21)/,&725203520,6(

    
raditional natural resource use and oil exploitation   !   "!# !$%&# # '  
Introduction
Like other regions of the Russian Federation, Sakhalin region is trying
to make sense of the transition to a global market economy, with new approaches to natural resource use; new investment agreements and trade dynamics; new partnerships between Russian and foreign parties, the State, thepublic and industry. Exploitation of the off-shore oil and gas reserves will
greatly influence Sakhalin’s future economic development. But will this development be sustainable and how much benefit will it bring to local communities in the area of exploitation who will suffer most from ecological pollution and disturbance related to the projects?
Sakhalin is rich in natural resources of all kinds (forests, fish, mammals,
thermal waters, mineral resources). There is a long history of conflict andinteraction between the traditional forms of resource use of the indigenous
populations (fishing, hunting, marine mammal hunting, reindeer herding) andthose forms introduced and developed by the non-indigenous populations(including the Japanese) from the late 19th century (fishing artels, commercial hunting, collective farms, State farms, oil extraction, logging, mining).
State policies of collectivisation (from the 1930s) and resettlement (fromthe 1950s and 60s) destroyed the traditional way of life of the indigenous
peoples and uprooted them from their native lands, yet created a dependency
on the new forms of State-organised resource use and the accompanying social changes (boarding school education, enforced semi-urbanisation, provision of social infrastructure by the collective farm or dominant industry, Statesubsidies and privileges for indigenous populations). The socio-economic
and psychological consequences of these policies are visible today.
In this paper I aim to look at the relationship between traditional natural
resource use and oil and gas exploitation in the context of “sustainable” local
development. I will focus on the effects of resource management planningon local populations and at local participation in decision-making processes.
Today indigenous and non-indigenous populations alike are suffering
the effects of Russia’s painful transition to a market economy and theglobalisation of market relations. All people are hoping for a solution to theireconomic crisis, and everyone wants to live in a clean environment. However, development of the Sakhalin oil and gas projects raises issues relating

00$,/621

specifically to the indigenous populations and their historical relationship tothe land. In this paper I would like to focus on certain issues that concern all
local populations, while drawing attention to those problems that particularly
concern the local Native populations of Nivkhi, Uil’ta and Evenki.

Sustainable Development and Local Participation“Sustainable development” (WCED, 1987) is a term interpreted in manydifferent ways by different people for different needs, and generally at thelevel of theory and rhetoric. It can underpin creation of strictly protectedareas (SPAs); it can justify compromise between industrial development andnature conservation. The Sakhalin II project (Sakhalin Energy Investment
Corporation [SEIC]) is being financed by the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) whose founding agreement includes a pledge
to “promote in the full range of its activities environmentally sound and sustainable development” (EBRD, 1996, p. 1). Oil and gas exploitation is not
generally associated with sustainability, as it provides for a “boom and bust”
type of development with a high ecological risk factor. Furthermore the
Sakhalin off-shore oil developments could hasten the demise of indigenous
cultures and subsistence livelihoods already on the brink of extinction.
I understand “sustainable development” to be a long-term integrated formof development that benefits the local population, preserving local livelihoods
and socio-cultural systems, while providing a foundation for the socio-economic well-being of future generations. In Russian, “sustainable development” is translated directly as “ustoichivoe razvitie.” Russian also has theterm “ratsional’noe prirodopol’zovanie” or “rational use of natural resources.”
This is defined by Reymers and Iablokov as “[a] system of activity that isrecognised as providing the most effective regime of renewal and economic
exploitation of natural resources, with consideration for the future interestsof economic development and protection of the health of the people” (Zimenko
and Krupnik, 1987, p. 13).
In my view, a form of development that is close to “sustainable development” or “rational use of natural resources” requires a broad base of economic activity, and cannot rely heavily on one or two forms of natural resource use (such as oil and gas extraction, logging, mining), which is how
many Sakhalin settlements and districts have developed. On Sakhalin, thelocal budget of Noglikskii district is heavily dependent on the oil industry,
especially after the collapse of State enterprise and the withdrawal of Statesubsidies.
As the on-land oil industry is in decline, the focus should now be on
expansion of the base of economic activity in the district (focusing on renewable resource use, including revival of traditional forms of resource use), to
ensure the socio-economic well-being of future generations while preserving21)/,&725203520,6(



the natural environment and its capacity to support the human population.
While many hopes for a stable economic future on Sakhalin lie in development of the off-shore oil and gas fields, people fear that these are not being
exploited in the interests of the local populations but in the interests of international investors, developers and consumers; decision-makers in Moscow
and Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk; and the upper levels of the domestic oil giant RosneftSakhalinmorneftegas.
Sakhalin oblast, as other regions of Russia, has still not recovered fromthe withdrawal of State subsidies that accompanied the collapse of the Soviet
Union, while mechanisms have not yet been set in place to fill the vacuum.
In a “Free Market” economy (which no-one can recognise in the present-day
Russian economy), the State should not be expected to subsidise whole regions as under the centralised Command system. However, a rational, integrated system of State subsidies is important, at least to support sectors of theeconomy such as agriculture and animal husbandry (as is done in any western country), despite the recommendations of the IMF to the contrary.
Essentially, there should also be mechanisms whereby the high-profit,high disturbance sectors of industry support social infrastructure and traditional resource use, especially if the latter are threatened or disturbed by theindustry in question. This can be achieved through a sensible taxation system, which has not yet been established in Russia, or through creation of
special Funds (such as the Alaska Development Fund). Other potential formsof support for local populations include federal socio-economic and cultural
programmes, foreign grants and small credit programmes. However, federal
programmes are not generally financed today, while foreign grants are available only to a minority of the population who are able to write grant proposals and overcome their aversion to what is perceived as “begging.”
On Sakhalin there seems to be a problem with allocated federal andforeign monies not reaching their destination. While at the “kitchen table”
level, this is one topic of conversation that is rarely exhausted, at the official(seminar, conference) level, it is rarely raised. Development of various financing mechanisms should be accompanied by strict monitoring programmes
and policies of transparency and public accountability. In Russia, this goesagainst traditional attitudes and approaches. If people are not officially informed of how monies are being spent, they have little idea of how to demand
access to information from the grassroots level if there are concerns aboutallocated monies not reaching their destination.
“Sustainable development” requires integrated natural resource use planning involving all stakeholders in the planning processes at all stages. Thismeans the broad participation of local populations, who are all too often excluded from or poorly represented in decision-making processes. Public participation may include public consultations to accompany environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and State ecological expert reviews (EERs); independent public EERs; referendums; village meetings; two or three-sided



00$,/621“agreements”; representative commissions; public monitoring; litigation.
Participation of the public is assisted by access to information; public accountability and transparency on the part of the developers. It is also assistedby creation of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to represent the interests of the local population.
“Sustainable development” demands equity of access to resources, whichmeans clarity of rights and adequate enforcement and control. Given thecollapse of established forms of State-controlled natural resource use, it isparticularly important today that citizens become more closely acquainted
with the law. Citizens of the Russian Federation, and indigenous people inparticular, have a growing base of legislation with which to determine theirrights of access to resources, land, a clean environment and equitable distribution of profits from resource use. However, the legislative base is incomplete and there is a lack of experience especially at the grass-roots level in
actually using the laws. Often laws are only framework laws and there are no
established official mechanisms for implementation. As a rule, there is nomoney in the federal, regional or local budget to implement them. Generally
the federal laws demand further legislation at the regional and local level andin many cases this has not been developed.
Local people are now passing through the transition from a paternalistic
relationship with the State to independent participation in development processes. This can be conceptualised in terms of building a “civil society(grazhdanskoe obshchestvo)” (Anderson, 1990; Hann and Dunn, 1996;
Bridger and Pine, 1998) or developing the “third sector (tretii sektor)” (CAF,
1998) and leads to talk of “partnerships (partnerstvo)” and “dialogue (dialog)” between people and the State or industry (CAF, 1998; Arakchaa andZaidfudim, 1999). However, these terms bear little relation to the realities of
Sakhalin, where, despite recent development of the environmental and indigenous people’s movements, public activism is extremely low, and establishedforms of “top-down” decision-making continue to predominate.
In northern Sakhalin, the local people themselves (and especially the
Native populations) have a huge psychological barrier to overcome in making the transition Òfrom Paternalism to Partnership.Ó In order to understandthe nature of this psychological Òleap of faith,Ó it is important to consider
first of all the historical development of local populations.

Local Populations
The Native question in Noglikskii district is a particularly complex one.
The official policies of assimilation during the Soviet era - based on ideology
and carried out through collectivisation and sedentarisation programmes have today been replaced by a broadly accepted assumption of assimilation
based on public demands for equal rights for all (e.g. Davydenko, 1999).
This takes the form of an official and public denial of indigenous claims to21)/,&725203520,6(



special status (e.g. Psiagin, 1999) that finds resonance with the local nonNative populations, especially the long-term residents.
The percentage of Native people in the total population of Noglikskii
district is relatively low. According to the district administration, of a total of
14,700 population in Noglikskii district, 1,086 people or 7.4% of the population are indigenous (including those of mixed parentage). Of these, 205 livein rural settlements.1 There are about 17 reindeer herders (Uil’ta, Evenki)
who live in the forest in winter and on the shores of the eastern bays in summer. There are also about 15 Nivkhi and at least one Russian (married to a
Nivkh woman), who live permanently on the shores of the Okhotsk sea andnorth-eastern bays and depend on fishing for their livelihoods.2
According to the Federal Law of 30th April 1999 “On the Guarantees of
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of the Russian Federation,” indigenous
people include those who: (i) live on the territories where their ancestors
traditionally lived; (ii) preserve the original way of life and economic activities of their forebears; (iii) number in Russia less than 50 thousand; (iv)consider themselves an independent ethnic community. The law also includes
those non-Native people who live a traditional lifestyle on traditional Native
lands (Article 3). Essentially, no-one denies the special rights of those people
involved in subsistence fishing, hunting and reindeer herding, and official
regulatory organs make special efforts to accommodate the needs of thesepeople. However, the question of whether the indigenous semi-urban populations of Nogliki satisfy the above criteria, and can therefore make any claimson the basis of this law, is hotly debated. “The problem for the Native peopleof Nogliki is proving that we exist” (Mongush, 1999).
The situation is compounded by the fact that support for indigenous
rights, while fairly strong at a national level, decreases with distance from
Moscow. The long-awaited appearance of the law “On the Guarantees of theRights of Indigenous Peoples of the Russian Federation” gave a significant
boost to those fighting for indigenous rights, but it is a framework law andneeds to be filled out with appropriate legislation at the regional and local
levels. Article 69 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation guarantees
the rights of Native people according to international norms and principles,while article 73 “m” acknowledges the responsibility of the federal and regional governments to protect the traditional environment and livelihoods ofindigenous populations. Article 12 of the Sakhalin Regional Statutes (Ustav)
1 Sources: Goskomstat Rossiiskoi Federatsii Sakhalinskoi oblastnoi komitet gosudarstvennoi
statistiki (1999) Chislennosti nalichnogo i nostoyannogo naseleniya po administrativnoterritorial’nymi yedinitsam, na 01.01.99, isk. No. 1308, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk.
Goskomstat Rossiiskoi Federatsii Sakhalinskoi oblastnoi komitet gosudarstvennoi statistiki(1997) Ekonomicheskoe i sotsial’noe razvitie korennykh malochislennykh narodov Severa,
isk. 249, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk.
2 Sources: local residents, local newspaper.

00$,/621(1995) echoes this, while article 20 confirms the representative of northern
Native people in the Sakhalin regional parliament and article 76 confirms the
responsibility of the regional and local authorities to set aside territories of
traditional natural resource use (TTPs), to allow use of these without payment and to give priority in agreements and for licences for use of renewable
natural resources.
However, at the local level, the Noglikskii District Statutes (1999) do
not provide an adequate foundation to address issues of Native rights or TTPs.
Furthermore, the job of “Specialist in Native issues” in the local administration was dissolved in 1998. There is a strong lobby in the local administration and the local district assembly (including the deputy head of the local
assembly who is a Nivkh himself) which claims that since the Native peopleof Nogliki, who live in houses and flats like the rest of the population, cannot
be considered indigenous, there can be no talk of Native rights to land, resources or social privileges in the district as a whole. Thus legislative andpolitical support for Native rights effectively comes to a halt at the districtlevel. This is largely related to the desperate need for the district as a wholeto survive, given the absence of support from the federal and regional governments.
In fact the issues relating to the indigenous populations and traditional
natural resource use - especially those that relate to conflict with the oil andgas industry - extend beyond the scope of the law “On the Guarantees of theRights of Indigenous Peoples of the Russian Federation.” Native people living in semi-urban centres may not live traditional lifestyles, but they still
depend heavily on the natural resources of the local area; their diets dependon fish - probably more so than the non-Native diets; many are involved infishing as an occupation (very few are involved in hunting). At the sametime, many Russians who are second and third generation settlers in the district consider themselves as “indigenous” as the Native populations. Manyof them hunt and fish, have an in-depth knowledge of the land, depend on thenatural resources for their livelihoods and are not planning to move away
anywhere. Many Russians are suffering extreme poverty in the same way as
many of the Native residents. Therefore the issue of fish quotas, priority
licences and other special privileges for the Native population are a source ofsome division and resentment among the local populations.
In many cases, when talking about the effects of the oil industry in general and the off-shore oil developments in particular, it is important to consider the local population as a whole and the overall pattern of natural resource use represented by the activities of all sections of the population.
On the other hand there are specific issues relating to the Native populations that have historically not been resolved and are important issues today,from a socio-economic as well as from a psychological viewpoint. Within
living memory, many of the Nivkh people lived in Native villages (e.g.
Venskoe, Nyivo) on the shores of the northeastern bays. In the 1950s and1960s they were forced to move to Nogliki, and thus their ties with theirlands and fishing areas were broken. Many have found it very difficult toovercome the trauma of removal, and to get used to life in the major settlement. Reindeer herders refuse to move to a settled life in the villages and21)/,&725203520,6(



continue to lead their traditional way of life despite the total collapse of Statesupport, the non-payment of salaries, the non-profitability of their occupation, and the continuing loss of reindeer to poachers and reindeer pastures toforest fires, oil extraction, geological explorations, road building and pipeline construction. It is estimated that 90% of summer pastures have been lost
over the past 70 years to fires and industrial encroachment (Roon, 1999).
Two pipelines from the Sakhalin off-shore projects are planned to cut acrossthe remaining pastures, though the final routes have yet to be finalised.
Historically, there is a great deal of resentment towards the non-indigenous population that came into the region and took over the resource management and administration of Native lands, without the agreement of theindigenous land users themselves. A major problem here, as in other oilproducing regions of Siberia, is the question of land rights - officially allocating land for traditional use - and payment of compensation for lands alreadydestroyed by the oil industry (Roon, 1999).
Another factor that particularly affects the Native communities is theeducation system under the Soviets. Most of the Native population was educated in the boarding school (Internat). This system split families, forcedchildren not to speak their Native language and made them dependent on theState to provide everything from regular meals to clean bed-linen. The “rolling back” of the State has hit all populations in Russia hard, but the Native
populations more so. “They were cradled in the arms of the State and havenow been cast to the winds of fate.”3
The Native people themselves claim that they are not good at adapting
to the new conditions. This is particularly a problem for the men - the women
are generally more adaptable and less inclined towards alcoholism. The profession of reindeer herder (Uil’ta and Evenki) used to be prestigious and reindeer herders could support their families. Now many have lost their jobs,
while the remaining herders are barely able to survive due to the withdrawalof State support. The occupation has lost not only prestige, but also dignity.
Jobs available in the fishing industry are often taken now by non-Natives. The collective fishing enterprise “Vostok” which used to have the status of “ethnic enterprise (natsional’noe predpriiatie),” due to the representation of indigenous workers, employs only about 26% of indigenous workers,
and is run by outside managers. The director is from southern Sakhalin andhis second in command is from St. Petersburg. However this is not unusual
for the enterprise, whose directors have historically been outsiders. The indigenous population has rarely produced its own leaders and managers. As
one Nivkh mother commented: “Competition for fishing jobs is hard for our
young men, as the Russians tend to be physically stronger, more ambitious
and generally more reliable workers.”4 There is also a tendency for the nonNative population to be prejudiced towards the Native population, resentfulof past State nannying and present-day privileges.
The oil industry also does not provide significant job opportunities for
3 Russian resident, Nogliki.
4 Nivkh mother, Nogliki.



00$,/621

the Native populations of the district. The local branch of
Sakhalinmorneftegas, for example, employs about 1,350 people in Noglikskii
district of which only 6-7 are indigenous. The men have mechanical jobs, thewomen tend to work as cleaners.5 The small number of jobs available tolocal populations in the new off-shore projects (mostly in the service industry) are offered on the basis of equal competition. Many of the indigenous
populations do not have the skills to compete for these jobs. Technical jobs
require special training; clerical jobs generally require good English language skills, which many don’t have. In the service industry serving Molikpaq,
there is only one indigenous (woman) employee. The development of theoff-shore oil and gas projects is unlikely to create meaningful employment
for the Native populations of Noglikskii district.
Sakhalin’s Native people, in a relatively recent period of time, have lostthe State support they relied on, their lands, their roots, their language andthe dignity of being meaningfully employed in their traditional economic activities. Alcoholism (widespread now among the young, too) is both a cause
and a consequence of serious socio-economic dislocation. While alcoholism
is a serious problem for the non-Native population as well, it is probably
more serious for Native people, who are naturally less resistant to alcohol.
A major problem for the Native population is the level at which theseissues are discussed. Very few Native representatives write in the local press(and these are generally Nivkh residents of Nogliki), still fewer write at anational or international level. The two most prolific Nivkh writers on thesequestions have occupied extreme and opposite positions and polarise the debate into “all lands to the Nivkh people” and “there are no Nivkh people.”
This undermines the position of Sakhalin Native people at a local and regional level, compounding the lack of support from officials.
Traditional natural resource use is struggling to survive in the present
economic climate, but there is a movement today, including young Native
residents and long-term Russian residents, that is attempting to revive these
activities within the modern context (traditional fishing enterprises, tourism
and hunting programmes to supplement reindeer herding, etc.). This provides some hope for a broadening of the local economic base, focusing on
renewable resource use and providing employment for indigenous workers.
However, the tendency today is still strongly towards developing nonrenewable resource use, which does not provide much hope for indigenous
populations. The off-shore oil and gas developments threaten lands and waters used for traditional activities. What is more, they are unlikely to bringsignificant financial benefits to the local (indigenous and non-indigenous)
populations who will be immediately affected. If efforts are not made to
influence the projects, the indigenous people of Sakhalin will simply be assimilated and forgotten, while Sakhalin’s northern communities as a wholewill drift into poverty and those people who can will move away (the Native
citizens are unlikely to). There have already been plans to make northern
5 From interview with local regional manager of NGDU Sakhalinmorneftegas.

21)/,&725203520,6(



Sakhalin into a development zone based on shift work.
At the national and international levels it has taken the multinational
off-shore oil developments to draw attention to the plight of Sakhalin’s indigenous minorities. While this is a tragic irony, it may prove a final opportunity
for them to define themselves and determine the path of their future development. The path will not be easy, particularly given the acute economic crisis
that forms a backdrop to their struggle. This economic crisis frames the fateof the entire population, therefore many of the economic issues facing the
district as a whole should be addressed in “partnership” with the local nonindigenous populations.

Local Economy
In this period of economic crisis, Noglikskii district has one of the healthiest local budgets on Sakhalin, and like Okhinskii district, acts as a “donor” toother districts, according to the old Soviet system. The relative wealth ofboth these districts is due to regular payment of taxes by the Sakhalin oil
company Rosneft-Sakhalinmorneftegas. Likewise the district ecological fund(made up of fines from industrial polluters) is a “donor” fund, due to theamount of money collected from the main industrial polluter, the oil industry.
The oil and gas industry is unquestionably the priority industry in both districts, especially since the collapse of the timber industry. And in the same
way as the Soviet system in the past, the oil industry has created a dependency on itself, while helping to destroy the traditional lands and livelihoodsof the indigenous populations.
Oil exploration began in northern Sakhalin at the end of the 19th century with the arrival of business magnate Grigorii Zotov from St. Petersburg,
who at the same time set up a series of fishing artels based on the north-west
coast (Grant, 1995). Industrial exploitation by the Russians started in 1925
when northern Sakhalin was returned to the USSR by the Japanese. Since
then in Nogliki district alone, 15 reserves of oil and gas have been opened,
about 2,000 bore-holes drilled, and more than 25 million tonnes of oil extracted (Znamia Truda, 3 April 1999). Virtually all the drilling sites are situated on or close to the north-eastern bays and coastal marshlands traditionally used for hunting, fishing and reindeer herding.
Today the on-land oil production is in decline, and there are no sectorsof the economy that could replace the oil industry, even partly, given today’s
economic conditions. The multinationals have come into a region, and particularly two local districts where the economy is heavily dependent on taxes
from the oil industry. Initially there were great hopes that the off-shore developments would make up for the decline in on-shore reserves through payments and job creation.
However, as the oil and gas reserves are located in federal waters, Noglikskii district has no claim to any payments for use of resources, though the00$,/621

reserves are located close enough to devastate the local fishing economy inthe event of an oil spill. Furthermore, the Sakhalin offshore projects use thesystem of “production sharing,” which was developed on the basis of experience in Third World countries, and does not ensure adequate benefits to local
communities. The Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) for the Sakhalin II
project was signed on 22 June 1994 between SEIC and the Russian side (theRussian government and the Sakhalin regional administration). According
to this agreement, all the production goes first of all to SEIC until the company has covered its investment costs. Only after the project has then started
to make 17.5% profit will the Russian side start to receive its own share of
the profits, which will be about 60% (split between the Federation and Sakhalin
region).
According the PSAs, the Sakhalin projects have been freed from theirfederal tax obligations, apart from the royalty (6%) and profit tax (32%). The
projects have likewise been freed from their regional taxes. The decision tofree the companies from local taxes has not yet been taken by the Nogliki
district assembly. Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk municipal government has refused tofree the companies from local taxes. While the money saved from local andregional taxes will increase the total profit of the projects and thus increase
the amount of profit tax collected, (a) this money will go to the regional andfederal budgets, not directly to local district budgets, and (b) the estimatedloss to the region as a whole will be $4,160 million US for Sakhalin I and$954 million US for Sakhalin II.6
In theory, the lack of direct benefits from the projects is compensated by
the payment of “bonuses” at strategic points in project development (total$45 million US), and through distribution of finances from the Sakhalin Development Fund (total $100 million US). The distribution of payments is
decided by the regional administration and the region assembly (duma). The
only bonus payments that Noglikskii district has so far received have been
towards the controversial gas-fired power station built close to Nogliki tofeed the south. This power station caused protest from local activists, due its
location close to local dachas and the political significance of the project.
The power station is fed by an old gas pipeline that recently exploded underthe extra pressure needed to transport the necessary volume of gas.
As the Sakhalin II project celebrated the first oil from Molikpaq in July
1999, the Sakhalin region received the third payment to the Sakhalin Development Fund ($20 million US). From the first of October 1999 SEIC will
pay the first instalment of compensation totalling approximately $160 million for previous geological exploration work (50% to the federal, 50% to theregional budget). The 6% royalty payments will also begin with the start ofproduction. At the same time SEIC is now claiming back VAT that they have
paid up to now in contradiction to their PS agreement. This currently totals$23 million US and will be paid back out of the federal and regional royalty
payments (Sovetskii Sakhalin, 25 June, 1999).
Benefits to the local communities of Noglikskii district could have been
provided by the incoming worker population (shopping in local shops, using
6 Source: Sakhalin regional tax inspectorate.

21)/,&725203520,6(



local service industries, etc). However, Exxon and SEIC have, for security
reasons, built their own camp outside of Nogliki to which access is strictly
limited. The camp has its own shop and is also self-sufficient in every otherway. Workers who come from abroad and elsewhere on Sakhalin arrive on
the train and are taken straight to the camp. Westerners sometimes visit thecentre of Nogliki, but tend to frequent one or two local bars and the local
hotel only. This considerably limits the amount of benefit to the local community. What is more, as the oil companies are registered in YuzhnoSakhalinsk, where they pay their taxes, Noglikskii district receives no tax
payments from the camp.
Local experts consider that the Sakhalin projects have developed against
the interests of the local districts, although the original tender agreements
promised more local benefits (such as gasification of the island, local processing, local jobs, etc.). In November 1997 the mayor of Noglikskii district
G. Susenko and the head of the district assembly V. Sereda wrote a letter togovernor Farkhutdinov and the head of the regional assembly, B. Tretiak,
expressing concern that profits from the Sakhalin I and II projects will bedirected towards Moscow and the regional centre, rather than to the local
districts Okhinskii and Noglikskii that will bear the brunt of the ecologicalrisk relating to the projects (Znamia Truda, 22 November 1997).
However, almost two years later the same mayor and head of the district
assembly have still not been able to negotiate a better deal for the local populations of Nogliki district, while the tendency is for business opportunities
provided by the oil developments to be aggressively pursued by Americancompanies. Recently a group of Alaskan business people visited Nogliki to
explore the possibilities of setting up support service industries for the oil
industry. The district mayor’s response was to the effect that there are sufficient human resources locally to provide this kind of service, if given the
chance.

Natural Resources
The off-shore oil and gas developments clearly pose a threat to the marine resources of the Sakhalin shelf, to the coastal waters, the bays, wetlands,
reindeer pastures and salmon spawning grounds that make up the delicate
human and natural ecosystem of the north-eastern coastal region. An oil
slick will be catastrophic both for the natural environment and the humans
that depend on it. The Native minorities are both hopeful and suspicious of
the oil developments, hoping for new job opportunities, yet fearing the final
destruction of their environment - the last fishing grounds and reindeer pastures - and the disappearance of their culture and livelihoods.
Molikpaq has taken on mythical significance in the eyes of local people.
It has become the symbol of some indeterminate cataclysmic change that is
gradually occurring in the natural environment. Reindeer herders herd theirdeer on the pastures close to Piltun’skii and Astokhskii bays. Molikpaq canbe seen from the shore when the mists rise. Since seismic testing began inthat region, reindeer herders claim that the local environmental conditions

00$,/621

began noticeably to change. There are fewer seals in the sea. One herderclaims to have seen three dead seals along one stretch of coastline whereusually no dead seals are washed up. Another notes that some of the marine
birds they hunt are starting to eat land-based insects instead of plankton fromthe sea (evidenced by the stomach contents).7 Local (indigenous and nonindigenous) people who fish also report increasing numbers of poisoned fish
being washed up on the shore. Fish sometimes smells of oil or phenols when
it is caught, but it is still eaten out of necessity. Recently a huge number ofdead herring were washed up on the shores of Piltun bay, reportedly poisoned by DDT.8
While this is clearly not related solely to the appearance of Molikpaq,
the platform remains a folk-symbol of accelerating environmental degradation. There are other factors, including the huge forest fires of 1989 and1998; a reported phenol leak into the Amur river last year; leaks from waste
dumps along the shoreline. The phenomena could also relate to global climate change. The problem is that no-one really knows the damage caused so
far by the exploratory drilling, seismic testing, erection of Molikpaq and its
subsequent work. There are no independent monitoring programmes, andcontrol of environmental conditions relating to Sakhalin I and II is out of thehands of both local regulatory organs and the local populations. Local people
cannot afford to attract specialists to carry out independent scientific assessments, which are urgently needed, especially if people are to continue eating
contaminated fish.
The bureaucrats (chinovniki) who should be defending the interests ofpeople locally are highly dependent on decisions made at the regional level.
The Noglikskii district committee of ecology and fisheries inspectorate are
not allowed onto Molikpaq, as control is entirely at the regional level (mostly
in the hands of Sakhalin regional committee of ecology). When asked whether
they object to the threats posed by the off-shore oil developments, the answer
provided by local regulators is that they might be concerned, but their seniors
in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk are responsible for decision making. At the same time,
one Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk official is famously quoted as saying: “We are thereal enemies of nature. We are the ones who sign the papers.”9 Approvals
and permissions are often signed against the better judgement of the official
who signs them, but under pressure from “higher powers.” The Moscowbased environmental law NGO “Ecojuris” advocates public legal control of
regulatory organs that do not carry out their responsibility to the public forwhatever reason, be this fear of losing their jobs, or pressure from superiors
or powerful political and economic interests. With a strong “civil society”
chinovniki would fear the public in the same way.
7 Comments by reindeer herders near Pil’tun bay.
8 Source: local reports.
9 Official from Sakhalin regional committee of ecology, quoted by “Ecojuris.”21)/,&725203520,6(



Two projects are currently being planned which could provide an opportunity for more active public participation and control. Sakhalin I and II
are planning pipelines to cut across some of the last remaining summer reindeer pastures. The proposed Sakhalin I project pipeline and preliminary processing plant (Exxon), cuts across the spawning river Evai and important
wetlands for migrating birds. It is an area for hunting, fishing and reindeer
herding, and lies just south of the wildlife preserve “Olenii (Deer).” Theproposed Sakhalin II pipeline (SEIC) cuts straight through this wildlife preserve further north, close to reindeer calving grounds. The land here is marshy
and highly sensitive to anthropogenic disturbance. Where the land is dry, thesoil is very sandy, and construction work tends to leave gaping scars in theearth that erode rather than healing. It is unlikely that any pipeline construction and use will take place in these areas without considerable environmental disturbance and pollution.
The Sakhalin II pipeline route received preliminary approval without
direct consultation with local herders. However, on the basis of a survey of
local land use and populations SEIC is now considering bringing their pipeline on to the land further down the shoreline away from the reindeer pastures. The Sakhalin I proposal has not yet received preliminary approval andExxon has now asked the Sakhalin Association of Northern Native Minorities (ANNM) to research the opinions of local indigenous populations to their
proposed construction project. This move on the part of Exxon is related tothe agreement recently signed between the governor and the AMMN at aseminar (28-29 May 1999), which includes an assurance that the local indigenous populations will be consulted on all industrial projects taking place on
their lands.
Once the pipelines have received preliminary approval they pass on to
the stage of environmental expert review, which includes compulsory public
hearings. However, the reindeer herders claim they are too busy tending
their deer and resolving their own problems to attend hearings and seminars,
even if they are held in the closest village (Val), which is over an hour away
by heavy Jeep if the roads are dry. This could in reality be more of an excuse
not to take part in such meetings, where they feel uncomfortable, or it could
be due to a lack of belief in the effectiveness of standing up at such a meeting
to defend one’s own interests. The consultation process for the Sakhalin I
pipeline proposal could provide an opportunity for developing a model ofconsultation that reaches the broadest possible range of local residents.
The Okhotsk sea itself provides half of the total supply of fish and othermarine resources to the Russian Federation and is vital to the Sakhalin regional economy. While fishing does not bring a significant amount into the
Noglikskii district budget in the form of taxes, some local people are regularly employed in the fishing industry, local entrepreneurs are increasingly
seeking to develop private fishing ventures, while more and more local residents are now turning to fishing simply for subsistence and survival. This

00$,/621

refers to both indigenous and non-indigenous residents.
Many of the rivers of Noglikskii district are spawning rivers, and arestill relatively rich in salmon, including the Red Book taimen’, although logging in the upper reaches and intensive poaching is likely to destroy stocks infuture years. Fishing takes place on the rivers, in the river estuaries, along
the coastline, and further out to sea. The “Vostok” collective fishing enterprise (rybolovetskii kolkhoz) fishes in Pil’tunskii, Chaivinskii, Nabil’skii andNyiskii bays. Other areas of water are allocated to various fishing enterprises including indigenous “clan enterprises” or rodovye khoziaistva (seebelow). Fishing boats registered elsewhere on the island and international
vessels are allowed to fish further from the shore, or are involved in poaching.
The multinational oil companies are unsure how to compensate the fishing industry (such payments are made in advance in Russia). Compensation
for damage to the fisheries from development of the Sakhalin II project wasestimated in the initial project plans (TEO) as being $1,680,000 US. An
initial scientific study completed by the Vladivostok-based Pacific Instituteof Fisheries and Oceanography (TINRO) estimated this sum at $3 million
US, but this sum was challenged by SEIC and reduced to $200,000 US.
According to recent reports, this has once more been reduced, now to $120,000.
This money will be put towards development of a fish farm in Tymovsk district, central Sakhalin.
Local people are allowed to fish for most kinds of fish, using rods, at
any time during the year without permissions, but they need permissions andlimits in order to fish with nets. They get priority when limits are allocatedfor personal use. Limits are allocated by the local administration. Indigenous people are also allowed free limits of 100kg of salmon per person for
personal use (not for sale), but this is clearly inadequate to satisfy daily needs
for the whole year. However, the limits are still the source of some controversy at the local level - especially when claims are made by people of mixed
parentage (metisy) - as many long-term non-Natives feel that they have an
equal right to limits. Local (unofficial) policies of assimilation are aimed at
reducing claims for privileges.
In summer many Nivkh families travel out to the bays, especially Nyiva
Bay, where they traditionally used to live. They spend the summer living andfishing on the shores of the bay and along the spit between the bay and the
Okhotsk sea. This activity is becoming more and more popular, providing
the present day Native community with a new form of summer occupationand the chance to practice and re-learn traditional forms of natural resourceuse (cutting and drying fish, hunting marine mammals, collecting berries,etc.).
Fishing is one of the tradition occupations of the Nivkhi and is therefore
a focus for those seeking to provide meaningful employment for the local
indigenous populations. Clan enterprises (rodovye khoziaistva) began to be21)/,&725203520,6(



set up in the early 1990s to provide indigenous families with a form of subsistence activity, and in an effort to preserve traditional culture and livelihoods.10
However, the legislative base for this form of economic activity is still
inadequate and unstable. Rodovye khoziaistva were initially registered according to existing legislation as peasant farms (krest’ianskie or fermerskie
khoziaistva), but this form of ownership is not appropriate to reindeer herding and fishing. The “Temporary regulations on clan communes, clan andfamily enterprises of the Northern Native minorities of Sakhalin region”(09.01.96) do not provide an adequate legal basis for establishing clan enterprises, as until recently the concept of clan enterprise did not exist in federal
legislation. The Citizens’ Code (Grazhdanskii Kodeks) does not recogniseclan enterprises, and demands all enterprises re-register by the 1st July 1999
as a form of ownership that is acknowledged in the Citizens’ Code, for example as a limited company (obshchestvo ogranichennoi otvetstvennosti or
OOO). The new law “On the Guarantees of the Rights of Indigenous Peoplesof the Russian Federation” (30.04.99) does, however, recognise the right ofindigenous peoples to traditional enterprises (Article 8), and at the end of thelaw is written that efforts should be made to bring other legislation in linewith this law (Article 16). Work has now started to bring existing legislationin line with the new indigenous rights law.
Aside from the instability of the legislative base, many of the clan enterprises created in the early 1990s are simply unprofitable and cannot resolve
the urgent issue of employment for Native minorities (Roon, 1996). This ispartly due to the Russian tax system that makes development of any small
scale enterprise virtually impossible. Nowadays the only successful small
businesses tend to be trading (buying and re-selling), which indigenous people
are not usually involved in. The clan enterprise is a form of enterprise moresuited to the indigenous lifestyle and skills. Re-registration means that unproductive clan enterprises will be closed, which on the one hand simplifies
the situation from the point of view of legislation and taxation, but on theother hand undermines the initial concept of clan enterprises (traditional subsistence activity).
There are various different levels of clan enterprise with very different
needs that should be addressed separately: (i) those who are trying to develop a sustainable economic enterprise (with or without the help of a nonindigenous “manager” or partner); (ii) those who are simply living a subsistence lifestyle on their traditional lands, perhaps close to the place where
their ancestors are buried; (iii) those who are not producing anything but
clinging on to the territory (perhaps in the hope of receiving compensationfrom the oil industry); (iv) those where Native people are managed by “out10 This was done on the basis of the Presidential decree “On immediate measures to protect theliving environment and economic activities of Northern Native minorities” (22.04.92).



00$,/621

siders” who are taking advantage of Native fish limits and other privileges.
Many of the local indigenous people in Noglikskii district resent theamount of financing that has been allocated to clan enterprises through federal programmes and government privileges. This money was directed throughthe regional and local administrations or through the agricultural trading firm
“Aborigen Sakhalina” based in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk. However by 1995 thefinancing had virtually come to a standstill, money from the regional to the
district budgets is used to cancel local debts to the regional budget, and so on.
“Aborigen Sakhalina” is now struggling to survive itself.
Locals feel that if the clan enterprises are receiving so much priority
financial support, then they should ultimately be able to support the larger
mass of indigenous people in the community (by catching fish quotas for
those who are unable to catch their own; giving free fish to poor families;
supporting local organisations or children’s groups, etc.) This kind of model
has been known to work in the past (though not in Noglikskii district): in theearly 1990s, several payments of equal sums of money were directed throughthe federal programme of support to indigenous peoples to all the districts of
Sakhalin where Native minorities live. In Noglikskii district, this money wasused to build houses for the indigenous population of the district capital. A
block of flats was left half-built, and most of the Native families that moved
in ended up exchanging their flat for worse accommodation, or even forchildren’s clothes or vodka. The money sent to Poronaiskii district, on theother hand, was fed into clan enterprises, in a focused attempt to raise production. Now these enterprises are still working, and they are able to support
the local Association of Native minorities and certain aspects of social infrastructure.
According to the indigenous representative in the Sakhalin regional parliament, A. Nachetkina, the main problem for the indigenous people of northern Sakhalin is a lack of fishing limits. In Poronaiskii district they havesufficient limits for the local traditional enterprises to survive relatively well.
According to Ms. Nachetkina, a fish farm needs to be established in the northto increase salmon stocks and work should be undertaken with scientists toincrease fish limits.
In Noglikskii district, hunters hunt sable, wild reindeer, bear. Mostly
these are non-indigenous hunters. In 1992 hunting territories were set aside
for the northern Native minorities through “Aborigen Sakhalina.” However,
only one Native hunter has been actively using the territory and there is talkof removing the status. According to the law “On the animal kingdom” indigenous hunters have priority when giving out licenses, but they have to pay
the same price as other hunters for their licence. Many cannot afford this.
Traditionally the Nivkh also hunt for seals, and one or two seals are
generally hunted each year. Seal oil and seal fat are used for health andmedicinal purposes, while the meat, oil and fat are used in traditional foodpreparations. As reported by the reindeer herders and by Nivkhi there arefewer seals now than there used to be.
There are 5 families (about 17 herders) involved in reindeer herding in
Noglikskii district; in the absence of official counts, estimates of the total21)/,&725203520,6(



number of domestic deer in the district range from 120 - 200 deer. The local
reindeer herding enterprise, “MGP Val” was formed when the former State
farm “Olenevod” (“Reindeer Herder”) split into two enterprises in the early
1990s (the other half is now based in Aleksandrovskii district in the west).
“MGP Val” and the infrastructure that it supported (including an electricalgenerator, a saw mill, technical equipment, a shop) are now in an extreme
state of disrepair, and as usual in such cases the territory has been robbed by
local scavengers. Now the enterprise exists only on paper as a branch of“Aborigen Sakhalina,” while the herders themselves are now herding independently and living a subsistence lifestyle (fishing; hunting birds, bear,
wild deer; collecting berries).
In winter the reindeer herders live in the forest with their deer and huntwild deer for meat, both for their own consumption and to sell or exchange
privately (this is not legal, but there are no other ways for the herders tosurvive). They do not generally kill their own herds, which are extremely
small. Some herders are now trying to increase the size of their herds by
taming wild reindeer, although sometimes the wild reindeer lure females awayfrom the domestic herds instead. In summer the herders move to the coast
and use those coastal reindeer pastures that have remained untouched by fires
or the oil industry.
The reindeer herders are very concerned about the proposed pipelines,
but do not have the time to take an active role in decision-making processesor activism. Their main concern is the survival of their herd. “If my reindeer
die, then I die, too.”11 Local people feel that the reindeer herders should beallowed to get on with their lifestyles and be left alone as much as possible.
To the herders, the most important thing is the freedom their lifestyle brings(“No-one puts pressure on us”) and the health aspects of living close to nature: one herder gave up his education in Khabarovsk because his healthdeteriorated through being away from his own environment. The herders arealso visited by their children, nephews and nieces. The children thrive in thisenvironment much more so than in the village.
Ironically, while the herder’s “freedom” is an important factor in theirsticking to a lifestyle that may already seem invalid to some, this is only aperceived freedom, as outsiders make decisions regarding use of their lands
without their participation. Regarding the pipeline, the most important fact isthat the lands that they use for herding are not allocated to them personally,
but to a commercial structure (“MGP Val”) whose director has very little
contact with them today, but continues to make decisions on their behalf.
The herders themselves have no personal voice in negotiations as they are
not official land users, nor do they have rights to compensations, which is ofparticular concern for some.
Several young entrepreneurs (both indigenous and non-indigenous) are
now trying to set up projects to revive reindeer herding in northern Sakhalinby developing another more profitable type of resource use such as tourism
or fishing and feeding the profits into herding, while employing primarily
herders and other indigenous workers in the support enterprise. Integrated

11 Quotes from reindeer herders near Pil’tun bay.



00$,/621

resource use plans such as these are possible models of sustainable development, and tentative solutions to the Native employment problem.
A popular idea at the more official level is that of creating a centralised“trading station (faktoriia)” to collect production from various forms of individual or collective enterprise (fishing, reindeer herding, hunting, collectionof NTFPs, souvenir making) and organise its marketing and distribution, including abroad. This idea relates back to the former State enterprises(Gospromkhoz, Rybkoop, etc.) that used to provide this type of organisational
infrastructure. In former years fern, for example, was successfully marketedin Japan. However, local people are always wary of creating or upholding
mediating structures that are likely to eat up resources while not particularly
helping the smaller enterprises they serve. Local preference is towards setting up strong enterprises at the local level that could make their own independent contacts.
There are other possible ways to employ Native workers, for example inlocal monitoring programmes related to the oil developments. Job creation
should be aimed towards using the existing local skills as far as possible andsupporting local production. Apparently no-one from the village of Val isemployed in the oil industry as they do not have the appropriate skills.
It is unlikely that Noglikskii district will gain significantly from the Sakhalin oil developments through tax payments, job creation, increased consumer spending or development of service industries. Nor are they likely togain a significant share of payments from the bonuses and the Sakhalin Development Fund unless they manage to gain influence in the regional assembly and regional administration. Local populations therefore have to use different mechanisms to gain a voice in decision-making; to attract investment
in local production and social welfare; and ultimately to increase local control of resource management in order to preserve local cultures and livelihoods.

Representation, Participation, Control
Appendix 0 of the Sakhalin II Phase 1 Project EIA is a socio-economic
assessment. In Section 9.5.3.5 the Nivkhi are reported as “expressing doubts”
about competing with Russians for jobs in the oil sector and hoping for a“ripple effect” to provide their children with opportunities in the future. Thispassive hope characterises not only the Native but also the non-Native attitudes towards the oil developments. For decades people were trained to relyon the State for everything, however, at the same time, inherent in their being
is an aversion to “begging” for help. The result is a simmering resentment atbeing cast aside by the State and a subconscious hope or expectation thatsomehow the solution will suddenly come from outside: “We need someone
to take charge (Nuzhen khoziain).”12 Often, after a long tirade against theconditions they are living in, people come to a halt blaming it all ultimately
on “the System” that can’t be changed. But is it not the people that reproduce
the System?
12 A phrase repeated constantly in conversations with Native and non-Native residents alike.

21)/,&725203520,6(



Most people are unable to go out and resolve their problems by pushingthemselves forward. “Standing out” or “shining (vydeliatsia)” was always
frowned upon, and even today those who appear to do so are mistrusted by
the community. There is a great deal of envy and mistrust among the local
Native populations, which naturally hinders collective action. This is compounded by their natural passivity and tolerance. There is also a deeper senseof despair. If, in order to create social movements, “people need to feel bothaggrieved about some aspect of their lives and optimistic that, activing collectively, they can redress the problem” (McAdam et al, 1996) then the lackof optimism here may also provide a key to understanding the lack of collective action. Most people have already given up hope or “let their hands drop
(opustili ruki),” often as far as turning to alcohol as an escape route.
An excuse for inactivity is often that people don’t know who or what toturn to for help (“Kuda obratitsia?”). Often people need a ready formula, aready answer, a concrete place or person that they can address their complaints to. The Soviet system provided specific channels for complaint. The
mechanisms available today require more initiative on the part of the individual.
The “ripple effect” will not be felt if local communities do not make aconcerted effort to enjoy an equitable share of benefits from the oil projects.
Disbursal of funds from the bonuses, the Sakhalin Development Fund andother funds will depend on how the district administration and district assembly, under pressure from local citizens, can influence the process of distribution in their favour. Given the lack of sympathy of local politicians and administrators towards Native issues, it is important here that indigenous andnon-indigenous groups join forces to put pressure on their leaders. Likewise,
strict (“international”) ecological standards will not be upheld by the companies unless they are forced to comply through public pressure. Joint positions and demands made on behalf of the whole population (indigenous andnon-indigenous residents) regarding economic rights (e.g. distribution of revenues) and ecological rights (e.g. rights to clean rivers, unpolluted fish, recreational space, etc.) are more likely to gain the attention of local administrations and state regulatory organs.
There is a growing tendency today towards using legislation in Russia
as a whole. However, using the law to defend one’s ecological and humanrights is fairly new in Russia, and is less common the further away from thecentre one travels.13 In 1998, on Sakhalin a record number of applications
were made to the Public Prosecutor - 11,248 (Sovetskii Sakhalin, 8.06.99).
The involvement of environmental and human rights lawyers on Sakhalin inrecent years, most notably the Moscow-based legal NGO “Ecojuris” hasgreatly increased the use of legislation as a basis for understanding rights.
However, litigation is still a little used mechanism here in the field of ecological and human rights.
The base of legislation is established in the Constitution of the RussianFederation (12.12.93). Article 42 guarantees the right of any citizen of theRussian Federation to a clean environment and reliable information about the
13 Comment by a Moscow environmental lawyer.



00$,/621

state of the environment. Article 30 states that all citizens have the right toform an organisation to protect their interests, and guarantees freedom ofaction within this organisation. Article 31 states that all have the right topeaceful protest, including political mass-meetings, demonstrations, marches
and pickets. Article 46 guarantees protection of human rights and freedoms
through the courts.
According to the federal law “On Environmental Protection” (19.12.91)
every development project should receive a positive conclusion from a State
Environmental Expert Review (expertiza), which is carried out according to
the law “On State Environmental Expert Reviews” (23.11.95). Local populations should have access to adequate information about proposed projects.
Environmentalists recommend that this information be provided through themedia at least 6 months before the start of the State EER process. Developers
should also present the public with the opportunity to become acquainted
with all the project materials, generally by putting a copy of the materials ina local library (Sakhalin Environment Watch, 1999).
However, the formal process of information dissemination can miss thosepeople who are to be most affected by the development project itself. Whilemost people even in outlying regions of Russia are surprisingly well-informed
about events, there is a great difficulty in transferring knowledge and awareness into meaningful action. This may be partly related to the form in which
information is received. It may be received in a form that people are unable
to respond to actively (word of mouth, old newspapers, etc.); they may notreceive full details or the necessary information guiding them on how they
can respond. Not all people read newspapers; some spend most of their time
without access to a television or radio and far from a local library; mostpeople don’t have access to the Internet. This should be taken into consideration when oil companies develop socio-economic programmes, information
dissemination and participation processes.
The problem can be addressed to some extent through more interactive
information processes on the part of the developers. For example, an oil
company could organise focus group discussions at the local (village) levelwith specific interest groups (e.g. reindeer herders, fishermen), not just withheads of enterprises and official representatives of indigenous organisations.
Ideally oil company representatives should visit reindeer herders and fishermen in their own environment.
Local grassroots initiatives can also assist. Informal information channels work well. Friends and family regularly visit reindeer herders, traditional fishing collectives and families living on the shores of the bays. There
are possibilities for developing more organised informal information channels relating to local environmental changes, pollution of food sources, industrial activity that threatens traditional livelihoods, etc. Information can beprocessed through public groups at the local level and opinions voiced in amore appropriate form and language for decision-making processes (e.g. a21)/,&725203520,6(



village meeting (skhod); collection of signatures; an official letter to the
local authorities, oil companies or a Ministry).
Both SEIC and Exxon have completed socio-economic reports relating
to their projects. These reports were ordered by the companies from local
research institutes and provide a good background to socio-economic issues
in the Sakhalin region. Local opinions on the oil and gas projects were elicited through questionnaires. However, this form of research is not active
participation of the public in decision-making on issues that directly affectthem. Ultimately the information gained may or may not be used by thecompanies, and the companies are not obliged to respond to the opinions
expressed by local respondents.
Public hearings, however, are an essential part of the process of receiving approval for a project, according to the law “On environmental expert
reviews.” SEIC has held two sets of public hearings as part of the EIA for its
project (in spring and autumn of 1997). According to environmentalists,these were poorly attended, were predominantly promotional in character,and allowed only half an hour out of three and a half hours for local people tovoice their concerns. Exxon has so far not held any public hearings.
NGOs are also allowed by law to undertake a public environmental expert review. For example, the Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk based NGO Sakhalin Environment Watch (SEW) is completing a public environmental expert reviewof the Sakhalin I project and are preparing to carry one out on the materials
for Sakhalin IV. However, this demands financing that local populations
often do not have. SEW finances its work through grants from international
grant-giving bodies.
Writing grant applications is still alien to most local residents, partly
because of the bureaucracy of the grant giving procedures, which most indigenous people have neither the time nor the desire to be involved in, and partly,
again, because of the reluctance to “beg” for help. Grant giving bodies in
Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk are now moving towards supporting “sustainable development” projects, and there are now opportunities for local indigenous entrepreneurs to gain support for sustainable resource use projects. However, thisrequires support from a “manager” (Native or non-Native) who will be able
to deal with the necessary paper-work. Those who have the energy and desire to write grant proposals, run round offices, work with papers and permissions, organise people and money, are often mistrusted by others, accused oftrying to “pull the blanket over themselves (tianut’ odeialo na sebia).”
SEIC also has a community assistance grant programme through which
they support youth initiatives and cultural programmes, for example, an art
exhibition, talented musicians, the Nivkh language newspaper. They also
pay for Native students from the Poronaisk technical lysee to go to St. Petersburg to study further, and support Native students who have a good knowledge of English.14 These programmes are much appreciated by local indigenous people. However, the sums of money are small, and the aim of SEIC

00$,/621

here is community assistance in the sense of publicity, not local development.
At the local level in Noglikskii district community organisation and cooperation is extremely low. One of the only non-governmental groups activein the district is the Sakhalin Regional Association of Northern Native Minorities (ANNM), whose leader is from Nogliki himself. This group wasonly recently re-established, is already gaining recognition national and internationally, and is starting to discuss Native issues more seriously with theoil companies. The Noglikskii district branch of the association is now in theprocess of development, and played an active role in the recent seminar “Indigenous peoples and the environment in the Russian Far East” (YuzhnoSakhalinsk, 27-28 May 1999). However, given the broad range of interests
within the Native community, the ANNM is not able to represent the interestsof the whole local population, which causes some resentment, particularly
given the influence that the ANNM holds in decision-making processes. For
those who do not have access to the ANNM, there are no alternative groups
to represent their interests.
If fruitful partnerships are to be developed, then the nature of representation is important. How representative is it? Local interests should not be
represented by one or two official representatives who make decisions on thepart of the population in closed meetings. If agreements are signed on behalfof the people, they should be available to the public to read. If meetings are
held, they should be written about in the press. Participants at the June seminar in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk were distressed that an agreement signed with great
ceremony by the Sakhalin Governor and the president of the Sakhalin ANNM,
was not made available to them to read even after the signing. Residents ofvillages in northwestern Sakhalin close to the proposed site of Sakhalin IV,
which recently received approval for exploratory drilling, are concerned that
consultation about the project was carried out in private meetings, while theresults of a public village meeting (expressing categoric opposition) and acollection of over a thousand signatures seem to have been ignored. “Partnerships” and “agreements” should not be allowed to undermine other moredemocratic forms of public participation.
Sakhalin NGOs are now well-established in international ecological networks, providing local people with an opportunity for exerting influence internationally. Reports of illegal industrial activities, pollution, human rights
abuses, can be passed quickly across Sakhalin, Russia and through international NGO networks as far as the US Congress or the banks that are financing projects. In 1997 a letter sent to the EBRD by international NGOs succeeded in halting financing of the Sakhalin II project until it had passed theState EER process according to Russian law. The Internet has revolutionised
these international information networks. So far the local people of Noglikskii
14 From SEIC promotional material.

21)/,&725203520,6(



district are not well established in these information networks, but such partnerships with ecological groups are now beginning to develop, though againsuch opportunities are only open to a few who have the right contacts andpreferably access to the Internet. While decision-makers (with reason) resent the interference of international protest groups in regional economic affairs, the formation of international NGO networks is considered by the NGOs
themselves to be a necessary balance to the activities of international investors and developers in the same local regions. Both are the inevitable resultsof today’s processes of globalisation.
However, these kinds of activities are as yet very new for the local peopleof Noglikskii district. Fear of the unknown adds to the prevalent public apathy. Many simply don’t understand or care about complicated decision-making processes. Importantly, these processes are alien to most peoples’ cultures, to traditional indigenous decision-making processes, and to those of
the Russian and Soviet systems.
Furthermore, the extreme economic hardship that these people are facing makes any thought of participation or activism impossible. People live
from day to day. If you are a reindeer herder, you may be preoccupied bypoachers who shoot your deer or by not receiving your salary, rather thanstriving to participate in decision-making on a pipeline that may or may notcross your last summer pastures. If you are in charge of a clan enterprise you
tend to be concerned with raising your fish limits and avoiding unrealistic
taxes, rather than in monitoring oil projects that could destroy your fish supplies. If you are raising a family, you will be concerned about planting potatoes, collecting wild garlic and fern, catching fish for subsistence, and ingeneral trying to keep a household together without any financial income.
Given the choice of going to a village meeting or digging up your potatoes,
you will dig up your potatoes, especially if tomorrow’s weather might bebad.
On the other hand, local administrators and politicians have a role toplay in attracting the populations to decision-making. According to Article
28 of the “Land Code” (Zemel’nyi Kodeks, 1991) construction of industrial
objects (such as a pipeline) on lands inhabited by Native minorities has to be
discussed in advance with the local residents, and the local administration
should hold a referendum before any preliminary decisions on construction
are made (previously this was the responsibility of the local district assembly). So far, no referendum has been held regarding the pipelines planned for
the Sakhalin I and II projects.
There is still no established mechanism for people to claim compensation for damage to or loss of hunting territories, fishing grounds and reindeer
pastures. According to Article 101 of the «Land Code» any land user isbound to carry out any necessary regeneration work on the land when they
have finished using it. However, this kind of regeneration work is rarely
done, and much of the land around the north-eastern bays is littered with old00$,/621

drilling equipment, pools of oil and rusting pipes. The system of compensation payments for disrupted reindeer pastures has not yet been agreed withthe companies working on the Sakhalin I and II projects. Compensation is aword that has already established itself in the lexicon of local residents. Some
perhaps do not understand the full implications of the word, some are too
easily “compensated.” Indigenous land rights issues are sometimes based on
the desire of claimants to gain access to compensation for future industrial
development on their lands.
However, whatever the compensation issues, the main problem today
for the indigenous people of northern Sakhalin is to officially set aside theirtraditional territories for reindeer herding, hunting and fishing. As the oil
industry expanded in the past, territories were not set aside for traditionaluse. “We missed out by not fixing our lands earlier.”15 In the Soviet era aland survey (zemleustroistvo) was undertaken regularly. The last one wasdone 10 years ago, and a new survey is urgently needed, particularly after thedestruction caused by the fires of 1998. This year funds have been freed to
do a survey of reindeer pastures, which will determine the lands are available
for use as pastures, although will not allocate the lands to any particular landuser or protect them from industrial encroachment.
Another way to fix traditional lands is through creation of territories of
traditional natural resource use (TTPs). There are several models for this inother regions of the RFE, including the Bikin River Basin in Primorskii region (Bocharnikov, et al, 1997) and the newly created “ethno-ecological refuge” Tkhsanom, in the Koriak autonomous region (Zhivaia Arktika, No. 1-2,
1999).
The presidential decree (No. 829-1) of 27.11.89 “On immediate measures towards improving the ecological health of the nation” recommends (in1990) “allocating territories of traditional (priority) national resource use, on
those territories not being used for industrial purposes, to Native minoritiesof the North, Siberia and the Far East.” This and a further decree (No. 397) of
22.04.92 “On immediate measures towards protecting the areas where Northern minorities live and conduct their economic activity” were meant to lay
the foundations for setting up a legislative base for establishing priority rights
to traditional lands and using these lands for traditional natural resource use.
However, very little legislation was actually passed on the basis of these decrees in the Russian Federation as a whole and on Sakhalin in particular.
The Sakhalin Regional Statutes allocate responsibility for setting aside
TTPs to the regional government, state organs and local adminstrations.
However, there is no corresponding article in the Noglikskii District Statutes.
In 1996 the “Temporary regulations on territories of traditional natural resource use of the northern Native minorities of Sakhalin region” were passed.
But this does not provide an adequate legislative basis for creating TTPs. In
the legislative confusion of the early 1990s the whole of Noglikskii district
was declared a territory of traditional natural resource use. This declaration
was cancelled, together the “Regulations for territories of traditional natural
resource use in Noglikskii district,” at a meeting of the district assembly in
15 Nivkh resident, Nogliki.

21)/,&725203520,6(
June 1999, “due to the absence of a legislative base for their implementationby the local administrative organs in Noglikskii district.”
Indigenous resource users on Sakhalin are now working towards establishing a legislative foundation for creating territories of traditional natural
resource use, which are now acknowledged by the new law <On the guarantees of indigenous minority rights in the Russian Federation> (03.04.99) as<lands of traditional natural resource use> (zemli traditsionnogo
prirodopol’zovaniia) or ZTPs. The Sakhalin Association of Northern Native
Minorities (ANNM) is taking an active role in promoting and seeking to resolve this issue, and it was raised at the recent seminar in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk.
Creation of specially protected areas (SPAs), while not allocating land
directly to indigenous users, provides protection from industrial activity. There
are two wildlife preserves and four natural monuments in Noglikskii district,which add up to a total of 168,187 ha or 14% of the territory of the district.16“Olenii” (deer) wildlife preserve (80,000 ha), in the north-east of the district
stretching along coastline, was created in 1989 and protects spring and summer reindeer pastures. 17 As other wildlife preserves, “Olenii” was established for a limited period of ten years. Currently the hunting administrationand the Committee of Ecology are working to extend this time limit.
“Noglikskii” wildlife preserve (65,800 ha), situated to the west of the district,
was established in 1998 to preserve reindeer pastures, wild reindeer, and otherspecies.18 The Dagi-Komsomol’sk pipeline and a parallel road cross throughthe northern part of the preserve. Domestic reindeer pass along this roadfrom winter to summer pastures. This pipeline route is unlikely to be used by
the Sakhalin I and II projects. Lunskii Bay, further south on the eastern coast,
is a natural monument (22,110 ha). Native fishermen are allowed to fish here
and family fishing enterprises (rodovye khoziaistva) are based here. Sakhalin
Energy had to reassess their plans to lay a pipeline in this area due to protests
from biologists and the legal protection offered by the SPA status.
In general Native representatives do not take an active role in the creation of SPAs, even though they are apparently created with their interests as
a foremost priority. This causes confusion about regulation, access and status of the territories.
The land issue is likely to remain the most complex and difficult to resolve for a long time to come. There is still no federal legislation on landownership, and the federal law “On the Lands of Traditional Natural Resource Use of the Indigenous People of the North, Siberia and the Far East of
the Russian Federation” is still waiting to be passed by the federal parliament(duma). Until the legislative base is complete, indigenous minorities of northern Sakhalin will have to make do with the mechanisms available to them todefend their rights to a clean environment and access to natural resources,
their rights to control and monitor the off-shore oil developments, and theirrights to an equitable share of profits from those that go ahead.

16 Source: Sakhalin Regional Committee of Ecology.
17 Source: Regulations for Olenii wildlife preserve (1989).
18 Source: Regulations for Noglikskii wildlife preserve (1998).



00$,/621***

People assure me that everywhere throughout the world large scale oiland gas projects are carried out providing huge profits to investors, creating
huge amounts of environmental disturbance and pollution, and providing very
little benefits to local populations. So why talk about sustainable development at all? Has the time finally come to put the rhetoric into practice, or
should we just “let our hands drop” and allow development to go ahead as
usual?

Sources
Arakchaa, K.D., Zaidfudim, P.Kh. (1999) Korennye malochislennye narody
Severa, Nauchnaia Kniga, Moscow.
Aniun’, N. (1999) “Ne vo vsem soglasno s deputatom,” Znamia Truda, 28
April 1999, p. 3.
Bocharnikov, et al (1997) Bikin: Opyt kompleksnoi otsenki prirodnykh uslovii,
bioraznoobraziia i resursov (The Bikin: An Experiment in Integrated
Evaluation of Natural Conditions, Biodiversity and Resources)
Dal’nauka, Vladivostok.
Bridger, S., Pine, F. (1998) Surviving post-Socialism: local strategies andregional responses in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union,
Routledge, London.
CAF (1998) Usloviia i perspektivy razvitiia tret’ego sektora v regionakh Rossii,
Moscow, Charities Aid Foundation.
Davydenko, N. (1999) “V kanun Pervogo maia (prosto mysli),” Znamia Truda,
30 April, 1999, p. 2.
EBRD (1996) Environmental procedures, EBRD, London.
Goskomstat Rossiiskoi Federatsii Sakhalinskoi oblastnoi komitet gosudarstvennoi statistiki (1999) Chislennosti nalichnogo i nostoiannogo
naseleniia po administrativno-territorial’nymi edinitsam, na 01.01.99,
isk. No. 1308, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk.
Goskomstat Rossiiskoi Federatsii Sakhalinskoi oblastnoi komitet
gosudarstvennoi statistiki (1997) Ekonomicheskoe i sotsial’noe razvitie
korennykh malochislennykh narodov Severa, isk. 249, g. Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk.
Grant, B. (1995) In the Soviet House of Culture, Princeton University Press,
New Jersey.
Hann, C., Dunn, E. (1996) Civil Society - changing Western models, Routledge,
London.
Krazhkov, V.A. (1999) Status malochislennykh narodov Rossii, Informcentre,
Moscow.
Lisitsyn, D., Barannikova, N. (1998) “The Sakhalin oil developments” background paper presented at conferences in Kiev and Baku in 1998.

21)/,&725203520,6(

Matveev, L. (1999) “Geologiia raiona: liudi i sobytiia,” Znamia Truda, 3
April 1999, p. 1.
McAdam et al (eds.) (1996) Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Miroshnikova, V.A. (1998) Kommentarii k Konstitutsii Rossiiskoi Federatsii,
EKSMOS, Moscow.
Mongush, L. (1999) “Iskrenne pozdravliaiu nas ...,” Znamia Truda, 26 May
1999, p. 3.
Novikova, N.I., Tishkov, V.A. (1999) Obychnoe prava i pravovoi pliuralizm,
Institute of anthropology and ethnography, Moscow.
Psyagin, G. (1999) “Diskussii ne k mestu,” Znamia Truda, 22 May 1999, p.
2.
Roon, T.P. (1999) “Promyshlennoe osvoenie i pravovye problemy korennykh
narodov Sakhalina (199e gody)” in Novikova, N.I., Tishkov, V.A. (1999)
Obychnoe prava i pravovoi pliuralizm, Institute of anthropology andethnography, Moscow, (p. 131).
Sakhalin Environment Watch (1999) Konkretnye Predlozheniia (recommendations on public participation submitted to the seminar “Indigenous people
and the environment of the Russian north,” July 27-28, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk).
Sangi, V. (1999) “Po povodu strannykh ‘prostykh myslei’ v kanun Pervogo
maia,” Znamia Truda, 19 May 1999, p. 2.
Stepanitskii, V.B. (1997) Kommentarii k Federal’nomu zakonu Rossiiskoi
Federatsii “Ob osobo okhraniaemykh prirodnykh territoriiakh,” TsODP
SoES, Moscow.
Voinilovich, M. (1999) “Kto platit, tot i zakazyvaet muzyky,” Sovetskii Sakhalin, 25 June 1999, p. 3.
Iakovleva, O.A. (1999) Kak zashchitit’ svoi ekologicheskie prava v sude.
Ekoyuris, Moscow (in print).
Zimenko, A.V., Krupnik, I.I. (1987) “Obshchie problemy prirodopol’zovaniia
na Komandorskikh ostrovakh” in Sokolov, V.E. (ed.) Ratsional’noe
prirodopol’zovanie na Komandorskikh Ostrovakh, Moscow University
Publishing House.
Special acknowledgments to Antonina Nachetkina, Indigenous Representative of Sakhalin Regional Parliament, for consultation on the editing of
this paper.