On the interaction of indigenous peoples of the North and industrial companies: the case of Yugra

The territory of traditional nature management (TTP) of the indigenous small-numbered peoples of the North (NSIP), according to the Federal Law of May 7, 2001 [1], is specially protected territories created for the traditional use of nature and traditional way of life by indigenous small peoples of the North, Siberia and Far East of the Russian Federation. Traditional nature use of indigenous peoples is historically developed and provides sustainable nature management of the use of objects of the animal and vegetable world and other natural resources by indigenous small peoples.

Traditional nature management is usually contrasted with the industrial one as an example of a careful attitude to nature.

Preservation of the natural environment and socio-economic development of the indigenous peoples of the North in modern conditions are an important problem for the state and society. Without its decision, the transition of the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug to the rails of sustainable economic development is impossible. One of the priority tasks at the same time is to preserve the status of the territory of the traditional nature management of the indigenous peoples of the North. In the opinion of K.B. Klokova, this is due to four reasons [2]:

^∗ For citation:

• 1)    traditional nature management is the basis of vital activity of indigenous peoples of the North, necessary for their existence, that is, if traditional nature management is not preserved, indigenous peoples will also disappear;

• 2)    the unique historical experience of ecological culture, which is the richness of not only indigenous peoples, but also of all mankind, is lost;

• 3)    what is especially important for Russia, the preservation of the territory of traditional nature use should be considered as one of the aspects of another urgent problem today: attempts to find an alternative to the Western model of social development;

• 4)    this is one of the basic directions of the global problem of finding ways to sustainable development of mankind.

The problem of interaction between indigenous small-numbered peoples and industrial companies remains acute. Since the early 1990s in the last century various normative acts have been adopted at the level of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, and then at the federal level, but there is still no federal law (or any other legal act on precise parameters of such interaction) or uniform standards for companies' activities. Organizations of indigenous peoples declare the need to adopt documents that protect the rights of indigenous peoples to traditional nature management, fair compensation and their free, prior and informed consent in connection with planned industrial activities, as the Russian Federation claims at the international level. Field surveys conducted throughout the North show that industrial development not only does not ensure the growth of the level and quality of life of indigenous peoples, but sometimes leads to a worsening of their situation [3, p. 5].

The purpose of isolating TTP (ancestral lands, communities)1 — preservation of the habitat, as well as legal and socio-economic protection of the indigenous population of the district. The total area of the territories was 12.6 million hectares. The average area of one generic land in the district is 26.6 thousand hectares.

Speaking about the problems of the relationship between the owners of the TTP and the users of the subsoil, we note that this problem was and is one of the most urgent in the industrial development of the northern territories in modern conditions.

As is known, almost all hydrocarbon deposits in the territory of Yugra are mainly located within the territories of traditional nature management (ancestral lands and communities) of indigenous people.

According to V.G. Loginova [4], more than 40% of TTP transferred (in varying degrees) in long-term lease to oil companies. The clash of interests of subsoil users and owners of TTP led and leads to different types of conflicts. Exit from the current situation was the economic agreements between the owners of TTP and economic entities operating the field. In them, in addition to compensations to owners of patrimonial lands and communities, the requirements of local selfgovernment bodies for socio-economic development of the territories of compact residence of the KNU, settlement of settlements are provided. Oil companies are reluctant to conclude agreements with the national communities, since by the organization of the community they stand a step above the individual owner of the patrimony, which it is easier for the subsoil user to negotiate with.

Concerning the issue of economic agreements (contracts) currently concluded between subsoil users and owners of TTPs in the territory of Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous District - Yugra, N.I. Novikova notes that the problem of contracts remains unresolved, although the district has accumulated a lot of experience in using them. In modern conditions, they are not aimed at sustainable development of indigenous small-numbered peoples of the North. In many areas (in the first place — Surgut), where the largest number of patrimonial lands is located, and mostly oil workers work, the situation is more complicated. The main shortcoming of economic agreements is that they do not provide opportunities for the development of indigenous peoples, and sometimes contribute to the growth of dependent attitudes. At best, they help Aboriginal families survive and preserve their traditional way of life. The problem is also the inadequate state and municipal control over their execution [5].

In modern conditions, the study of the interaction of the indigenous peoples of the North and industrial companies is an important part of the research field of the current situation of these peoples. In his work, N.I. Novikov [6] finds the dominant conflict relations between the indigenous inhabitants of the region and oil producing companies - this is the attitude to the world around. Virtually all issues of socio-cultural anthropology of the aborigines are related to the industrial development of the regions of their resettlement. The industrial development of hydrocarbon raw materials and its consequences are an important part of the constructed social knowledge. Currently, it is increasingly used in the political struggle of indigenous peoples for their rights. N.I. Novikova pays attention to the fact that today this struggle reflects the conflict between traditional and industrial nature management, people's ideas and skills, scientific and utilitariancommercial knowledge and approaches to the environment and its resources. Legal and everyday conflicts in this area lead to negative consequences: environmental destruction, unemployment, alcoholism, the loss of traditional values and indigenous languages, inadequate development of education and health care, a low standard of living, etc.

In the monograph N.I. Novikova gives examples of different ways of getting out of the situation [7, p. 185]. For example, based on the improvement of legislation and the achievement of free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples, on their compensation and fair distribution of profits from the use of natural resources. There is also a different vision of these problems, which is typical for part of the political and business elite - the relocation of Aboriginal people from their lands, the construction of houses in towns and cities, and the payment of compensa- tion. However, in the latter case, the assessment of the financial costs of such programs is understated, and socio-economic, cultural and psychological consequences are not calculated at all.

As noted by V.G. Loginov, A.V. Melnikov, the development of mining and forestry industries had a negative impact on the traditional economy and livelihoods of indigenous small peoples of the North, in particular:

• •    socio-economic development of indigenous people;

• •    Reproduction of renewable resources, which are the material base of traditional management and the basis for the preservation of indigenous peoples;

• •    Ecological condition of the territory [8, p. 96].

Concerning the issue under consideration, it is important to note that in the regions of the North different forms of interaction between industrial companies and indigenous peoples are offered, primarily legal ones. As practice shows, there are many unsolved problems that lead to an open confrontation. To mitigate the consequences of industrial development and / or to prevent conflicts, the standards, policies and regulations of industrial companies established in the international business community and individual companies, that is, the customary norms of customary business law, on the one hand, and the norms of the ordinary rights and other mechanisms for establishing dialogue, worked out by Aborigines, on the other. Based on the study of these norms, general standards of social and environmental policy of the activities of industrial companies in the regions of residence and traditional economic activities of the small indigenous peoples of the North can be worked out [9, p. 134].

Concerning foreign experience on the issue under consideration, it is worth mentioning the rather successful experience of the USA and Canada in solving socio-economic, ecological and ethno-cultural problems of the indigenous population. The economy of the northern territories of these countries is characterized by ambiguity. On the one hand, there is active development and production of natural resources, on the other hand, a comprehensive state policy is being implemented to support and preserve the culture and life of the indigenous population, as well as traditional nature management. In this regard, the system of socio-economic relations in the last decades undergoes a significant transformation due to the inclusion in its structure of such entities as indigenous corporations, acting because of land use agreements, environmental protection, socioeconomic development, etc. In the early 1970s the US Congress passed the Alaska Land Claims Law, which provided for the formation of indigenous corporations to receive compensation for the use of the state by lands of traditional nature use. Such corporations are now independent subjects, not only representing the interests of the local population, but also supporting its economic viability2. In the Canadian province of Quebec is a significant economic force in the corporation “Makivik” ( “The Makivik Corporation”) - ethnic corporation whose investment in-Teresa are presented in areas such as oil and gas, transportation, environmental-valued activities, etc. In 2002

was signed a tripartite agreement on the 25 years of partnership in the field of socio-economic development of the attached in 1999 to the Canadian territory Nunavik - places of compact residence of indigenous Inuit (Eskimos). The signing parties were made by the Government of the Province of Quebec, the regional authorities (The Kativik Regional Government) and the Makivik Corporation. Under this agreement, the main co-investment objects are mining, tourism, transport and social infrastructure, construction of hydroelectric power plants, the protection of nature [10, p. 58].

Next, we turn to the generalization and analysis of the results of a sociological survey conducted in 2016 on the chosen subject of the study.

Sources and methods

The survey was conducted in Surgut, Nizhnevartovsk, Nefteyugansk, Beloyarsky and Kon-dinsky districts of Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug — Ugra — in the territories where there is an active interaction between representatives of indigenous peoples and oil companies.

The main method of research is questioning. Surveys were conducted through a questionnaire survey with a visit directly to the respondents' place of residence. Terms: May — August 2016. The sample size is 375 respondents. The trust probability is 95%. Type of sample: quota with representation by age, nationality and district of residence. The head of research is Khaknazarov S.Kh. An empirical survey in the field was conducted by Dyadyun S.D., Ibraeva R.A., Gavrilchik R.M., and Ganina K.A. The processing of the results in the program for the processing of sociological information "Vortex" was carried out by the research officer of the Department of Social and Economic Development and Monitoring of the Ob-Ugrian Institute of Applied Research and Development N. Tkachuk.

The survey involved 375 respondents, of which representatives of indigenous ethnic groups — 346 people (92.3%), others — 29 (7.7%). Of the respondents, 191 (51.0%) are men, 184 (49.0%) are women (indigenous people). The age of the respondents is from 17 to 60 years and older. The main spheres of activity of the indigenous peoples of the North are the traditional economy (50.7%), the sphere of education and science (7.2%), the sphere of culture (6.1%).

Results and discussion

Because of the conducted research, the actual socio-economic problems of the territories of traditional nature management of the indigenous small-numbered peoples of the North have been identified, it was found out that most respondents (76.5%) are owners of TTP (ancestral lands, communities). 22.9% of respondents noted that they do not have a TTP, but they want to have them.

For most respondents (62.7%), TTP was officially registered, 22.7% of respondents did not do this). Most respondents (42.6%) noted that when registering a TTP they need legal assistance, primarily the North Committees (district) and local administrations should help them.

The main types of traditional economic activity are fisheries (89.7%), gathering of wild plants (78.7%), hunting (70.7%) and reindeer husbandry (43.2%). Of the traditional types of economic activity respondents receive mainly berries (86.1%), fish (82.1%), meat (63.7%) and fur (33.1%).

The main motive for engaging in traditional types of economic activity is the preservation of the way of life for the representatives of the indigenous people (74.1%). However, according to 37.1% of respondents (Table 1), TTPs cannot solve many social and economic problems.

Table 1

The main motive for traditional business activities representatives of the indigenous small-numbered peoples

Variants of answers	Number of respondents	% of respondents
Lifestyle	278	74.1
Getting pleasure	136	36.3
The main source of existence	71	18.9
I could not live in the modern world and chose the way of life of my ancestors	71	18.9
Receiving additional income	60	16.0
Receiving a profit	39	10.4
I could not adapt to the conditions of life and the non-traditional environment	18	4.8
Other	8	2.1
Difficult to answer	9	2.4
Total	375	100.0

The process of development and development of the northern regions relates to the solution of several major problems, with the creation of conditions for the preservation and development of the indigenous small-numbered peoples of the North and the adoption of the necessary measures to create living conditions and raise the living standard of the population (indigenous and new) these areas. According to the polls, the question: “How do you think the mutual relations of industrialists with the owners of patrimonial lands and the communities of the small peoples of the North are being built? ” the following answers were received (Table 2):

Table 2 Distribution of answers to the question: "How, in your opinion, should the the relationship of subsoil users with the owners of patrimonial lands of the indigenous small-numbered people? "

Variants of answer	Number of respondents	% of respondents who answered	% of all respondents*
Based on the conclusion of economic agreements	230	63.7	61.3
On a rental basis, by concluding a lease agreement	96	26.6	25.6
Other	16	4.4	4.3
Difficult to answer	59	12.5	15.7
Total	375		100.0

* The total amount exceeds 100%, because one respondent could give several answers at the same time.

As can be seen from Table 2, a significant majority of respondents (61.3%) expressed the opinion that the relationship between owners of TTPs and subsoil users should be built only on a contractual basis (meaning the conclusion of economic agreements), 25.6% of respondents believe that the relationship should to be built on a lease basis, by concluding a lease agreement between the Okrug Administration (or representatives of local administrations), subsoil users and owners of patrimonial lands. In addition, a small number of respondents in the column “Other” answered the following: I do not recognize ancestral lands (communities); I'm against the ancestral lands (communities); do not know; we do not have them; we do not know, it's useless, etc.; 15.7% of the respondents found it difficult to answer this question.

As it was mentioned above, most of oil and gas companies operating in the territory of the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug — Ugra, practice the conclusion of economic agreements (agreements) with the indigenous population on compensation for the use of sites of territories of traditional nature management. Annually, within the framework of economic agreements of indigenous peoples, which are subjects of the right of territories of traditional nature use, more than 500 million rubles are allocated, with about 80% of payments being made in the territory of the Surgut district. Compensation payments, the supply of material and technical means (snowmobiles, building materials, boat motors, overalls, etc.) and the provision of transportation services (helicopter, motor transport) play the main role in the structure of the allocated monetary funds in favor of the indigenous people.

During research, we were tasked to find out the respondents' opinion on whether economic agreements concluded between subsoil users and owners of TTPs can provide communities and compensate their costs. Responding to the relevant question, 50.7% of respondents noted that “Yes, they can”. “No, they cannot”, said 31.7% of respondents (Figure 1). 17.6% of respondents noted that the economic agreement is a mere formality for diverting the eyes.

Fig. 1. Distribution of answers to the question: “Do you think that economic agreements concluded between subsoil users and owners of patrimonial lands can provide communities and compensate their costs?”, in % [11, p. 38]

To the question: “ What are your relations with subsoil users?” (Table 3), most respondents (35.7%) answered that everything happens, 30.7% of the respondents reported that they do not contact the subsoil users at all, 24.3% answered that they cooperate with subsoil users. Only 5.6% of respondents believe that their relationship with subsoil users is conflictual.

Table 3

Distribution of the answers to the question: “What are your relations with subsoil users?”

Variants of answer	Number of respondents	% of respondents who answered	% of all respondents*
Relationships of cooperation	91	25.5	24.3
Conflict relations	21	5.9	5.6
Anything can happen	134	37.5	35.7
Absolutely not touching them	115	32.2	30.7
Difficult to answer	18		4.8
Total	375		100.0

* The total amount exceeds 100%, because one respondent could give several answers at the same time.

For comparison, we note that the results of research conducted by the employees of the Surgut State University (Surgut) and the Institute of Philosophy and Law of the SB RAS (Novosi-iskisk) show that the relationship between the traditional farm and the oil and gas complex is largely unsettled. This is evidenced by a high degree of socio-psychological tensions in this area, revealed in the sociological survey. Answers to the question: "What relations did you have with oil and gas producers, geologists?", Assigned to the owners of patrimonial lands, were distributed as follows: 18% of our respondents (owners of the patrimonial lands) characterized these relations mainly as a cooperative relationship, but 22.5% — as mostly conflict; 43.2% of owners of patrimonial grounds believe that in their relations with oil workers there is cooperation and conflict ("everything happens"); 16.2% of respondents did not give an answer to this question, since they did not come into contact with the activity of oil workers [12]. Thus, the share of individuals from the number of land owners who estimate their relations with oil industry workers as conflictual is greater than the proportion of those who evaluate these relations as mainly cooperative relations. And, one way or another, but the presence of conflict is noted by all owners of patrimonial lands in contact with the activities of the oil and gas complex.

To our question: “Have there been any cases in your life when you directly suffered from the activities of subsoil users?” most respondents (64.0%) answered negatively. It is estimated that 27.7% of respondents suffered from the activities of subsoil users (Fig. 2).

Yes

No

Other

Fig 2. Distribution of answers to the question: “Have there been any cases in your life when you directly suffered from the activities of subsoil users?”, in % [11, p. 40]

Answering the question: "If yes, please indicate what it was manifested in?" (Table 4), the respondents reported the following facts: oil spill (10.9%), river overlap (9.1%), fires (1,6%) and industrial landfills (0.5%).

Table 4

Distribution of answers to the question: “If yes, please indicate what it was manifested in?”

Variants of answer	Number of respondents	% of respondents who answered	% of all respondents
Oil spill	41	49.4	10.9
Overlapping of rivers	34	41.0	9.1
Fires	6	7.2	1.6
Industrial landfills	2	2.4	0,5
Difficult to answer	292		77.9
Total	375		100.0

One of the questions concerned the problem of further relations between owners of TTP and subsoil users. Most respondents (59.7%) believe that mutually beneficial cooperation is needed in the future. 20.0% of respondents believe that the activity of subsoil users on TTP should be limited. Only 6.9% of respondents believe that the activities of subsoil users on TTP should be completely stopped (Table 5).

Table 5

Distribution of answers to the question: “What do you think about how your relationships with subsoil users should develop in the future?”

Variants of answer	Number of respondents	% of respondents who answered	% of all respondents*
I consider that mutually advantageous cooperation is necessary	224	62.7	59.7
I think that their activities in the places of TP should be limited	75	21.0	20.0
I believe that their activities in the places of TP must be completely stopped	26	7.3	6.9
Difficult to answer	70	14.6	18.7
Total	375		100.0

During the research, it was necessary to determine the position of the indigenous representatives regarding to the recipients of receiving compensation payments under the economic agreements (Table 6).

Table 6

Distribution of answers to the question: “In your opinion, the received compensation payments under economic agreements should be sent to”:

Variants of answer	Number of respondents	% of respondents who answered	% of all respondents*
Owners of TTP (ancestral lands, communities)	310	85.2	82.7
To the indigenous inhabitants of nearby settlements	42	11.5	11.2
The indigenous inhabitants of the region	17	4.7	4.5
The indigenous inhabitants of the district	20	5.5	5.3
Difficult to answer	11		2.9
Total	375		100.0

* The total amount exceeds 100%, because one respondent could give several answers at the same time

From the data presented in Table 6, it is evident that most respondents (82.7%) believes that the received compensation payments under economic agreements should be sent to the owners of TTP (ancestral lands, communities). 11.2% of respondents think that payments should be directed to the indigenous residents of nearby settlements. Only a few (4.5% and 5.3% of respondents) agree to share payments with the indigenous residents of the district and the district, respectively.

According to V.N. Belyaev et al. [13], with the improvement of economic agreements with subsoil users, regarding payments for subsoil allocated for solving the problems of socio-economic development of small ethnic groups and ethnic groups, it is not necessary to discuss the individual shares of discussion. Or, as the researcher Yu.V. Popkov states, [14], “through economic agreements, the aborigines satisfy only the survival interests, and one can say, the survival of the individual (family-wise), but not the interests of development, the more expressing the needs of the whole ethnos as a whole”. In his opinion, the means and payments under economic agreements should not be distributed to a specific (individual) owner, but to the benefit of the entire indigenous population.

Conclusion

The results of the conducted studies show that the main motive encouraging traditional types of economic activity to be pursued by the representatives of the indigenous people is the preservation of the way of life.

Most respondents believe that the relationship between owners of TTP and subsoil users should be built only on a contractual basis (meaning the conclusion of economic agreements). More than half of respondents noted that economic agreements concluded between subsoil users and owners of TTP can partially compensate their costs and provide communities. On the other hand, a minority of the respondents demonstrate a lack of confidence in this form of relations, considering the economic agreement as an empty formality for diverting their eyes.

Most respondents report that there are disagreements in the relationship between owners of TTPs and subsoil users. However, only a small part of the re-sponsors noted that their relationship with subsoil users is conflicting. Nevertheless, a significant majority of respondents did not experience the negative impact of subsoil users. Only a minority of respondents consider themselves to be affected by their activities. As negative factors, the following is cited as an example: oil spills, fires, industrial dumps and river overlaps.

Acknowledgements and funding

The study was carried out by the Ob-Ugrian Institute of Applied Research and Development in 2016 in accordance with the agreement on cooperation between the Government of the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug-Ugra and Salym Petroleum Development NV on June 7, 2013 (No. 314/15 of 21.07.2015).