowledgethat has evolved from observing their environment over a very longtime and is based on interaction with others involved in nature use,and connected social relations. Customary law is a more flexiblemodel here, largely engendering both opportunity for developmentand a certain level of pragmatism. We need more confidence inindigenous peoples and also the incorporation of traditional landuse norms into the country’s legal system in order to create anequitable system of co-operation between indigenous people andindustrial companies. It seems important to develop a negotiatingplatform where the State, industrial companies (company policy)and indigenous peoples (customary law) would not only be entitledto a voice but also to a system of principles and mechanisms thatcould guarantee co-operation between them.

7. The social responsibility of business in the Arctic

When referring to prospects for co-operation between indige-nous peoples of the Russian North and industry in the context ofglobalization, it makes sense to point out a number of instrumentsformulated recently in the international community concerningco-operation between society, business and human rights. Nowa-days, the public are becoming increasingly aware of environmentalissues, such as the contamination of the Arctic and other regionsin the North, the withdrawal of significant areas of reindeer pas-ture from traditional land use, the loss of fishing grounds, as wellas being aware of development opportunities in this region of

natural and social complexity. In the Nuuk Declaration on Envi-ronment and Development in the Arctic, which was signed in 1993by Environment Ministers of several countries including Russia, itspecifically states that for “sustainable development to be achieved,

h & So

edi

ripscsaaanioscvClbc

few“asiiittaAsaooa

scfWtoWib

meniwnfww

R“m

N.I. Novikova / Energy Researc

nvironmental protection shall constitute an integral part of theevelopment process and cannot be considered independently of

t” [60]. In 2011 the Arctic Council adopted the Nuuk Declaration.International instruments defining the social and ecological

esponsibilities of industrial companies are becoming increasinglymportant. Many companies are signing up to the Global Com-act, which sets out 10 principles, two of which are: businesseshould support and respect the protection of internationally pro-laimed human rights within their spheres of influence; businesseshould make sure they are not complicit in human rights abusesnd should define the company’s position on human rights [61]. Inccordance with this document, the Russian Union of Industrialistsnd Entrepreneurs initiated the “Social Charter of Russian Busi-ess”. It specifically highlights the issue of business participation

n the development of local communities, following the principlesf corporate citizenship. In addition to the document’s other provi-ions, it puts forward an interesting idea: the adoption of socialommitments by the Russian business community and by indi-idual companies is not a “social license” for commercial activity.orporate social responsibility can be and must be helpful for the

ong-term success both of the companies themselves, and to theenefit of society as a whole [62]. The voluntariness is the basis fororporate social responsibility of industrial companies.

For years, banks operating in project financing have lookedor ways to create a common code that reflects the social andnvironmental aspects applicable to projects across all industriesorldwide. In 2006 after several reworkings, a new version of the

Equator Principles” was approved, which regulates financial trans-ctions according to accepted standards. The document providestandards and procedures determining borrowers’ responsibilityn matters of protection of both the environment and of peoplempacted by the funded project, which is of particular interest tondigenous peoples. These ten principles relating to environmen-al and social assessment, to consultations with local populations,o plans of action, as well as relating to monitoring, independentssessment, etc., should help to mitigate the impact of such projects.n important aspect of all this is that the financial institution thatigns up to the “Equator Principles” must publish a report annu-lly on their implementation. The documents of the association ofrganizations that have signed up to the Equator Principles (EPFIrganizations) emphasise that these principles must be acceptednd implemented voluntarily and independently [63].

Although such initiatives are voluntary, they serve as effectiveocial controls. Oil companies often work in a number of differentountries and are sensitive about their image. This is evidenced,or example, by their websites and media appearances. The World

ildlife Fund (WWF) carried out a project on “The contribution ofhe largest Russian companies to sustainable development”. Theil companies—100% of them—responded enthusiastically to theWF’s questionnaire. These oil companies, in contrast with other

ndustries, can be recognized as some of the most integrated ofusinesses in the global economy.

In 2014 a new project was launched by the WWF and theonitoring agency Creon, which is designed to work out the

nvironmental ratings of oil and gas companies. Companies fur-ish information on their environmental activity, degree of global

mprint, and on their effective use of resources. The first resultsere announced in December 2014 and identified the best compa-ies: Surgutneftgaz, Sakhalin energy, Gazprom [64]. The demand

or such research is obvious; however it should be subject to moreide-ranging social controls. Above all, what is needed is a way oforking out the criteria of corporate social responsibility.

In 2011 a panel of experts led by John Ruggie, UN Specialepresentative on Business and Human Rights prepared a report:Guidelines on Business and Human Rights”. This report imple-ented the UN’s “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework, which

cial Science 16 (2016) 98–110 105

is based on the State’s duty to “protect” human rights, on cor-porate responsibility to “respect” human rights, and the need foraccess to “remedy” [65]. Thus, the important role of the State in lawenforcement is acknowledged. As regards the activity of businessenterprises, it is assumed that the State will “encourage and wherenecessary require companies to communicate how they addresstheir human rights impacts”. The adoption of this framework cre-ated an authoritative co-ordinated mechanism. It is based on threeunderlying premises. First, the State has an obligation to provideprotection against human rights abuses by third parties includingbusiness enterprises, through appropriate policies, regulation andjudicial resolution of disputes. Secondly, corporations are obliged torespect human rights. This means that businesses should exercisedue diligence in order to avoid violating the rights of other parties,and to address the adverse impact, in which they are implicated.Thirdly, access to effective judicial and non-judicial remedies needsto be extended to victims of violations. Each underlying premise isa fundamental element in this interconnected and dynamic frame-work of preventative measures and legal remedies: it is the State’sduty to guarantee protection, as it constitutes the very essence ofthe international regime of human rights; it is a corporate respon-sibility to respect human rights because it is, first and foremost,what society expects from businesses in relation to human rights;and there needs to be access to legal redress, since even the mostconcerted efforts cannot prevent all violations.

Preparation for the document was based on information gath-ered during the course of extensive discussions with all partiesconcerned. These included governments, businesses, associations,individuals and communities directly affected by the activities ofenterprises in various parts of the world, the public, and expertson the many fields of law and policy relating to the Guidelines. Itshould be noted that some of them have been tested in practice. Thepurpose of the Guidelines is to provide practical guidelines but theyare to be based on contemporary practice. These Guidelines are notcreating new rules for international law; rather they are serving asthe basis for developing recommendations for the activity of indus-trial companies in areas where indigenous people live. Because oftheir rather general character, they can be used for policy-making inrelation to specific groups of people, such as the indigenous small-numbered peoples of the Russian North. UN documents specifythat in determining the issue of respect for indigenous peoples’rights, the Guidelines should be treated as a public document, as adocument adopted specifically for indigenous people.

In order to implement their corporate responsibility for humanrights, businesses must deal with adverse effects via prevention,mitigation and if necessary, payment of damages—as clearly statedin the comments to the “Guidelines”. To perform its functions, thecompany must assess risks, relying on its own expertise, on inde-pendent experts and via consultations with potentially affectedparties. Moreover, the document proposes monitoring the effec-tiveness of measures put in place to eliminate the adverse effects.

The sections on access to legal redress are particularly impor-tant in the practical application of this document, and state judicialand non-judicial mechanisms are considered along with non-governmental grievance mechanisms. The document states: for thepurpose of dealing promptly and directly with complaints, damagesshould be established for the benefit of individuals or communitiesthat may be the victims of adverse effects, and effective grievancemechanisms should be put in place at the operational level orwhile at work”. The criteria for the effectiveness of non-judicialgrievance mechanisms are: legitimacy, accessibility, predictabil-ity, fairness, transparency, compliance in the field of human rights,

and the source of continuous learning. Such mechanisms should bebased on co-operation and dialogue. Scientific research should beconducted to assess efficacy of these mechanisms and to improve

1 h & So

cw

ttco

pecfopRtrnpt

nacplcr

bcmfFnaestinieateostlwpia

8

ciiW““m

06 N.I. Novikova / Energy Researc

ompany policy [66]. However, companies do not always agreeith research conclusions.

Thus, the international documents under consideration consti-ute UN documents, voluntarily undertaken as a commitment byhe business community and financial circles, which today has toonsider human rights and the rights of indigenous people as partf their remit.

Social responsibility in relation to the rights of indigenouseoples is just emerging in the corporate world of the Russian Fed-ration, and to a large extent in its scientific circles, but not in itsorridors of power. The timid attempts by the Russian Federation’sormer Ministry of Regional Development to influence the processf co-operation between indigenous people and industrial com-anies have been ineffective. In 2009 a project was developed byussian scientists: “The Russian standard of social and environmen-al policy of industrial companies operating in areas of traditionalesidence and traditional economic activity of indigenous small-umbered peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East” [67]. Thisroject outline remains on the Internet without the governmentaking any steps to either improve or implement it.

Currently, corporate social responsibility in relation to indige-ous small-numbered peoples of the North is receiving morettention in Russia. As recently as Autumn 2014, a number of dis-ussions with broad representation from industrial companies tooklace in Moscow: in the Committee of the State Duma, in the Pub-

ic Chamber, at the UN House. These discussions are expected toontinue and hopefully will develop criteria for corporate socialesponsibility as a guide for industrial companies.

One of the ways of studying corporate social responsibility andusiness practice is by ethnological assessment. At the moment, byonducting research in various Arctic regions one can specify theost acute arenas of conflict, analyze them and propose scenarios

or the future [68,69,70]. Ethnological assessment is defined by theederal Law of 1999—“On the Guarantees of the Rights of the Indige-ous Small-numbered Peoples of the Russian Federation”. It statess follows: “Ethnological assessment is the scientific study of theffect of changes on the native habitats of minority peoples and theocio-cultural situation in the development of their ethnos”. Todayhe material involved in expert assessment in the North gives anndication of the types of interaction between industrial compa-ies and indigenous peoples. Their variety is not only due to the

mmense size of the country and the socio-economic, natural andthno-cultural characteristics of the region; it is also because of thebsence of Federal Law regulating it. Practical experience shows ushat, provisions such as those in the Land Codex, the laws “On Min-ral wealth”, “On Production-sharing Agreements”, “On Guaranteesf the Rights of Indigenous Small-numbered Peoples of the Rus-ian Federation”, and others, is clearly not enough. At the moment,he Committee on Nationality in the State Duma is working on aaw—“On evaluating the impact on original habitat and traditional

ay of life of the Russian Federation’s indigenous small-numberedeoples of the North”, which plans to come up with a legal def-

nition of the process of organising and conducting ethnologicalssessments.

. Company policies and voluntary commitments

The development of company policy and company voluntaryommitments undertaken in accordance with the principles ofnternational law, are additional instruments that can facilitatenteraction between industrial companies and indigenous peoples.

e must acknowledge an interesting and valuable initiative fromGazprom Mining Nadym”. They have published a booklet calledDo no harm” (Ne navredi), on the rules of conduct for employees,ainly shift workers, working at the Bovankovskoye gas field and

cial Science 16 (2016) 98–110

other fields on the Yamal Peninsula. It contains the following rules:It is forbidden to cross the tundra except on main roads; to rip ordestroy any plants; to carry firearms or fishing tackle; to throw lit-ter on the tundra; to smuggle dogs onto the field; to take radios andrecorders into the tundra so as to avoid noise; to harass or distractreindeer herders when they are in taking flocks across the field. Atthe time of kaslaniye (moving herds of reindeer), it is prohibited totake any photographs or videos.

Responsibility for implementing these rules rests with the man-agers of the enterprises at their production sites. The difficulty liesin the fact that this document, as our research shows, does notregulate in the workplace.

During ethnological expert assessments in YaNAO by “Ethno-consulting” in 2008–2011, we faced the fact that, even if initiativesin relation to indigenous small-numbered peoples do exist, cor-porations are not keen to advertise them. Company employeesresponsible for such initiatives discuss their work in a very guardedfashion, pointing out that their job is transferring informationbetween the company and administration. We gained the impres-sion that no effort was being made to recruit more qualified staff,and that it was poorly managed. It is perhaps the case that oil andgas companies in the area have no clear idea of what they ought tobe doing. Only a few individuals informed us what it is that they doin the company.

These employees know how the company operates, know theproposals of the Association representative and of the locals at pub-lic hearings, know how many people live permanently or seasonallyin the area affected by the company, and are aware of what theirproblems are. It should be mentioned that such people are oftenactivists from the indigenous small-numbered peoples’ organiza-tion, “Yamal for its Descendants”.

As a typical example, let us consider a case with the oil com-pany “LUKOIL” in Western Siberia. The newest holding company“TPP Yamalneftgaz” is working on territory in the Tazovskiy Region.Founded in 2004, it is engaged in exploring and developing gasfields in Yamalo-Nenetskiy Autonomous Okrug. In April 2005 theNakhodskiy gas field was put into operation—the first LUKOIL oper-ation in YaNAO. In 2009, “LUKOIL-West Siberia” started drilling anddeveloping a promising new field—the Pyakyakhinskiy field. As partof our field research, we had meetings with company workers inboth the Tazovskiy region and Salekhard—centre of YaNAO, whichwere usually held in the company representative’s office. Thesemeetings were attended by the those employees responsible forenvironmental issues and personnel matters. Nobody could tell uswhat company policy was, nor what measures were being taken asregards co-operation with the local indigenous people. No one hadany instructions and no one knew about any company regulationsto do with work. This lack of focus corresponds fully with the situ-ation found in Nakhodka, 20 k away from the field and facilities ofthe company. So in theory LUKOIL has a specific policy, and it alsohighlights the appointments of people with responsibility for itspolicy. We have received material from the company’s head officein Kogalym.

On examination of the material, the first document is a generalagreement on co-operation for 2008–20015. It sets out a generalframework for co-operation. In the main, the company agrees tocomply with legislation and to pay taxes, as well as to give charita-ble aid, and to hire local residents.

The next document consists of rules of conduct for the employ-ees of “Yamalneftgaz” and for other contractors on territory whereindigenous small-numbered peoples of the North live. But if theserules are being carried out, whether in the Tazovskiy region or in

Salekhard, then how is it that not one of the employees invited tothe meetings knew of their existence? It is apparent to us that theserules should be in every office and that they need to be aware ofthem all, otherwise they are futile. Moreover, some workers told

h & So

ustoop

ctvowlp

Yac

mvaSimts

ttssfAfmip

tfpspamtbp‘a

fssahitccfetR

N.I. Novikova / Energy Researc

s about going hunting on indigenous territory as though it wereomething heroic. I will list only the most important provisions ofhe regulations: it is prohibited to bring in or use alcohol, firearmsr fishing tackle; to have dogs, to move across the territories with-ut a special permit, to collect wild plants, to trade with the localopulation, and to pollute the territories.

In the case of a violation, an internal investigation should beonducted with full details presented to relevant departments andhose responsible for disciplinary action. Measures are also pro-ided for compliance with the permit regime and for the controlf stray dogs. The regulations end with the phrase: “In any contactith the local population, please respect the unique culture, way of

ife, customs, beliefs and languages of indigenous small-numberedeoples”.

As demonstrated by our ethnological expert assessment, in theamalneftgaz division there are no special departments or groups,nd many employees have no idea about what constitutes Nenetsulture.

Sometimes, outright violation of stated company policy is per-itted: we came across a dog at a technical service point when we

isited the area of the Nakhodskiy field. The dog problem has beenround for many years in the area of the company LUKOIL—Westiberia. Field research shows that without public scrutiny of themplementation of company regulation, it is ineffective. Further-

ore, there is a staff problem in these companies. It is still the casehat those employees who do work with indigenous people are notpecialists.

In general the regulations follow company policy on indus-rial safety, occupational health and environmental matters; buthey are maladapted to the situation regarding the indigenousmall-numbered peoples of Tazovskiy region. One gets the impres-ion that some of these instructions are simply transferredrom corresponding documents relating to the Khanty-Mansiyskiyutonomous Okrug, a vast area where indigenous people with a dif-

erent status live. Meanwhile, a number of constructive provisionsay be observed in the instructions for the workers there, including

nter alia, the employee responsible for working with indigenouseoples:

“Take into account the interests of the indigenous population,he preservation of their unique culture, customs and traditions;acilitate regular medical check-ups of the indigenous population;rovide assistance in finding employment and acquiring a profes-ion; arrange transport for indigenous people and their children tolaces of permanent residence; know the location of their pasturesnd migration routes; provide assistance for them in acquiring per-its for sanatoria, holiday homes and children’s camps; organize

ransport for children from their place of residence to school andack; take an active part in environmental actions of the com-any; provide a quarterly report on its activities to the board of

Yamal for its Descendants’, the Department of the North and thedministration of the company.”

The adoption of regulation, and in particular the instructionsor employees, show that the company is aware of the need forpecial policy on indigenous peoples. However, it is obvious thatuch regulation should be drawn up by experts in the field of socialnthropology/ethnography or with their input, as these specialistsave an understanding of the socio-economic and legal status of

ndigenous small-numbered peoples of the North and their cul-ure. They know and take account of the ongoing changes and localharacteristics. It is certainly possibly to recruit and train such spe-ialists since large numbers of school-leavers from YaNAO graduaterom university in the relevant specialties, and often cannot find

mployment in their region okrug. Companies thus would be ableo fulfil their obligations vis à vis the employment of local people.ussia has experts in this field who can provide advice.

cial Science 16 (2016) 98–110 107

It is likely that company management recognizes the difficultiesinherent in organising interaction with the indigenous population.Therefore some special measures are being put in place to improvethis, one of which is the creation of a special department withina company—as indicated by company management in correspon-dence with experts. The experience of some oil and gas companiesin crafting regulations and instructions for employees can be takeninto account when developing professional standards in the indus-try, which, in accordance with a Russian Federation GovernmentResolution, is applicable to employers and by educational institu-tions [71].

Significant change is needed on attitudes towards co-operationwith indigenous peoples as shown by data on company activitycollected in the town of Salekhard and the Tazovskiy region. Half-hearted measures taken by companies today are, to a large extent,ineffective and, at times, pointless. Companies are spending a lot ofmoney but have little to show for it.

9. Conclusions

In September 2014, the UN hosted a World Conference of Indige-nous Peoples, which resolved to look at all aspirations of indigenouspeoples, including the obligation of businesses to obey laws andinternational principles. First and foremost, it emphasized theirduty to obey the Guidelines on Business and Human Rights, i.e. towork on the basis of transparency and of social and environmen-tal responsibility to prevent violations of the rights of indigenouspeople [72].

Legislation adopted by the Russian Federation is not enough toachieve real parity between the interests of indigenous peoples andthose of industrial companies. Moreover, the recently introducedrules diminish the rights of these peoples even more. In addition,the legislative and law enforcement process is quite “heavy-weight”, requiring a considerable amount of time and moneyto be effective. And as experience shows, there is a shortage ofprofessionals for effective implementation of Arctic policy. Thesecircumstances dictate that corporate social responsibility be con-sidered as another mechanism for the protection of the rightsof indigenous small-numbered peoples under Arctic developmentconditions. An integrated approach should take into account, locallegal, ethno-cultural and historical practices in evaluating the sit-uation of indigenous and local populations that have evolved invarious parts of the North.

Applied ethnological research may provide a more reliable pic-ture of the attitude to ongoing change on the part of the indigenouspopulation, but not only that. While carrying out ethnologicalexpert assessments, it is equally important to study the corporateculture of a company and the employees’ beliefs about indigenouspeoples and traditional nature use. Today, the study of State legalculture, the norms of indigenous culture, and corporate culture’sregulation of industrial companies, all help to create room for dia-logue in the Arctic.

Legal anthropology studies the juridical shape of people’s livesand of the activity of organizations. As it is engaged in multidisci-plinary research, the scientific methodology used allows analysisof both the rules and the processes, and examines compliance ofthe rules with the needs of people. Because of this, it is possible topropose mechanisms for policy, in accordance with the concept ofhuman rights, for industrial companies operating in areas whereindigenous people of the North live and work. In addition, this kindof approach allows company regulation to be designed, regardless

of the legal status of indigenous peoples, extending it to all thepeoples of the North and the local population. Research has flaggedup some sore points, such as non-compliance with the norms ofindigenous legislation and resource rights, insufficient State con-

1 h & So

tsoClt

isiTpTwtfqwemt

aoiwtaRfTtfioosfF

R

[[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

08 N.I. Novikova / Energy Researc

rols on the implementation of the rule of law, and on compliance ofocial and environmental obligations by companies. Today, a rangef integration programmes—the Aboriginal Codex and the Arcticodex [73]—are being offered by lawyers and politicians. The chal-

enge for anthropologists is to try to make these legal systems upo the task of transforming indigenous society.

At present, interaction between industrial companies andndigenous and local communities is leading more to increasedocial tensions and environmental degradation, rather thanmprovements in standards and in the quality of life in the Arctic.he severity of conflict is also linked, on the part of the indigenouseople, to a psychological and emotional attitude to development.oo often, companies announce during the public hearing that theyill guarantee employment, the construction of community facili-

ies, and the development of infrastructure. Yet far too little is heardrom them on the matter of corporate social responsibility. Theuestion of compensation, paid out under economic agreements,hich sometimes comes from industrial companies, is also not an

asy issue. In the short term it may be advantageous to pay someoney to indigenous people, but is it beneficial for them in the long

erm?Studying the experience of the Arctic regions in both Russia and

broad leads to the conclusion that state policy should not be basedn ad hoc assistance to indigenous people. Rather, what is neededs a system of state protection measures and active co-operation

ith them and it needs a system that makes sure that corpora-ions meet their social and environmental commitments. There arelready many examples of long-term co-operation practice in theussian Federation and around the world, such as the “Action Plan

or the Development of the Indigenous People of Sakhalin Island”.his is a trilateral agreement between a company, regional authori-ies and indigenous peoples’ organizations, which provides fundingor indigenous business development projects. In the Arctic, a sim-lar programme is being developed in Yamal, for the constructionf the Yamal LNG plant. How successful it will be depends not onlyn the policy of the company, NOVATEK, but also on standards ofcientific analysis and of indigenous peoples’ activity, as well asull implementation of the commitments pledged by the Russianederation in its strategic documents.

eferences

[1] A.V. Golovnev, Antropologiia dvizheniia. Drevnosti severnoi Evrazii.Ekaterinburg: UrO RAN; Volot, 2009. (The Anthropology of Motion.Antiquities of Northern Eurasia. Ekaterinburg: Urals Dept. AS, 2009).

[2] Arctic Human Development Report—Akureyri: Stefansson Arctic Institute,2004.

[3] A.V. Golovnev, ( ) Doklad o razvitii cheloveka v Arktike,Ekaterinburg—Salekhard, (2007) (Arctic Human Development Report,Ekaterinburg-Salekhard, 2007).

[4] Nauchno-tekhnicheskie problemy osvoeniia Arktiki Nauchnaia sessiiaObshchego sobraniia chlenov RAN 16 dekabria 2014 g. M., Nauka, 2014.(Scientific and technical problems of Arctic exploration: scientific session ofthe General Meeting of the Russian Academy of Sciences December 16 2014.Moscow, Nauka (2014)).

[5] A.E. Kantorovich, Energoresursy Rossiiskogo sektora Arktiki, glavnyenapravleniia i metody ikh osvoeniia//Nauchno-tekhnicheskie problemyosvoeniia Arktiki. Nauchnaia sessiia Obshchego sobraniia chlenov RAN 16dekabria 2014 g.—M.: Nauka (2014) pp. 31–39 (Russian Arctic sector energyresources: main trends and methods of developing them. Scientific andtechnical problems of Arctic exploration: scientific session of the GeneralMeeting of the Russian Academy of Sciences 16 December 2014, Moscow,Nauka (2014) pp. 31–39).

[6] Global’nyi dogovor, OON (Global Compact. United Nations) www.undp.ru/publications/UN GC Brochure Russian FINAL.pdf.

[7] The Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, implementing the UNProtect, Respect and Remedy Framework, established under the Office of the

High Commissioner for Human Rights in resolution 17/4 of 16th June (2011)http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR RU.pdf.

[8] N. Rulan, Iuridicheskaia antropologiia., M. Norma, (1999) p.9. (Juridicalanthropology, Moscow, Norma (1999) p. 9).

[

cial Science 16 (2016) 98–110

[9] A.I. Kovler, Antropologiia prava, M. Norma (2002) p. 23. (The Anthropology ofLaw. Moscow, Norma (2002) p. 23).

10] J. Griffiths, What is legal pluralism? J. Legal Plural. 19 (1986) 3.11] S.F. Moor, Law and social change: the semi-autonomous social field as an

appropriate subject of study, Law and Society Review (1977) pp. 719–746.12] K. Benda-Bekmann, Zachem bespokoit’sia o pravovom pliuralizme? Voprosy

izucheniia i osushchestvleniia politiki pravovogo pliuralizma//Obychnoepravo i pravovoi pliuralizm. M., Institut etnologii i antropologii RAN, M.(1999) p. 12. (Why worry about legal pluralism? issues in the study andpractice of legal pluralism policy: customary law and legal pluralism.Moscow, Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology AS, Moscow (1999) p. 12).

13] K. Benda-Bekmann, Zachem bespokoit’sia o pravovom pliuralizme? Voprosyizucheniia i osushchestvleniia politiki pravovogo pliuralizma//Obychnoepravo i pravovoi pliuralizm. M., Institut etnologii i antropologii RAN, M.(1999) p. 10. (Why worry about legal pluralism? issues in the study andpractice of legal pluralism policy: customary law and legal pluralism.Moscow,Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology AS, Moscow (1999) p. 10).

14] N.I. Novikova, Okhotniki i neftianiki. Issledovanie po iuridicheskoiantropologii. M., Nauka (2014). (Hunters and oilmen: research in legalanthropology. Moscow, Nauka (2014)).

15] K. Girts, Interpretatsiia kul’tur, M. ROSPEN, (2004) p. 11. (C. Geertz, TheInterpretation of Cultures, Moscow, ROSPEN p. 11).

16] K. Girts, Interpretatsiia kul’tur, M. ROSPEN (2004) 40 p. 33–35 (C. Geertz, TheInterpretation of Cultures, Moscow, Rospen (2004) p. 40).

17] F. Bart (red.), Etnicheskie gruppy i sotsial’nye granitsy. Sotsial’naiaorganizatsiia kul’turnykh razlichii M. (2006) (F. Barth, (Ed.), Ethnic groups andsocial borders: the social organisation of difference, Moscow, (2006)).

18] V.A. Tishkov, Rekviem po etnosu. Issledovaniia po sotsial’no-kul’turnoiantropologii. M. Nauka (2003), pp. 119–120. (Requiem for an ethnos: researchon socio-cultural anthropology. Moscow, Nauka (2003) pp. 119–120).

19] Federal’nyi zakon ot 30.04.1999 No 82-FZ O garantiiakh prav korennykhmalochislennykh narodov Rossiiskoi Federatsii’ (Federal Law 30.4.1999, No82-FZ ‘On Guarantees of the Rights of Indigenous Small-numbered Peoples ofthe Russian Federation’) http://constitution.garant.ru/act/right/180406/.

20] T. Ingold, A Manifesto for the Anthropology of the North//Connections: Localand Global Aspects of Arctic Social Systems. Topics in Arctic Social Sciences 5.IASSSA (2005) pp. 68–69.

21] T. Ingold, Rodoslovnaia, pokolenie, substantsiia, pamiat’,zemlia//Etnograficheskoye obozreniye (2008) No 4, pp. 93–95. (Ancestry,generation, substance, memory, land. Ethnographic Review (2008) 4 pp.93–95).

22] R. Phillips, Stakeholder Theory and Organizational Ethics, Berrett-KoehlerPublishers, San Francisco, 2003.

23] N.I. Novikova, E. Wilson, Korporativnaia sotsial’naia otvetstvennost’:transformatsiia poniatiia na zapade i znachimost’ dlia korennykh narodovRossii//Ural’skii istoricheskii vestnik, No 2 (47), (2015) pp. 108–117.(Corporate social responsability: the transformation of the concept in theWest and its significance for indigenous peoples in Russia. Ural HistoricalHerald, 2 (47) (2015) pp. 108–117).

24] V.A. Kriazhkov, (comp.), Inuvikskaia deklaratsiia o zashchite okruzhaiushcheisredy i ustoichivom razvitii v Arktike, priniata na III konferentsii na urovneministrov arkticheskikh stran po okhrane prirody, mart 1996//Statusmalochislennykh narodov Rossii. Pravovye akty. Kniga vtoraia/M. (1999) p. 75.

25] The Inuvik Declaration on Environmental Protection and SustainableDevelopment in the Arctic, declared at the Third Ministerial Arctic Conferenceon Environmental Protection, March 1996, in The Status of Small-numberedpeoples of Russia: legal acts. Book 2, Moscow 1999 p. 75).

26] Konstitutsiia Rossiiskoi Federatsii (The Constitution of the RussianFederation) http://constitution.garant.ru/act/right/180406/.

27] Federal’nyi zakon ot 30.04.1999 No 82-FZ O garantiiakh prav korennykhmalochislennykh narodov Rossiiskoi Federatsii’ (Federal Law on 30.4.1999 No82-FZ ‘On Guarantees of the Rights of Indigenous Small-numbered Peoples ofthe Russian Federation’) http://constitution.garant.ru/act/right/180406.

28] Federal’nyi zakon ot 20 iiulia 2000g. No 104-FZ Ob obshchikh printsipakhorganizatsii obshchin korennykh malochislennykh narodov Severa, Sibiri iDal’nego Vostoka Rossiiskoi Federatsii (Federal Law on 20.7 2000 No 104-FZOn General Principles on the Organization of Clan Communities amongIndigenous small-numbered Peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East ofthe Russian Federation) http://base.garant.ru/182356.

29] Federal’nyi zakon ot 7 maia 2001 g. No. 49-FZ ‘O territoriiakh traditsionnogoprirodopol’zovaniia korennykh malochislennykh narodov Severa, Sibiri iDal’nego Vostoka Rossiiskoi Federatsii’ (Federal Law on 7.5.2001 No. 49-FZ OnTerritories of Traditional Land Use among the Indigenous Small-numberedPeoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East’)http://base.garant.ru/12122856/#help.

30] V.D. Zork’in, L.V. Lazarev. Kommentarii k Konstitutsii Rossiiskoi Federatsii/M.(2009) p. 551. (Commentary on the Constitution of the Russian Federation.Moscow (2009) p. 551).

31] Deklaratsiia Organizatsii Obedinennykh Natsii o pravakh korennykh narodovThe United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples http://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl conv/declarations/indigenous rights.shtml.

32] Analiz, podgotovlennyi sekretariatom Postoiannogo foruma OON povoprosam korennykh narodov: ekonomicheskoe i sotsial’noe razvitie,okruzhaiushchaia sreda i svobodnoe, predvaritel’noe i osoznannoesoglasie//Ekonomicheskii i Sotsial’nyi Sovet, Postoiannyi forum po voprosamkorennykh narodov, N’iu-Iork 16–27 maia 2011 g. E/C.19/2011/13. (Analysis,

h & So

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[[

[

[

[

[

N.I. Novikova / Energy Researc

prepared by the secretariat of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues:Economic and Social Development, Environment and Free, Prior and InformedConsent// Economic and Social Council, Permanent Forum on IndigenousIssues, New York, 16-27 May 2011, E/C.19/2011/13).

33] V.A. Kriazhkov, Korennye malochislennye narody Severa v rossiiskom prave.M. (2010) p. 109. (Indigenous small-numbered peoples of the North inRussian law, Moscow (2010) p. 109).

34] V.A. Kriazhkov, Pravovoe regulirovanie otnoshenii mezhdu korennymimalochislennymi narodami Severa i nedropol’zovateliami v RossiiskoiFederatsii//Gosudarstvo i pravo. (2014) 7 p. 29. Legal regulation on relationsbetween indigenous small-numbered peoples of the North and oil companiesin the Russian Federation. Government and Law (2014) 7 p. 29).

35] Federal’nyi zakon ot 30.04.1999 No. 82-FZ O garantiiakh prav korennykhmalochislennykh narodov Rossiiskoi Federatsii’ (Federal Law on 30.4.1999No. 82-FZ On Guarantees of the Rights of Indigenous Small-numbered Peoplesof the Russian Federation) http://constitution.garant.ru/act/right/180406/.

36] Strategiia gosudarstvennoi natsional’noi politiki Rossiiskoi Federatsii naperiod do 2025 goda (utv. Ukazom Prezidenta Rossiiskoi Federatsii ot19.12.2012 No. 1666) http://base.garant.ru/70284810/ (The Strategy for StateEthnic Policy in the Russian Federation for the period up to 2025 (RFPresidential Decree on 19.12.2012 No. 1666)).

37] Strategiia razvitiia Arkticheskoi zony Rossiiskoi Federatsii i obespecheniianatsional’noi bezopasnosti na period do 2020 goda (utv. PrezidentomRossiiskoi Federatsii 8 fevralia 2013) (Strategy for Development in the Arcticzone of the Russian Federation and for Ensuring National Security in theperiod up to 2020 (RF Presidential Decree on 8.2.2013)) http://docs.cntd.ru/document/499002465.

38] N. Konyshev, A.A. Sergunin, Strategiia Kanady v osvoenii Arktiki//Arkticheskiiregion. Problemy mezhdunarodnogo sotrudnichestva. Khrestomatiia v 3tomakh. Tom 1.—M. (2013) p. 146–147. (Canada’s strategy for development inthe Arctic, in The Arctic Region: Problems in International Co-operation: areader in 3 vols. Vol 1. Moscow (2013) pp. 146–147).

39] N.I. Novikova, Okhotniki i neftianiki. Issledovanie po iuridicheskoiantropologii. M., Nauka (2014) (Hunters and oilmen: research in legalanthropology. Moscow, Nauka (2014)).

40] M. Nuttall, Oil. Neft’, gaz i prava aborigenov v Arktike: opyt SevernoiKanady//Etnograficheskoe obozrenie. 2008. No. 3. p. 4–17; (Oil, gas andaboriginal rights in the Arctic: Northern Canada’s experience. EthnographicReview (2008) 3 pp. 4–17).

41] M. Nuttall, Pipeline Dreams: People, Environment and the Arctic EnergyFrontier. Copenhagen, 2010, pp. 98–136.

42] N.I. Novikova, Okhotniki i neftianiki. Issledovanie po iuridicheskoiantropologii. M. Nauka, (2014) (Hunters and oilmen: research in legalanthropology. Moscow, Nauka (2014)).

43] M. Nuttall, Neft’, gaz i prava aborigenov v Arktike: opyt SevernoiKanady//Etnograficheskoe obozrenie (2008) No. 3. pp. 12–17. (Oil, gas andaboriginal rights in the Arctic: Northern Canada’s experience. EthnographicReview (2008) 3 pp. 12–17).

44] A.V. Golovnev, Doklad o razvitii cheloveka v Arktike/Ekaterinburg—Salekhard(2007) p. 122. (Arctic Human Development Report, Ekaterinburg-Salekhard(2007) p. 122).

45] M. Nuttall, Neft’, gaz i prava aborigenov v Arktike: opyt SevernoiKanady//Etnograficheskoe obozrenie (2008) No. 3. p. 8. (Oil, gas andaboriginal rights in the Arctic: Northern Canada’s experience. EthnographicReview (2008) (3) p. 8).

46] N.I. Novikova, Liudi Severa. Prava na resursy i ekspertiza. M., Strategiia 2008pp. 56–82, 101–148. (People of the North: the right to resources andexpertise, Moscow, Strategy (2008) pp. 56–82, 101–148).

47] Iu. Iakel’, Byt’ ili ne byt’. Prodolzhenie. . .//Mir korennykh narodov. ZhivaiaArktika. 2014 No. 30, p. 46–49 (To be or not to be. continued. . .in The Worldof Indigenous Peoples. Living Arctic (2014) (30), pp. 46–49).

48] A. Kriazhkov, Korennye malochislennye narody Severa v rossiiskom prave. M.(2010) p. 35–36. (Indigenous small-numbered peoples of the North in Russianlaw, Moscow (2010) pp. 35–36).

49] A. Kriazhkov (Comp.), Konventsiia o biologicheskom raznoobrazii//Statusmalochislennykh narodov Rossii. Kniga vtoraia/M., (1999) pp. 50–51. (TheBiodiversity Convention, in The Status of Small-numbered Peoples of Russia,Book 2, Moscow (1999) pp. 50–51).

50] A. Kriazhkov (Comp.), Rio-de-Zhaneirskaia deklaratsiia po okruzhaiushcheisrede i razvitiiu, utverzhdennaia Konferentsiei OON po okruzhaiushchei sredei razvitiiu//Status malochislennykh narodov Rossii. Pravovye akty. Knigavtoraia//M., 1999. pp. 74–75. (The Rio Declaration on Environment andDevelopment, adopted by the UN Conference on Environment andDevelopment, in The Status of Small-numbered Peoples of Russia: legal acts,Book 2, Moscow (1999) pp. 74–75).

51] Dobrovol’nye rukovodiashchie printsipy Aguei-gu provedeniia otsenokkul’turnykh, ekologicheskikh i sotsial’nykh posledstvii predlagaemoirealizatsii proektov v mestakh raspolozheniia sviatyn’, a takzhe na zemliakh iv akvatoriiakh, zanimaemykh ili ispol’zuemykh mestnymi i korennymiobshchinami//Prilozhenie k zhurnalu Mir korennykh narodov−ZhivaiaArktika’. M., 2004. (Voluntary working principles of conduct on cultural,

ecological and social outcomes of proposed developments in placesconsidered sacred; and also on land and water used by local and indigenouscommunities. Appendix to World of Indigenous Peoples-Living Arctic,Moscow (2004)).

[

cial Science 16 (2016) 98–110 109

52] M.A. Pogodaev, Vliianie izmeneniia klimata na traditsionnyi obraz zhizni itraditsionnuiu khoziaistvennuiu deiatel’nost’ korennykh malochislennykhnarodov Severa//Sovremennoe sostoianie i puti razvitiia korennykhmalochislennykh narodov Severa, Sibiri i Dal’nego Vostoka RossiiskoiFederatsii/Pod red. Shtyrova V.A.-M.: Izd-vo Soveta Federatsii RossiiskoiFederatsii, (2013) pp. 278–280. (The influence of climate change on thetraditional way of life and traditional economic activity of indigenoussmall-numbered peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East of the RussianFederation. Edited by V.A. Shtyrov. Moscow, SFRF (2013) pp. 278–280).

53] O. Balalaeva, E. Wiget, Biosfernyi rezervat kak forma sokhraneniia etnicheskoikul’tury (na primere iuganskikh khantov)//Issledovaniia po prikladnoi ineotlozhnoi etnologii. Dokument No. 118. M. (1998) p. 13–14 (The BiosphereReserve as a way of preserving ethnic culture (based on Yuganskiy Khanty), inResearch on applied and urgent ethnology. Document 118. Moscow (1998)pp. 13–14).

54] O. Balalaeva, Sviashchennye mesta khantov Srednei i Nizhnei Obi//Ocherkiistorii traditsionnogo zemlepol’zovaniia khantov (materialy k atlasu).Ekaterinburg (1999) pp. 139–156 (Sacred places of the Middle and Lower ObKhanty: remarks on the history of traditional Khanty land use. Ekaterinburg(1999) pp. 139–156).

55] Znachenie okhrany sviashchennykh mest Arktiki: issledovanie korennykhnarodov Severa Rossii. M. (2004) (The value of protecting sacred places in theArctic: studies of indigenous peoples of the Russian North. Moscow (2004)).

56] Z.P. Sokolova, Khanty i mansi. Vzgliad iz XXI v. M., Nauka (2009) pp. 594–607.(The Khanty and Mansi: a view from the 21st century Moscow (2009) pp.594–607).

57] Konstitutsiia Respubliki Sakha (Iakutiia) (The Constitution of the Republic ofSakha) (Yakutiya) www.sakha.gov.ru/node/17668.

58] Zakon Iamalo-Nenetskogo, avtonomnogo okruga ot 6 oktiabria (2006) g. No.48-ZAO Ob obektakh kul’turnogo naslediia (pamiatnikakh istorii i kul’tury)narodov Rossiiskoi Federatsii, raspolozhennykh na territoriiIamalo-Nenetskogo avtonomnogo okruga’ (Yamalo-Nenetskiy AvtonomnyyOkrug (YaNAO) Law on 6 October (2006) No. 48-ZAO, On Objects of CulturalHeritage (historical or cultural monuments) of the Peoples of the RussianFederation, on the territories of YaNAO) http://docs.cntd.ru/document/802075617.

59] Konventsiia ob okhrane nematerial’nogo kul’turnogo naslediia TheConvention on the Preservation of Intangible Cultural Heritage http://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl conv/conventions/cultural heritage conv.shtml.

60] M.A. Pogodaev, Vliianie izmeneniia klimata na traditsionnyi obraz zhizni itraditsionnuiu khoziaistvennuiu deiatel’nost’ korennykh malochislennykhnarodov Severa//Sovremennoe sostoianie i puti razvitiia korennykhmalochislennykh narodov Severa, Sibiri i Dal’nego Vostoka RossiiskoiFederatsii/Pod red. V. A. Shtyrov-M.: Izd-vo Soveta Federatsii RossiiskoiFederatsii (2013) pp. 284–286. (The influence of climate change on thetraditional way of life and traditional economic activity of indigenoussmall-numbered peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East of the RussianFederation, in: V.A. Shtyrov (Eds.) Moscow, SFRF (2013) pp. 284–286).

61] Nuukskaia deklaratsiia ob okruzhaiushchei srede i razvitii v Arktike (TheNuuk Declaration on Environment and Development in the Arctic)base.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc;base=INT;n=16071.

62] Global’nyi dogovor OON/http://www.undp.ru/publications/UN GC BrochureRussian FINAL.pd (Global Compact. United Nations) www.undp.ru/publications/UN GC Brochure Russian FINAL.pdf www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc.

63] Sotsial’naia khartiia rossiiskogo biznesa rspp.ru/12/6273.pdf (A Social Charterof Russian Business rspp.ru/12/6273.pdf).

64] Printsipy Ekvatora (The Equator Principles) www.equator-principles.com.65] Ekologicheskii reiting neftegazovykh kompanii Rossiiskoi

Federatsii–sovmestnyi proekt WWF i Kreon (Ecological rating of oil and gascompanies in the Russian Federation–joint project between WWF and Creon)http://www.wwf.ru/src.m.51097078/about/what we do/oil/full list/rating.

66] Rukovodiashchie printsipy predprinimatel’skoi deiatel’nosti v aspekte pravcheloveka: osushchestvlenie ramok OON, kasaiushchikhsia zashchity,sobliudeniia i sredstv pravovoi zashchity http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR RU.pdf (UN Guiding Principles onBusiness and Human Rights: Implementing the UN ‘Protect, Respect andRemedy’ Framework) http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR EN.pdf.

67] E. Wilson, E. Blackmore (Eds.), Dispute or Dialogue? Community perspectiveson company-led grievance mechanisms. IIED, London, 2013 www.ethnoconsulting.ru.

68] T.N. Vasil’kova, A.V. Evai, E.P. Martynova, N.I. Novikova, Korennyemalochislennye narody i promyshlennoe osvoenie Arktiki: etnologicheskiimonitoring v Iamalo-Nenetskom avtonomnom okruge. Moskva–Shadrinsk(2011) (Indigenous small-numbered peoples and industrial development inthe Arctic: ethnological monitoring in Yamalo-Nenetskiy Avtonomnyy Okrug.Moscow-Shadrinsk (2011)).

69] E.P. Martynova, N.I. Novikova, Tazovskie nentsy v usloviiakh neftegazovogoosvoeniia: Etnologicheskaia ekspertiza 2011 goda. M., (2012) (TazovskiyNenets under conditions of oil and gas development: ethnological expertise

2011. Moscow (2012).

70] A.V. Golovnev et al., Etnoekspertiza na Iamale: nenetskie kochev’ia i gazovyemestorozhdeniia. Ekaterinburg, I zdatel’stvo AMB (2014) (Ethno-expertise inthe Yamal: Nenets nomadism and gas fields. Ekaterinburg, AMB (2004)).

1 h & So

[

[

[

RAN 16 dekabria 2004 g. M.: Nauka (2014) p. 111–116. (Russian Arctic law:harmonizing national and international interests in Scientific and technicalproblems of Arctic exploration: scientific session of the General Meeting ofthe Russian Academy of Sciences 16 December 2014, Moscow, Nauka (2014)

10 N.I. Novikova / Energy Researc

71] Postanovlenie Pravitel’stva Rossiiskoi Federatsii ot 22.01.2013 No. 23 OPravilakh razrabotki, utverzhdeniia i primeneniia professional’nykhstandartov’ (Russian Federation Government Resolution on 22.1.2013, No. 23,‘On the Rules for the development, approval and application of professionalstandards’) http://base.garant.ru/70304190/.

72] Rezoliutsiia General’noi Assamblei OON A/RES/69/2 ot 22.09.2014 Itogovyidokument plenarnogo zasedaniia vysokogo urovnia General’noi Assamblei

pod nazvaniem “Vsemirnaia konferentsiia po korennym narodam”(Resolution of the General Assembly of the UN A/RES/69/2 on 22.9.2014“Outcomes Document from the High-level General Assembly Plenary Meeting‘World Conference on Indigenous Peoples’”) http://daccess-ddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N14/468/31/PDF/N1446831.pdf? OpenElement.

cial Science 16 (2016) 98–110

73] T.Ia. Khabrieva, A.Ia. Kapustin, Arkticheskoe pravo Rossii: garmonizatsiianatsional’nykh i mezhdunarodnykh interesov//Nauchno-tekhnicheskieproblemy osvoeniia Arktiki. Nauchnaia sessiia Obshchego sobraniia chlenov

pp. 111–116).