Земельное право коренных народов в Югре возникло в противовес нефтегазовому освоению и растущему отчуждению земель. Принятое в 1992 г. Положение о статусе родовых угодий расценивалось как юридическая основа для поддержки традиционного природопользования и идентичности хантов и манси. Наибольшее распространение угодья получили в центральных и восточных районах округа, где проживали ханты. В западных районах, где проживали манси, родовые угодья не получили широкого распространения, и статья объясняет причины этого дисбаланса. На примере Кондинского и Березовского районов описана экономическая и этническая обстановка, определившая отличие западных районов от восточных; показаны специфические проблемы выделения родовых угодий, разные решения администраций, отдельно разобран случай родовиков села Болчары. Современное состояние родовых угодий описано на основе наблюдений, интервью с владельцами, а также на материалах функционального зонирования территорий традиционного природопользования ХМАО-Югры. Статья характеризует юридическо-экономический контекст, в котором родовые угодья существуют четверть века, иллюстрируя постепенное выхолащивание изначальной идеи из-за изменений законодательства. Показано расхождение между концепцией традиционного природопользования как задачи по самообеспечению индигенных домохозяйств и реалиями рыночной экономики, которые требуют ведения товарного хозяйства или внешних источников дохода. Родовые угодья стали дорогим инвестиционным проектом с непонятным целеполаганием. Большая часть наследственных владельцев не может или не знает, как использовать земли.
The special land law for indigenous peoples of Yugra was written in 1992 and became a counterweight to the development of the oil and gas industry and the growing alienation of natural land. As early as 1989, a third of the Okrug’s territory was reserved for indigenous land management. The «Regulation about the status of family lands in the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug» defined ‘rodovye ugod’ya‘ (family lands) as a natural-territorial complex where indigenous people have historically led a traditional life. Family lands were regarded as the basis for traditional nature management, and a space for preserving the original culture. By 1999, 465 family lands had been allocated, taking up half of the Surgut and Nefteyugansk districts and a quarter of the Nizhnevartovsk district. These were the lands of the historical residence of the Hanty. In the west of Yugra, in the Kondinsky and Berezovsky districts (where the Mansi mostly lived), the family lands occupied 3.3 and 16.4% of the area. The article analyzes what caused the disproportions. On the example of the Kondinsky and Berezovsky districts, the economic and ethnic situation that determined the difference between the western and eastern parts is described. I mark the specific problems of allocating ancestral lands, the special decisions of the administrations, and the case of five family lands from the Bolchary village is separately analyzed. In 2001, the Regulation on Family Lands was absorbed by the Federal law on Territories of Traditional Nature Use. The article describes the difficulties that arose during the change of jurisdiction and discusses the disputed status of the owners (ex-rodoviki). The final legal status was obtained only after the functional zoning of the territories of traditional nature use (ex-family lands) in 2015. The result of the work was a set of special maps showing the exact boundaries, the size of forage and pasture zones, and the number of indigenous people permanently residing on the land. These data showed that in the western regions of the KhMAO-Yugra, the family lands did not fulfill their original task of creating reserves for original culture and traditional nature management. In 2014, less than 0.5% of the indigenous population lived permanently on family lands, and their contribution to the traditional economy was insignificant. The article uses specific examples to analyze the reasons why the concept of traditional nature management turned out to be inoperable. The differences between the concept of traditional nature management created by the state and the realities of the existence of ancestral lands are shown.
SUBJECTS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGAL SUPPORT IDENTIFICATION OF CHILDREN SEPARATED WITH FAMILY IN UKRAINE
