The Difference Place Makes: Regional Legislative Approaches to Territories of Traditional Nature Use in the Russian North

Gail Fondahl,Viktoriya Filippova,Antonina Savvinova,Nicholas Parlato

doi:10.23865/arctic.v12.2790

Abstract

Indigenous northerners’ rights in the Russian Federation are legally protected at a range of levels (federal, regional, municipal), and by a diversity of types of legal acts (laws, decrees, orders, provisions). Within the complex structure of Russian federalism, the country’s regional governments elaborate upon federal laws in diverse ways and at different times. This article explores regional approaches to legislating one law on Indigenous rights, that of “Territory of Traditional Nature-Use” (territoriya traditsionnogo prirodopol’zovaniya) (TTP), identified by Indigenous leaders as the most important legal-territorial designation for protecting Indigenous livelihoods and cultures. While it is well known that legal strategies of the Russian state toward Indigenous territorial rights differ markedly from those of other Circumpolar countries, less appreciated are the ways in which these vary across space within Russia. We assert that the spatial informs the legal, documenting several illustrative approaches that regions have taken in legislating TTPs. In doing so, we demonstrate how a federal law initiative is interpreted and reimagined in place, giving rise to the potential for substantively different spatial outcomes for Indigenous persons and peoples seeking to actualize their rights to territory.

Highlights

Indigenous northerners have repeatedly emphasized the importance of law as pivotal to the institutionalization of Indigenous rights, including territorial rights, despite the imperfect protection it often provides, and have continually worked for the adoption of laws at the federal and regional level.[1]
Using the Russian government’s legislative data base, we identified the active and repealed legislation for each region inhabited by Indigenous northerners.[17]
To better exemplify the diversity of approaches and timing of the legal protection of Indigenous rights, we provide a more detailed account of five regions: Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug-Yugra (KMAO), Sakha Republic (Yakutia) (SR(Y)), Nenets Autonomous Okrug (NAO), Khabarovsk Kray, and Zabaykal Kray (Figure 1).These regions’ locations stretch from European Russia (NAO) to the Pacific seaboard (Khabarovsk Kray).The first three are ‘ethnoterritorial units’, established during the Soviet period to recognize the Indigenous group(s)[20] of the territory – the Khanty and Mansi, Sakha (Yakut), and Nenets, respectively; Khabarovsk Kray and Zabaykal Kray are not

Summary

Introduction

Indigenous northerners have repeatedly emphasized the importance of law as pivotal to the institutionalization of Indigenous rights, including territorial rights, despite the imperfect protection it often provides, and have continually worked for the adoption of laws at the federal and regional level.[1]. Much of the available literature in English on Indigenous rights in the Russian Federation, including territorial rights, focuses predominately on federal legislation.[2] Within the complex structure of Russian federalism, the country’s regional governments elaborate upon framework federal laws in their own diverse legislation, leading to a variegated legal landscape of rights, protections, and borders for Indigenous northerners. To demonstrate this complexity, this article explores regional approaches to legislating one form of Indigenous territorial rights, the “Territory of Traditional Nature-Use” (territoriya traditsionnogo prirodopol’zovaniya, or TTP). Further studies are critically needed to understand how these legislative differences translate into implementation and experiences in place

Objectives

Methods

Findings

Conclusion