Feedback Anti-Discrimination Centre Memorial starts a series of podcasts “Indigenous peoples’ Rights to Land, Resources, and a Healthy Environment,” on the rights of Indigenous peoples. The first episode is dedicated to the environmental rights of Indigenous peoples.
Indigenous peoples practicing a traditional way of life have a special connection with the territories of their residence, with the surrounding nature – forests, rivers, steppes or tundra. The ancestral territories of Indigenous peoples serve not just as a place of residence, but form the basis of their identity and well-being. The land, flora, and wildlife are part of their worldview and spirituality, a place for conducting traditional economic activities, preserving culture, and passing cultural heritage on to future generations. Separated from their traditional territories, Indigenous peoples are vulnerable to assimilation and loss of identity and culture. That is why the special collective right of Indigenous peoples to lands, territories and resources is fundamental and protected by international legislation.
The problems of violation of the environmental rights of the Indigenous peoples of Russia are discussed by the experts:
- Yana Tannagasheva, representative of the Shor Indigenous people, activist of the International Committee of Indigenous Peoples of Russia (ICIPR)
- Maxim Olenichev, a Human Rights lawyer experienced in defending the right of Indigenous communities to land
- Olga Abramenko, expert of ADC Memorial
Sound design: Ostap Kukhar
Listen and subscribe on the platforms:
Text version of the podcast
Even back in Soviet times, coal-mining enterprises were barbarically destroying the land that is home to two indigenous peoples: the Shors of Kuzbass and the Aleuts of the Belovsky District. Life for these two indigenous groups is now very sad. This is a sad story. People are leaving the region. And who is left? The indigenous people who continue to live on their territory, on lands that have already been destroyed. These people, who have always lived, and WILL always live on this territory, now find themselves in the middle of a lunar-type landscape, where fishing is no longer possible. The taiga has been destroyed, and the open-pit coal mining operations have resulted in a mass migration of the indigenous animal populations. They have been frightened off by the explosions. That means hunting is no longer possible. Meanwhile, all of the natural crops are completely contaminated with coal dust. And in the midst of this apocalypse, people are struggling just to survive.
Indigenous peoples perceive their environment differently. They don’t regard it as a resource, but as an integral part of their lives. For them, the land, the forests, the lakes and rivers, and the creatures that inhabit them are more like partners than resources in the conventional sense.
Of course, tangible or visible losses can be calculated on a calculator. But how do you evaluate or even start to comprehend the cost, when a people so closely connected to their environment landscape loses their culture? How can you measure this kind of damage? How do you evaluate what is a crime against humanity, when the entire world of a group of people simply vanishes? You cannot put a cost on this. These are things that simply cannot be calculated on a calculator.
Hello, dear friends. You’re listening to the latest podcast from the Anti-Discrimination Center “Memorial”. In this edition we’re going to be talking about the rights of indigenous peoples, about their right to preserve their traditional way of life on their ancestral lands,and their right to self-determination, to preserve their own culture and language.
I’m Olga Abramenko, and I work for the Memorial Foundation. In today’s podcast we’re focusing on the environmental rights of indigenous peoples, their right to land, resources and a favourable environment.
First, let me introduce my fellow podcasters: Yana Tannagasheva, an activist who represents the Shor, an indigenous people from Southern Siberia, and one of the founders and activists of the International Committee of Indigenous Peoples of Russia. Good afternoon, Yana.
– Hello.
And we also have with us human rights lawyer Maxim Olenichev, who has experience in the field of environmental rights protection. Good afternoon, Maxim.
– Good afternoon.
Yana, you might remember that a long time back we met in Geneva, where learned about the problems being faced by the village of Kazas. And this is a very significant case for us, because we managed to bring to the attention of the international community how the people of this village in Southern Siberia were being victimised by a predatory coal-mining company.
- Yana Tannagasheva tells about the case of the Shor village of Kazas
That’s right Olga, that was almost 10 years ago. But the Kazas case goes back much further than that, much earlier than 2012.
Even back in Soviet times, coal-mining enterprises were barbarically destroying the land that is home to two indigenous peoples: the Shors of Kuzbass and the Aleuts of the Belovsky District. Life for these two indigenous groups is now very sad. This is a sad story.
There is little data available on what is happening from the indigenous peoples themselves. And when the people decide to go against the system, against the State and against the companies, the forces are not equal, and it is not easy, but only when they decide to speak up for their rights, for justice, for their traditional way of life, only then will the public and the international community learn about what is happening. The story of Kazas became known at international level when a coal-mining company began open-pit mining operations near the village. This is an ancient land it’s my ancestral village, it’s where my parents are from. When it became completely impossible to continue leading a traditional way of life; when hunting, fishing and foraging for wild plants all became impossible because the traditional lands were being destroyed. It was at that moment that we, not even as activists, but simply as a group of people, residents of this village, decided to stand up against the system. That’s probably when the story gained recognition as a powerful and painful example of the harsh Russian realities.
For the benefit of those who are maybe hearing about Kazas for the first time, let me give a bit of background. In 2012, a coal-mining company began buying up houses, threatening the residents of the village and warning them that something could happen to their homes. Many of the people living in this territory work for the mining companies themselves, since this is a mining region, so a lot of them are miners, or have family members who are. So, of course, it’s difficult for them to stand up to them. As I said, these are completely unequal forces. Many of the Shor people in the village sold their houses for next to nothing. Almost all the houses were sold to the coal-mining company, with the exception of just five, whose owners refused. They demanded free access to their land, free access to the village, to the cemetery where their ancestors are buried. That’s when the conflict began – back in 2012. And it continues to this day. It has been a bitter experience.
We went to the UN and received concluding observations from the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. It was the first time in history that the UN Committee had considered a case at this level and published concluding observations regarding the Russian State. It was a landmark ruling. But despite the international condemnation, Russia continues to simply ignore our rights, it has ignored the concluding observations and continues to put pressure on the local population and on the activists. And it means that if the people do not protest, do not talk openly about what’s happening on their land, on their land – their traditional homeland – then no-one will know what’s happening at grassroots level in the regions.
But that is becoming more and more difficult in the current climate. The war in Ukraine means many of the international environmental organizations that previously helped indigenous communities have now left Russia. So the indigenous peoples of the North, of Siberia and in the Far East have basically been left to fend for themselves against this machine, and are having to take on the system alone.
I would like to add that the repression of environmental organizations began long before the war in Ukraine, when the legislation on foreign agents and undesirable organizations came into force. This had serious negative consequences for the environmental organizations that were associated with the agenda of the indigenous peoples and their traditional homelands.
Yana do you think the sanctions that the international community is applying against Russian companies because of the war have resulted in any improvement in terms of environmental rights?
- Indigenous peoples in the context of the war unleashed by the Russian Federation in Ukraine; criminal prosecution of activists
Of course not! The situation in Russia is only getting worse. As I already said, the international organizations that helped indigenous communities have left Russia. Now indigenous peoples are dealing with this injustice alone. And the sanctions have definitely made the situation worse. We see this in my region: the coal mining is focused on the export market, but now they are looking to the east, to China and India. And we, as indigenous people and as environmental activists, have been saying for many years that we can’t focus only on coal in our region. As we discussed yesterday we need to develop an alternative economy. This needs to be the focus of all the demonstrations and protests. We cannot invest everything in coal. At some point it will no longer be needed. As a dirty fuel, the world will not need it. Today China, which used to buy coal from Kuzbass, now has its own coal, and it also needs to export it somewhere. So in recent months we have been seeing a crisis in Kuzbass. The situation is naturally having a huge impact on the region’s economy, and on the overall mood of the local population. People are leaving the region in numbers. And who is left? Indigenous people who remain on their territory, on lands that have already been destroyed. These people, who have always lived, and WILL always live on this territory, now find themselves in the middle of a lunar-type landscape, where fishing is no longer possible. The taiga has been destroyed, and the open-pit coal mining operations have resulted in a mass migration of the indigenous animal populations. They have been frightened off by the explosions. That means hunting is no longer possible. Meanwhile, all of the natural crops are completely contaminated with coal dust. And in the midst of this apocalyptic nightmare, people are struggling just to survive.
We’re currently seeing that the State is tightening restrictions and intensifying repressive measures, tightening the screws so that indigenous activists do not, as they say, air their dirty linen in public. When we spoke at the UN, they told us: “If you air your dirty linen in public, we can come to an agreement on the spot.” But they have failed to do that! For example, when the UN session considered the Kazas case, we asked them to initiate a dialogue, an open three-way dialogue between government representatives, indigenous peoples and representatives of the coal-mining company. They promised to do this, but they didn’t follow through. We returned to Russia after the UN session, and they ramped up the repressive measures against us. Total surveillance, threats, police warrants and so on. We were warned that a range of criminal and administrative charges would be brought against us. The repressive actions have been intensifying since the beginning of the war. Last year indigenous organizations were included on the Russia’s list of extremists and terrorists. This also prevents us from continuing our activities, from speaking out openly. Anyone who has been included on these lists can no longer speak out openly. That’s been the case for most of the indigenous movements from the autonomous national republics. Our organization, the International Committee of Indigenous Peoples of Russia, was also included on the list. But we are all based outside of Russia, living in exile, and we can bypass Russia at the international level. The sad thing is that the Aboriginal Forum that unites communities and grassroots organizations of indigenous peoples in the regions, was also included in this list. They need help, and it’s becoming increasingly difficult to get information from the ground. So both repressive measures and the sanctions and, of course, the war in Ukraine have all had a negative impact on the situation faced by indigenous peoples.
These criminal prosecutions that Yana is talking about, which are a consequence of indigenous organizations being included on the list of extremists, and terrorists, quite simply deny them the opportunity to participate in public life. Implementing Russian Federation legislation and decisions relating to indigenous peoples’ ability to assert their rights when interacting with government agencies or companies, and on participating in public discussions, is turning out to be impossible. And if we look at this in terms of traditional economics, then this essentially means that any attempts to assert their position in negotiations with mining companies and government agencies can actually result in prosecution and loss of the rights granted to them under the laws for indigenous peoples.
But even if we leave aside the problem of criminalization -and this has, of course, been extremely sensitive since the start of Russia’s war against Ukraine – we are seeing that even those areas of Russian legislation that do provide some opportunities to protect the rights of indigenous peoples are often not observed.
- Maxim Olenichev tells about the experience of defending the land rights of indigenous communities
Olga, let me interrupt you here for a moment. I’d like to tell you about several successful cases. There have been very few of them in Russia, you can literally count them on the fingers of one hand, but there are still examples where the rights of indigenous peoples have been successfully protected. The industrial companies often try to seize the lands occupied by indigenous peoples. We know this from the story of the Shors and other indigenous peoples, whose lands are invaded by mining companies. In such cases, the existing legislation doesn’t protect indigenous peoples.
The legislation on support for indigenous peoples actually states the following: if it is necessary to seize land for State or municipal needs, then the occupants are simply paid compensation. That is to say, in fact,they they simply apply the standardgeneral procedure for seizure that currently exists in the Russian Federation is simply applied.
And here I would like to give an example when, for the first time in Russian judicial practice, we managed to achieve recognition thatof the seizure of land for open-pit coal mining wasas illegal. Precisely on the grounds thatbecause there there was no proven statestate need for it!
- The residents in Mencherep opposed the mining company’s plans to seize their land
In 2017, in the village of Mencherep in Kemerovo region, one of the coal-mining companies decided to seize agricultural land so it could begin open-pit coal mining. The Kemerovo region is basically a huge quarry for open-pit coal mining. They mine the coal by simply cutting into the soil in the open to reach the required depth. That means huge slag heaps – artificial mountains – are created nearby. When I went there for the first time in winter for the court case that we lodged in Novokuznetsk, I was surprised to see that the snow wasn’t white like in the European part of Russia. It was gray. When I arrived in the city of Belovo, where we had another court case in 2017-2018, the snow wasn’t even gray any more, but black. Open-pit coal mining produces a lot of pollutants. It produces coal dust. And everyone in the area uses coal for heating, so there is coal dust everywhere you look.
The residents in Mencherep opposed the mining company’s plans to seize their land. Their entire way of life was under threat; the mining company threatened to destroy the infrastructure of the village and the surrounding area. The company said: ‘Look, you have agricultural land, but we want to seize it from you because it’s needed by the State. We will destroy the agricultural land and begin open-pit mining, like the dozens of other quarries in the area’. In fact, there are abandoned quarries which still contain coal, but the mining companies consider it unprofitable to continue working them, because it makes the whole process more expensive. So we decided to file an administrative case in court.
The procedure that enables a coal-mining company to seize land works like this: firstly, the State draws up a framework to develop a particular industry. For example, there is a program for the development of the coal industry. And there are deposits under these agricultural lands and villages that have already been explored. The Ministry of Natural Resources then issues an order to seize land from private individuals on the basis that it is needed by the State. And so what happens next? The State doesn’t mine the coal itself, it issues a license to a private company granting the right to develop a particular site. So, for the most part, land is confiscated from private owners so that private companies can profit. Our court case was heard in the Kemerovo district court and lasted six months. We presented various arguments in defence of the land owners. But the key issue was the one regarding the State’s need for the land. There is no legal definition of what constitutes ‘the needs of the State’ in Russian law. But in 2013 the Supreme Court ruled that it’s necessary to weigh up the balance of public and private interests. And we managed to prove that the seizure of land from private owners by the State is not about meeting the needs of the State. Firstly because there are dozens of similar quarries nearby, including abandoned ones, where there is still coal that can be mined. The mining companies simply do not want to invest in the development of these resources. And secondly, we spoke about the fact that these agricultural lands are used by the local residents to grow crops, for livestock farming and so on. Since these lands are essential to the livelihood of the local population, it would be unlawful to deprive them of their use. And the judge ruled in our favor. He determined that the State’s four orders to seize plots of land were illegal.
The mining company, which had lost its source of profit, duly appealed to the Kemerovo Regional Court, which duly overturned the decision. But meanwhile, the local residents got organised. They did everything possible: they wrote to everyone you can imagine, they staged rallies, they organised road blocks! The whole works! And because we took the case to court, and because the local residents refused to give up, we got result we hoped for. Rosnedra eventually revoked the company’s license, and now these lands are protected.
Now, of course, since the start of the war, the situation has changed, because the Russian authorities refuse to accept alternative points of view. One of the consequences of this has been the inclusion of many indigenous organizations on the list of terrorist organizations. The States is becoming increasingly centralized and intolerant of any alternative points of view. The State decides and that is final.
- The protests in Bashkortostan in defense of Mount Kushtau
I think here it’s important to mention other cases that took place at the time of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2021 and 2023. For example there were the protests in Bashkortostan in defense of Mount Kushtau. This produced a typical clash between different cultural models. On the one hand, there is the model of interaction with the environment of the indigenous people of Bashkortostan. For them, the mountain consists of four entities, which represent the four legs of the Bashkir people. And if they are destroyed, then the identity of the Bashkir people will disappear, because they will lose their spiritual support. And on the other hand, you have the Russian authorities, who saw it as just another mountain, a source of raw material to be developed for the Bashkir Soda Company. This was the position of both the regional and federal authorities. And so of course the people came out in protest. Because when the mountain itself represents something of such special spiritual significance to the people they are going to mobilize and protest. A part of their identity was being threatened. And, in the end, the authorities backed down.
But in this case, they also used the law to win their battle. In 2019, the Bashkir Soda Company was given a license to develop minerals. That led to large protests. In 2020, the regional authorities declared the mountain a natural monument of regional significance. But the Bashkir Soda Company said that this wouldn’t prevent them going ahead: “We will continue to cut down the nearby forest and destroy this mountain,” they said. And then the various organizations representing the Bashkir people joined forces, they united and filed a lawsuit in the arbitration court. And the court eventually banned the Bashkir Soda Company from carrying out mineral development activities. It based its decision on the fact that the regional authorities had declared the mountain a natural monument, and that the development project contravened the legislation on specially protected natural areas.
- Case in Khakassia
A third example is Khakassia, where there were also plans to develop minerals, and where the interests of indigenous peoples were completely disregarded. Like elsewhere there were also campaigns and lawsuits filed. When the court of first instance rejected their lawsuit for the protection of the environment, those who went to court refused to lose heart. Instead they filed an appeal. And the appeal court reversed the original decision. The cassation body then upheld the appeal court’s ruling.
But again, there was no actual reference to the interests of indigenous peoples. The focus was on the fact that the planning documents didn’t provide for the development of agricultural lands.
So, practical experience shows that in all these ultimately successful cases the legislation on indigenous peoples was not actually applied. Unfortunately Russian courts do not accept these arguments..
And on the other hand, our legislation is quite complicated and underdeveloped in this area. So we have to look for other ways to protect our own interests: either environmental legislation or urban planning legislation, neither of which have any direct relation to indigenous peoples.
- Territories protected for traditional use by indigenous peoples
Another problem is that while, under the law, there are territories protected for traditional use by indigenous peoples, the systems and procedures for establishing them are the remit of the federal, regional or local authorities. And the reason very few of these territories exist is because the authorities only approve them at their political discretion.
A good example is the Nenets Autonomous Okrug. Several areas designated for traditional use were created there, but the boundaries were not clearly defined, and these areas were not included on the cadastral register. In 2016, the prosecutor’s office applied to the court and ordered the local authorities establish clear boundaries and record them on cadastral register. This was a fairly successful outcome. But it was also an example of the State deciding to protect the indigenous peoples. In other words, the approach was rather paternalistic. If the indigenous peoples had gone to court themselves I don’t think they would have had a chance of winning this case, because of the way the Russian judicial system is structured.
More recently, in 2023 when several organizations went to court with a demand to consider their appeal for the creation of a specially protected natural area, because the local authorities weren’t doing anything about this area. Of course the court came up with an argument not to protect the rights of indigenous peoples. It basically said: yes, you submitted an appeal, and you have the right by law to initiate the organization of this specially protected natural area. But the procedure for this process has not yet been established at federal level. So until the authorities refuse to organize this area, your rights have not been violated. Wait until the zone has been organized. This is how the judicial authorities assess the interests of indigenous peoples when it comes to land rights.
Thanks very much, Maxim. That’s very interesting. I think the examples you mention are very important. In particular, here we’ve got an indigenous people who are on the list of small peoples and who supposedly have additional rights under Russian law. But even these groups can’t can’t get justice when it comes to their land. And what about those peoples who number more than 50,000 people for whom this special legislation doesn’t apply at all? Like those in Khakassia and Bashkortostan. We are now seeing some heroic efforts by these groups to preserve their own environment and these generally come with huge sacrifices. People have died during the protests. And activists in Bashkortostan are now being subjected to a raft of repressive measures; many have been forced to emigrate. Of course, in these conditions, you are right that it’s difficult to secure protection for the rights of indigenous peoples to preserve these natural, historically formed environments that have taken shape through the ages.
Take the Shors for example. Their traditional homelands in Khakassia have official status. But even so, if a gold mining company comes along and it already has a license to work these territories, what happens? In the age of modern communications, it’s easy to imagine there will be some kind of public meeting, where the locals meet with the gold miners, who have arrived with their license and who say: “Look, we’re already here anyway, so if you agree, we’ll give you some compensation, maybe we’ll build a road, or maybe we’ll build a village club, or pay for some other improvements for you.” In other words they will try to persuade the local residents to hand over their land, having already secured a gold mining license.
They are basically violating every procedure, even the ones provided for under Russian law.
- The fundamental principle of free, prior, and informed consent
That’s absolutely right Olga! Your last example shows it’s important to remember about free, prior, informed consent, which is enshrined in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The State claims that if it has already issued licenses to industrial enterprises, then this prior consent has already been received. In fact, the indigenous people have the right to decide whether or not to consent to mining on their territory BEFORE a project commences, and before the license is issued.
And this means that prior consent must be given freely, without pressure, without threats and, above all, without bribery. The State often uses a variety of ways to bribe the indigenous population: Sponsors’ festivals, costumes and so on. This is precisely what they tried to do with my people. But “prior” means that consent must be given before any project begins. “Informed” means that the indigenous people must receive comprehensive and understandable information about what will be mined, where and when, and also what the consequences will be for their lives, for the people and for the environment. And any consent must be given voluntarily, by the whole community, and must respect their right to self-government in their territory if it exists. Unfortunately, we Shors have no self-government.
- The procedure for the seizure of land and a ridiculously small amount of compensation
Thank you very much, Yana.I’d also like us to look at the procedure for the seizure of land that is allegedly needed by the State, but is in fact forthe benefit of private companies. We have come up against this in course of our work. Evaluations of how much a piece of land plot is worth are usually carried out by companies affiliated with the mining company. Anyone who built a house but did not register it as a piece of real estate is awarded a ridiculously small amount of compensation. They can’t buy anything for this money in the neighboring village. Compensation was set at 100-150 thousand rubles per head, and infor some cases as low as 50 thousand. This is ridiculous.
But when big business arrives on the lands of indigenous peoples, the playing field isn’t a level one. A large company, can afford to hire surveyors that will produce reports that will be more beneficial to them than to those whose land is being confiscated. So then comes the court battle. One case is brought by the industrial company itself. Another by an individual person who will have to pay for survey at his own expense. And that can cost 100,000 or 150,000 rubles. The court will also commission its own evaluation. And so we get a battle between the various appraisals, which may not produce a great result.
This is the first point. The second is that although Russian legislation cites the need to compensate the indigenous people for damage caused by industrial activities, in practice the amounts paid out are fairly laughable.
Not long ago in the Nenets Autonomous Okrug, the lands of a tribal community of 26 people were flooded with oil. The manufacturing company paid out six million rubles. That equated to a pretty derisory amount per person – something like 150,000. This in no way covers the damage to the environment and to the indigenous people’s traditional way of life.
And here we see the complete absence of any methods for fully calculating all aspects of the damage. Generally, certain direct losses are taken into account, but they don’t take into account the fact that it will take a long time to restore the environment.
Of course, the rules of the game themselves need to be changed, and the existing legislation needs to be applied differently. There are some legal points that can help indigenous peoples protect their rights. But it all comes down to political will and how the courts apply these laws. In our practice, we do see a very small number cases where rights are being protected. These are important to help ensure spirits aren’t broken, and that people are aware of what is in their best interests. But, on the other hand, the reality is that there are many barriers along the way, and, unfortunately, the legal protections aren’t always implemented. This is because the courts come up with interpretations of the legislation that were not included in the original laws themselves.
- The precedent for other Shor community representatives
Thank you, Maxim. It’s very important to mention these positive examples. We do need to hear about them. Another similar case actually concerns my own husband. And it set a precedent for other Shor community representatives. My husband knew that the Shors do not have to pay land tax. We had a plot of 10-15 acres, and we didn’t pay tax on it. The tax authorities filed a lawsuit against him, but he won his case, since he is a Shor. But he had to jump through a lot of bureaucratic hoops. It took so much time and effort! In court, he firstly had to prove his identity, his nationality. His Russian passport makes absolutely no reference to this. So he had to provide various documents, birth certificates, marriage certificates, where his nationality and mine were indicated. And thanks to these documents, he was able to prove that he was a Shorian, and cited the relevant legislative articles, so he won his case and didn’t have to pay taxes. And this set a precedent. After that several other people from our region also won their cases in the courts; but not everyone is willing or able to go through these bureaucratic hurdles. It’s very difficult.
The same thing is happening in the Far East today with the fishing quotas. What we’re seeing there is terrible. Because of all this bureaucracy, people have been forced to become poachers on their own land, and end up facing criminal charges. This is done deliberately, intentionally by the State so that people will move to the cities or simply die off.
I would also like to add that, of course, a formal assessment, when some direct losses are calculated on a calculator, refers to some visible things. But how can we evaluate, how can we understand the price, when a people closely connected to their landscape loses their culture? How can we evaluate this damage? How can we evaluate this crime against all humanity, when the entire worldview of a specific people disappears? All this has no price. These are things thatwhich you can’t calculate on a calculator.
Dear friends, I’d like thank you for today’s discussion. In conclusion I want to say that, despite the repressions, despite the terrible situation in Russia and the fact that it is waging a criminal war against Ukraine, where indigenous peoples are among those being killed – despite all this, we must carry on with our human rights work and use whatever international instruments and mechanisms for protecting the rights of indigenous peoples that we still have available to us. The views of independent indigenous activists, even if they are now being forced to leave, are being heard at the international level. And we must do everything possible to use these mechanisms and tools.
This is where we have to end it for today. Next time we’ll be talking about the cultural rights of indigenous peoples, education and academic freedom. Many thanks to my fellow participants and, of course, thank you all for listening.
This podcast was brought to you by the Anti-Discrimination Center “Memorial”.
Please remember to keep tuning in for future episodes!