Administration's

Document Sample
Administration's Powered By Docstoc
					A-PDF Watermark DEMO: Purchase from www.A-PDF.com to remove the watermark




                             SAKHALIN ENERGY
                            INVESTMENT COMPANY
               SAKHALIN INDIGENOUS MINORITIES
                      DEVELOPMENT PLAN




                       MIDTERM REVIEW REPORT
                                   January 2009




        Gregory Eliyu Guldin, Midterm Review Team Chair
        Cross-Cultural Consulting Services, USA
        Antonina Ya. Nachetkina, Independent Expert,
        Sakhalin Indigenous Minorities
        Alexander T. Konkov, Head, Sociology Department
        Sakhalin State University
SIMDP Midterm Review Report
January 2009
Table of Contents
ABBREVIATIONS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ iii
REPORT ................................................................................................................................ 1
I. OVERVIEW................................................................................................................................... 1
     1. Introduction……………………. ....................................................................................................................... 1
     2. Midterm Review Report Objectives, Methodology, and Authorship ............................................................... 1
     3. SIMDP Overview Through Year Three (A.Ya. Nachetkina) ............................................................................ 3
II. SIMDP PARTNERS’ EVALUATION OF THE SIMDP ................................................................................... 6
     1. Indigenous Peoples .................................................................................................................................. 6
     2. Survey of Indigenous Awareness of and Attitudes Towards the SIMDP (A.T. Konkov) ................................... 8
     3. The Sakhalin Oblast Administration and Regional Administrations ............................................................. 13
     4. Sakhalin Energy Investment Company...................................................................................................... 14
     5. The Midterm Review Team ..................................................................................................................... 16
III. MITIGATION MEASURES .............................................................................................................. 20
IV. SIMDP BENEFITS ..................................................................................................................... 21
     1. Overview …………………….. ....................................................................................................................... 21
     2. Social Development Program ................................................................................................................... 21
     3. Mini-Grant Fund…….. .............................................................................................................................. 23
     4. TEASP…………….. .................................................................................................................................... 25
V. GOVERNANCE ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................. 28
     1. The Three-way Partnership ...................................................................................................................... 28
     2. Committees/governing bodies ......................................................................................... 29
     3. Information Disclosure ........................................................................................................................... 30
     4. Monitoring…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..33
VI. SIMDP Future Issues.............................................................................................................. 34
     1. External Monitor Reviews ........................................................................................................................ 34
     2. Plan Completion Evaluation ............................................................................................ 34
     3. SIMDP II ……………………. ........................................................................................................................ 34

Annex 1: Recommendations Allocated in Action Matrices for Responsible Parties……………………………36
Annex 2: Report on Results of Survey of Indigenous Minority Population Relating to SIMDP (A.T.
Konkov) .................................................................................................................................... 50
SIMDP Midterm Review Report
January 2009

Abbreviations
EBRD     European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
EC       Executive Committee
EM       External Monitor
MGF      Mini-Grant Fund
MM       Mitigation Matrix
MRT      Midterm Review Team
MTR      Midterm Review
RAIPON   Russian Association of the Indigenous Peoples of
         the North, Siberia and the Far East of the Russian Federation
RCAR     Regional Council of the Authorized Representatives of the
         Indigenous Minorities of the North of Sakhalin
SB       Supervisory Board
SDP      Social Development Program
SEIC     Sakhalin Energy Investment Company, Ltd
SIMDP    Sakhalin Indigenous Minorities Development Plan
SOA      Sakhalin Oblast Administration
TEASP    Traditional Economic Activities Program
Executive Summary
I. Overview

This report is the Midterm Review Report (MTR) of the Sakhalin Indigenous Minorities
Development Plan (SIMDP). This review covers Years One to Three (June 2006-
December 2008) of the Plan, which will last through Year Five’s conclusion in December
2010. It comes mid-way in a series of semi-annual External Monitor Review Reports
begun in December 2006.


Midterm Review Report Objectives, Methodology, and Authorship

Objectives. The Midterm Review aimed at assessing the effectiveness of the SIMDP in
meeting its objectives of i) avoiding or mitigating negative effects caused by the
facilities construction and planned operation of the Project, ii) improving the lives and
livelihoods of the Indigenous Minorities of Sakhalin, and iii) enhancing the capacity of
indigenous communities to actively participate in the management of the SIMDP and
similar community development strategies. In addition, the MTR was tasked with
making recommendations, as appropriate, for SIMDP governance changes for its
concluding two years.

Methodology. Three people comprised a Midterm Review Team (MRT): the Plan’s
previously appointed External Monitor (EM), Gregory Guldin, as well as two others were
mutually agreed upon by SEIC, the Indigenous Peoples as represented by the Regional
Council of the Authorized Representatives of the Indigenous Minorities of the North of
Sakhalin (RCAR), and the Sakhalin Oblast Administration’s Indigenous Peoples
Department. All three members of the MTR were selected because of their
independence and lack of a role in implementing the SIMDP. Antonina Nachetkina, an
experienced, knowledgeable, and respected indigenous leader with rich experience in
government and community affairs, was nominated by the RCAR and accepted by the
Company to serve as the indigenous representative on the Midterm Review Team and
to provide a distinctly indigenous voice in the MTR’s analysis. Professor Alexander
Konkov, Chair of the Sociology Department at Sakhalin State University and an
acknowledged expert on survey methodology, was selected to round out the team and
to prepare, oversee, and analyze a survey reviewing the awareness of the SIMDP and
opinions toward the Plan by the Island’s Indigenous Minorities.

The survey was carried out between 3-10 December 2008 in the indigenous
communities of Nekrasovka, Val, Nogliki, and Poronaysk. A five percent sampling
technique was used, resulting in interviews being conducted with 115 individuals of the
island’s 2225 indigenous population. Results of the survey in summary form are given
below in this Report in the sections on indigenous perceptions of the plan and
information disclosure, while the entire survey is attached to this Report as well as
Annex 2.

The EM visited the island between 15 and 29 December, 2008, attending governance
body meetings in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, and then—accompanied by Ms. Nachetkina--
visited the indigenous communities of Poronaysk, Val, and Nogliki. SEIC’s Indigenous
Peoples Unit shared key documents with the Dr. Guldin and Ms. Nachetkina (most
importantly, the Company’s SIMDP Semi-Annual Reports, updates on the Mitigation
Matrix, and committee meeting minutes) and arranged a series of meetings with key
stakeholders. The MTR will disband after this Report will be issued.

SIMDP Overview through Year Three (A. Ya. Nachetkina)

During this Midterm Review the indigenous representatives of Sakhalin expressed their
sincere thanks to all the participants of the Tripartite Agreement and to the regional
administrations for their support and assistance in the implementation of Plan activities.

From the very beginning of their engagement with the Plan, indigenous representatives
were immediate participants of preparing the SIMDP and other regulatory documents
guiding the implementation of the Plan. To prepare the Development Plan, in 2006 SEIC
established an Indigenous Peoples Subdivision under the guidance of the External
Affairs Department of SEIC, which included three indigenous representatives. In
addition, other departments of SEIC are taking part in the implementation of the
Development Plan. In accordance with the Plan, the indigenous minorities constitute the
overwhelming majority in all the governance committees of the Development Plan,
while on the MGF committee they fill all the slots.

According to SEIC reports, by 1 December 2008, 157 out of 173 planned projects were
implemented. The total sum amounted to 20,906,208 rubles, against the planned sum
of 23,453,783 rubles, or 89.1%, including:

      •    the SDP: out of 66 projects, 65 were financed amounting to 10,388,454
           rubles, or 100,01%;
      •    the MGF: out of 54 planned projects, 52 projects were financed amounting
           to 2,255,100 rubles, or 98%;
      •    the TEASP: out of 53 planned projects, 39 projects were financed,
           amounting to 8,262,654 rubles, which constituted 77%.


II. SIMDP Partners’ Evaluation of the SIMDP

According to indigenous informants, since a majority of the SIMDP’s governance
positions are filled by indigenous persons, participation in the Plan has been giving
Indigenous Peoples experience in dealing with issues that others have handled on their
behalf in the past. Although this might lead to conflicts or confusion, conflicts of interest
or even charges of incompetence, indigenous representatives have been garnering
experience in making decisions about, for example, how to distribute monies, as
reflected in the differing opinions heard during the MTR as to whether monies should
be allocated by district according to population or by another formula which would
recognize the size and activity level of clan enterprises and other organizations.

The Plan was also praised widely for:

   •   Directly benefiting people in the local communities with educational and medical
       benefits, among a roster of social and cultural programs
   •   Supporting traditional economic activities through purchase of equipment and
       encouragement of business enterprises
   •   Encouraging a rise in ethnic identification and pride in indigenous heritage
       through its MGF “Preserving Traditions” orientation and through the allocation of
       benefits to indigenous-identified families and organizations
   •   Including Indigenous People as co-developers of the Plan and including them in
       significant numbers on all Plan governance bodies and in implementation
       mechanisms (which is to a certain degree a unique experience in contrast to
       other indigenous plans in the country which rarely have such a high degree of
       indigenous input in designing and implementing the program)

A critical effect of the Plan that our informants reported to us was its encouragement
of a move away from passivity and towards community self-direction. Yet, downsides
were also noted by some who point to a perceived increase in conflicts and tensions
brought about by competition over Plan benefits (“In the past we were all happy; then
the SIMDP introduced conflict between individuals and districts”). During the second
year of the Plan, these complaints reached their loudest pitch, with charges of conflicts
of interest and a purposeful lack of full disclosure of information about the Plan. Some
laid the blame for jealousies and conflicts at the door of the post-Soviet society having
done away with Soviet-era equality; once you introduce competition, people will
“naturally” feel slighted if their application or their family or their district does not win
their share of the contests.

Survey of Indigenous Awareness of and Attitudes towards the SIMDP
(by A. T. Konkov)

The SIMDP, implemented by the SEIC since 2006, is rather widely discussed in the
electronic mass media and the press and at the meetings held by the SEIC liaison
officers with the indigenous population. Information about such meetings became
known to the immediate beneficiaries, their family members, and friends.
Simultaneously with the SIMDP, a Program of Social and Economic Development is
being implemented by the Sakhalin Oblast Administration, which includes social support
to the indigenous minority people, medical services, educational projects, local
economic development, and support for traditional activities. As many measures
included in the SIMDP have a similar orientation, the public may confuse the actions
implemented under the SIMDP with those implemented under the regional Program of
providing social support to the indigenous minority people, as well as with the actions
provided by the priority national projects carried out on the federal level.

In general, the degree of the interviewees’ awareness is rather high: the interviewees
correctly indicate the activities actually being implemented under the SIMDP. A very
favorable and generally favorable impression about the SIMDP prevailed in all the
settlements covered by the survey—the total share of the interviewees who provided
such evaluations amounted to over 58% in the villages of Nekrasovka and Val, more
than 53% in the town of Nogliki, and 48% in the town of Poronaysk.

The survey allowed the researchers to obtain information about the motivation for the
positive or negative attitude of the residents of different settlements to the Plan. In the
course of the survey, the indigenous minority repeatedly stressed that the SIMDP
allowed solution of the most acute problems of the residents, such as development of
traditional occupations through grants issued to purchase necessary equipment and
develop clan enterprises. In addition, residents noted that a number of activities held
under the SIMDP improved the quality of indigenous people's lives through better
medical services, pharmaceuticals, arts and crafts, and education grants for indigenous
children.

The positive influence of the projects implemented under the SIMDP was noted by the
overwhelming majority of interviewees in relation to such aspects of life as culture and
sports development; the possibilities of becoming better educated; access to medical
services, and development of clan enterprises. Concerning the influence of the SIMDP
on the development of public organizations’ activities, the majority of interviewees had
difficulty giving an answer; besides, a large part of the interviewees believe that the
SIMDP has not had a strong influence on this aspect of Sakhalin indigenous people’s
lives.

Despite the differences in the answers provided by indigenous people living in the
various settlements, the attitude of indigenous people toward the SIMDP is largely
positive. Our surveys allow us to make the following conclusions:
    • In general, the SIMDP has had a positive influence on the economic position of
       clan enterprises, the accessibility of educational services, and the accessibility of
       medical services (the latter are more noticeable in small settlements). It also has
       had a positive influence on the development of traditional crafts, sports, and the
       cultural life of the indigenous population.
    • The indigenous people are relatively well acquainted with the SIMDP’s positive
       influence on the indicated aspects of indigenous people’s life; the general
       emotional atmosphere around the plan’s perception is positive.
The survey of Indigenous Peoples’ public opinion shows that the population perceives
the SIMDP in a positive light and connects it with improvements in the social and
economic situation of the indigenous people, development of their culture and sports,
and improvement in the accessibility of education and medicine. The evaluations of the
SIMDP expressed by the indigenous population testify to the presence of objective
changes in the quality of the local population’s life as a result of implementation.

The Sakhalin Oblast Administration and Regional Administrations

The Sakhalin Oblast Administration (SOA) and Regional Administrations involved with
the SIMDP uniformly see the plan as properly focused not only on benefits-sharing but
also on indigenous capacity-building, leading eventually to greater self-sufficiency. They
are very positive about the Plan and are actively engaged in promoting it in their official
government capacities. It is seen as a needed and useful complement to their own
responsibilities and programs. One regional administration Indigenous Peoples
representative stated that the SIMDP has had very positive effects on the development
of clan/family enterprises (rodovoye hozaitsva) while also helping raise the social status
of the indigenous community through public celebrations of indigenous holidays.

Regional administrations are most positive about the benefits distributed by the SDP
and MGF components of the Plan. Although they point to some programs that have not
worked out as planned (e.g., an anti-alcoholism project), others (such as eye
treatments, student scholarships, and dental treatment) are warmly praised for dealing
with serious needs of the local community. Some others, however, cynically claim that
the SIMDP is merely replacing falling federal and oblast administration support—a claim
vociferously denied by government representatives who point out that funding for the
Oblast Regional Program for Indigenous Peoples State Support for 2007-2011 increased
by more than RUR 10 million.

The main problem with the SIMDP was seen to be its lack of a clear direction on how to
promote traditional economic activities, including its misstep in turning to a focus in
2008 on self-sufficiency grants and away from Business Plans. However, optimism was
expressed that the Supervisory Board in December 2008 had turned the SIMDP
appropriately back to a more sustainable economic development approach.

Sakhalin Energy Investment Company

SEIC believes the SIMDP is functioning well and has accommodated well to the
transition to new company majority ownership. The first year marked the transition
from conflict and protests to a new relationship of partnership and a challenge for both
sides in learning how to accommodate their respective styles. With experience, both
sides saw the advantages of cooperation, so that during the second year, with benefits
and funding visible, the SIMDP began to attain community acceptance. Year Three,
2008, was the “Year of Recognition,” as they see it, with the SIMDP becoming a model
of cooperation between government, Indigenous Peoples, and business.

SEIC sees itself as a socially responsible company, one whose commitment to
indigenous groups on the island goes far beyond its support of the SIMDP itself and is
motivated by more than the minimum legal obligations to its corporate lenders. Beyond
the confines of the SIMDP, the Company has supported other indigenous-related
initiatives, such as the development of a primer for Uilta children to learn their own
language. These extra activities, and the costs of the Indigenous Peoples Unit in the
Company itself, raise indigenous-related expenditures to the Company far beyond the
300,000 USD spent in the SIMDP yearly budget.

For its efforts, SEIC has also reaped a good deal of positive publicity, both on the
national and international levels. The SDP is seen as the most successful component,
distributing money efficiently and working in complementary fashion with SOA
programs. Although the SEIC’s evaluation of the MGF is generally positive, it has also
shown some concern about a claimed decline in the competitiveness of the program.
The TEASP, in the Company’s view, has given the indigenous community valuable
experience in understanding what the Company sees as the most critical element in the
SIMDP’s capacity-building approach—raising awareness of the importance of
sustainability in all development efforts. For this reason, the Company applauds the
emerging recognition that self-sufficiency projects are not sustainable and that some
form of business plan development must be the center of efforts to invigorate
traditional economic activities. Yet the Company remains somewhat doubtful that a
clear way forward for TEASP has been found as of now.

Like its indigenous and government partners, finally, the Company also has noticed the
increasing willingness of indigenous community members to be involved in the Plan and
the emerging expectation that other programs and interactions with outsiders should
also follow the participatory format that the Plan has pioneered. Thus, even though
staff will agree that they too have seen some degree of increased conflict which could
be traced to the Plan’s implementation, they see this as an inevitable outcome of
heightened community activity, competition, and development.

The Midterm Review Team

SEIC’s relationships with Indigenous Peoples have undergone a significant improvement
in the years since 2005 opened with public demonstrations by Indigenous Peoples
against some activities of the Company, which some viewed as unresponsive despite
ongoing outreach activities including significant interaction with reindeer herders. Under
this outside pressure, which was occurring in tandem with that of potential lender
banks, Company management took a new tack and changed its approach. Whereas
earlier the Company displayed the typical patronizing attitude of the corporate world to
indigenous populations wherein the Company itself decided on a benefits package for
indigenous groups after a minimum of consultation, with the SIMDP the Company
transitioned to partnership, providing conditions for the Indigenous Peoples to make
decisions on their own.

This positive approach to indigenous engagement has led to a surge in popularity for
the Company on Sakhalin. There is broad appreciation for the Company’s support for
the Plan’s programs, which are seen as funded at a meaningful level.

This does not mean that the SIMDP is immune to criticism. Our MRT heard a good
number of critical comments that largely repeated comments reported in previous EM
reports. Yet such criticism should not discourage Company management, nor should it
blind them to the reality that the SIMDP they have promoted is well appreciated by a
significant majority of the island’s Indigenous Peoples, as confirmed by the recent
survey on indigenous attitudes reported elsewhere in this MTR.

Perhaps one of the most significant effects of the Plan has been for the Plan’s activities
and governance bodies to serve as a forum for island-wide discussion of indigenous
issues. The Plan has indeed stimulated a greater degree of public involvement, as
indicated both in the expansion of public organizations and in the greater level of
interest and participation in this Plan.

A. Nachetkina noted, “we are witnessing a rise in the self-esteem of the Indigenous
People, a desire on their part to solve their own problems, determining their position in
ensuring self-sustenance.”


III. Mitigation Measures

SIMDP mitigation issues derive from the items listed in the Mitigation Matrix (MM)
section of the SIMDP, as well as the free-standing agreement to work on such issues
signed during the Project Launch in May 2006 by the representatives of the Company
and the RCAR. Most issues in the original matrix have been adequately dealt with to the
satisfaction of both sides, and the MM continues to serve a valuable purpose in
providing a convenient venue for community representatives to raise grievances large
or small.


IV. SIMDP Benefits

The Social Development Program (SDP) and the Mini-Grant Fund (MGF) were generally
well received, with recipients grateful to SEIC and the Plan for its benefits. Attitudes
toward the TEASP, though generally positive as well, were more divided, with
complaints focused around charges of improper distribution of funds.
Social Development Program

The SDP is working well and is also a good example of collaboration between Plan
partners. The public organization from the Okha Region, Kykhkykh, serves as a local
partner organization to help implement elements of the SDP programs, particularly in
education and health.

   •   Health Component. The indigenous people get free dentures, ophthalmologic
       operations, along with medical checkups with medications. Tuition of medical
       students is paid for; equipment and furniture are purchased for them. Out of 21
       planned projects 21 are financed (100%); out of planned funds of 3,510,962
       rubles there are 3’648’250 rubles (96.2%) financed.

   •   Education component. Out of 18 planned projects, 18 projects were funded or
       100%, amounting to 3,617,803 rubles; 3,768,014 rubles were paid or 104.15%.
       Allocation of funds under this component is perceived by the indigenous people
       extremely positively. Non-recurrent and stimulating financial support of the
       students and payment for their tuition contribute to enhancing the stimulus to
       study well, graduate, and become a professional.

   •   Cultural component. Funding of the cultural component amounted to 103%,
       which constituted 1,901,947 rubles, against the planned 1,850,000 rubles. Out of
       17 planned projects, 16 projects were funded; all the projects support funding of
       the local folk museums’ activities and activities of folk groups, publication of
       literature in indigenous languages, ethnic customs and rites, etc.

   •   Leadership Potential Development component. This component has been fulfilled
       95%: out of 10 planned projects, 10 projects were funded, amounting to
       1,207,531 rubles, out of the planned sum of 1,271,000 rubles.

Mini-Grant Fund

The projects of the Mini-Grants Fund for the period of 2006–2008 were fulfilled 98%,
out of 54 planned projects 52 projects were funded in the amount of 2,255,100 rubles.

The MGF, with all new committee members as of December 2008, is in great need of
training, a process beginning at the first committee meeting where those committee
members who had received training with professional grantsmanship people conveyed
the same materials they had received earlier to their novice colleagues. This was a good
example of SIMDP capacity-building and sustainability as the lessons learned were
passed along to the next generation. The values and principles passed along to the new
members to guide their work were also noteworthy: transparency, democracy, and
loyalty to Indigenous Peoples.
TEASP

The TEAS Program has been funded since 2007: during the two years 39 projects
amounting to 8,262,654 rubles were funded, accordingly, which amounted to 77%,
against the planned 53 projects and planned funding of 10,761,800 rubles.

The experience of the TEASP during its first three years revealed some significant
challenges both for the SIMDP and for the indigenous communities on the Island. While
the original idea for the TEASP was to develop traditional economic activities through
the solicitation and support of business plans, such an approach was hard to follow
given the low capacity of most economic or family enterprises to formulate such plans
and a general lack of a strategy or vision of what indigenous economic development
should look like on Sakhalin. Faced with problems of developing and implementing
proper business plans, there was an understandable tendency to redirect the
committee’s funds to the more understandable and easy to apply for “self-subsistence
grants” which meant in practice mostly distributing snowmobiles and motorboats to
families and clan enterprises. With insufficient funds to distribute such to all, and with a
seemingly skewered distribution, this concentration of funds on self-sufficiency led to
much criticism of TEASP and some heated discussions.

These discussions and conflicts can be seen to have had positive results as they have
raised clearly the two issues noted above which the TEASP needs to deal with and
which can simultaneously serve the larger indigenous community as well. These issues
need to be discussed not only by the TEASP committee but by the SIMDP Supervisory
Board as well. At the December 2008 meeting the Board discussed the need to more
systematically address such questions by way of an assessment of clan enterprise
capacities and the convening of a congress of clan enterprises to determine a way
forward. This development is very positive and it should be used to guide the TEASP
forward. Including the SOA, the RCAR, and the corporate world experience of SEIC, the
SIMDP can serve a positive function in developing an island-wide Indigenous Peoples
economic development strategy.


V. Governance Issues and Recommendations

Over the past three years, the three partners in the Tripartite Agreement have
continuously improved their positive collaboration on the Plan.

The MRT recommends that the SIMDP partners consider an innovation in how the
committee grant applications are processed. Would it be reasonable to first have the
applications in the districts examined by an informal regional committee formed by the
Indigenous Peoples specialists of the regional administrations, the SIMDP committee
members, and by the members of indigenous public organizations? These are the
Indigenous People from the districts, who know the local situation, know the people,
know the activities of the clan enterprises and their problems. Therefore it will be easier
for them than for others to help improve the applications, work with the applicants, and
to explain the projects at the meetings of the Committees. Discussing projects in the
districts in this manner could ensure better selection of applications at the meetings of
the Committees.

Committees/Governing Bodies
Governance bodies were fairly well balanced in terms of ethnicity (Nivkh, Nanaitsy,
Evenki, Uilta). Regional balance was also not bad, although some believed that
Tymovskoye and Alexandrovsk-Sakhalinsky districts, which are areas of low indigenous
population, should be granted representation on the TEASP committee.

Information Disclosure

Transparency and information disclosure is critical to the success of the SIMDP and to
dealing with the conflicts or jealousies that benefits distribution can sometimes
engender. In the opinion of the Indigenous Peoples of Sakhalin, the information
disclosure of the Development Plan is sufficient. Information is obtained at the meetings
with the Indigenous Peoples Team of Sakhalin Energy, by the management staff of the
Development Plan, by the administrations of municipal formations, mass media, family
members and friends. Sakhalin Energy publishes analytical information bulletins and
maintains a website. All the districts received computers, which they are supposed to
use to inform the local population.

Items to Note:
   • Currently, the Development Plan is rather well-known among the indigenous
       communities, with the exceptions of Poronaysk and Alexandrov-Sakhalinsk where
       there is significantly less awareness of the Plan.
   • The TEASP Committee Reports on expenditures for 2006-2008 were particularly
       lacking in relevant details, including what the funds were used for
   • Information to be used for committee meetings too often arrived at the time of
       the meeting or shortly beforehand; too little time is given for adequate review by
       committee members. Similarly, comments were received that often not enough
       advance notice was given for meetings or teleconferences for governance body
       members who wanted to participate actively to do so.

Monitoring

The Plan currently lacks a systematic internal monitoring process. Such a monitoring
process could both check on whether proposals were carried out as reported and also
serve a financial auditing function.
VI. SIMDP Future Issues

External Monitor Reviews

The External Monitor for the SIMDP will resume his reviews of the Plan in June, 2009,
conducting the Fifth External Monitor Review at that time. A Sixth EM Review is
anticipated during December, 2009, with a Close-Out EM Report expected in December,
2010.

Plan Completion Evaluation

During and around June, 2010, a Final SIMDP Evaluation will be conducted by the
External Monitor, a representative of the Indigenous Peoples of Sakhalin, and a social
scientist professional familiar with Sakhalin Island society, working as a team.

SIMDP II

The current, and first, SIMDP will be finished at the end of 2010. According to both
the current SIMDP and SEIC commitments, future SIMDPs will be devised throughout
the life of the project. The Second SIMDP is tentatively scheduled to run between
2011-2015 and this has already been confirmed by SEIC. Ideally, results (“lessons
learned”) of the SIMDP Completion Evaluation should inform the planning for the
Second SIMDP.
SIMDP Midterm Review Report

I. Overview
1.   Introduction

This report is the Midterm Review Report (MTR) of the Sakhalin Indigenous Minorities
Development Plan (SIMDP). This review covers Years One to Three (June 2006-
December 2008) of the Plan, which will last through Year Five’s conclusion in December
2010. It comes mid-way in a series of semi-annual External Monitor Review Reports
begun in December 2006.

The SIMDP was launched on May 25, 2006, in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, capital of the
Sakhalin Oblast in the Russian Federation. The product of a year of collaboration
between Sakhalin’s Indigenous Peoples (called Indigenous Minorities at their own
request) and the Sakhalin Energy Investment Company, Ltd. (SEIC), the Plan is now
administered by the Company with the close involvement of both Indigenous Minorities
and the Sakhalin Oblast authorities.

The Plan incorporates measures to mitigate negative effects on the lives and livelihoods
of Indigenous Minorities in the project area of the Sakhalin II oil and natural gas
extraction and refining project, as well as measures to share project benefits with
Indigenous Minorities throughout the Island. The latter is delivered by way of programs
of economic development (the Traditional Economic Activities Program [TEASP]),
health, education, culture, and training (the Social Development Program [SDP]), along
with a stand-alone, indigenous-directed Mini-Grant Fund (MGF).

Yearly funding of the Plan is approximately USD$300,000, which totals to a 5-year
US$1.5 million commitment by the Company. During the Plan’s final year (2010), a Plan
Completion Evaluation will be held, and planning for a second phase of the Plan will
also take place.

 2. Midterm Review Objectives, Methodology, and Authorship

Objectives. The Midterm Review aimed at assessing the effectiveness of the SIMDP in
meeting its objectives of i) avoiding or mitigating negative effects caused by the
facilities construction and planned operation of the Project, ii) improving the lives and
livelihoods of the Indigenous Minorities of Sakhalin, and iii) enhancing the capacity of
indigenous communities to actively participate in the management of the SIMDP and
similar community development strategies. In addition, the MTR was tasked with
making recommendations, as appropriate, for SIMDP governance changes for its
concluding two years.
Methodology. Three people comprised a Midterm Review Team (MRT): the Plan’s
previously appointed External Monitor (EM), Gregory Guldin, as well as two others
jointly chosen by SEIC, along with the Indigenous Peoples as represented by the
Regional Council of the Authorized Representatives of the Indigenous Minorities of the
North of Sakhalin (RCAR), and the Sakhalin Oblast Department’s Indigenous Peoples
Department. All three members of the MTR were selected because of their
independence and lack of a role in implementing the SIMDP. Antonina Nachetkina, an
experienced, knowledgeable, and respected indigenous leader with rich experience in
government and community affairs, was nominated by the RCAR and accepted by the
Company to serve as the indigenous representative on the Midterm Review Team and
to provide a distinctly indigenous voice in the MTR’s analysis. Professor Alexander
Konkov, Chair of the Sociology Department at Sakhalin State University and an
acknowledged expert on survey methodology, was selected to round out the team and
to prepare, oversee, and analyze a survey reviewing the awareness of the SIMDP and
opinions toward the Plan by the Island’s Indigenous Minorities.

The survey was carried out between 3-10 December 2008 in the indigenous
communities of Nekrasovka, Val, Nogliki, and Poronaysk. A five percent sampling
technique was used, resulting in interviews being conducted with 115 individuals of the
island’s 2225 indigenous population. Results of the survey in summary form are given
below in this Report in the sections on indigenous perceptions of the plan and
information disclosure, while the entire survey is attached to this Report as well as
Annex 2.

The EM visited the island between 15 and 29 December, 2008, attending governance
body meetings in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, and then—accompanied by Ms. Nachetkina--
visited the indigenous communities of Poronaysk, Val, and Nogliki. SEIC’s Indigenous
Peoples Unit shared key documents with the Dr. Guldin and Ms. Nachetkina (most
importantly, the Company’s SIMDP Semi-Annual Reports, updates on the Mitigation
Matrix, and committee meeting minutes) and arranged a series of meetings with key
stakeholders, including:

      •    SEIC employees (personnel running the program and others involved with
           management support of the SIMDP)
      •    Indigenous Minorities (both leadership and community members)
      •    Sakhalin Oblast authorities (in the Sakhalin Oblast Indigenous Peoples
           Department and in the Poronaysk and the Nogliki District Administrations)
      •    SIMDP governance participants, including those on the SIMDP Supervisory
           Board (SB), the Executive Committee (EC), the TEASP Committee, the SDP
           Committee, the MGF committee, and the Indigenous Peoples Organization
           KykhKykh
Late delivery of some key documents to the MRT by the Company hindered initial
review work, but this was later rectified by the Company and by Ms. Nachetkina’s
supplementary telephone interviews with some key stakeholders. The MTR will disband
after this Report will be issued.

Authorship. As indicated in the Table of Contents, section I.3. was written by Ms.
Nachetkina, while II.2., Annex 2 and most of section V.3 were written by Professor
Konkov. Other sections were created by Dr. Guldin with input from team members
Nachetkina and Konkov. Recommendations are allocated per Action Matrices by target
group in Annex 1.

Midterm Review Report Structure. Each of the objectives of the MTR is dealt with in its
own section of this report: Mitigation (section III), Benefits (section IV), Capacity-
Building and community impacts (section II), and Recommendations (sections V and
VI).

 3. SIMDP Overview Through Year 3 (by A. Ya. Nachetkina)

Plan Charter. At the initiative of Sakhalin Energy and of the Regional Council of
Authorised Representatives of the Sakhalin Indigenous Minorities, in December 2005 a
Memorandum of Cooperation was signed, which served as the start of joint action to
recognize the rights of the Indigenous Peoples to determine the priorities of their own
development.

During this Midterm Review the indigenous representatives of Sakhalin expressed their
sincere thanks to all the participants of the Tripartite Agreement and to the regional
administrations for their support and assistance in the implementation of Plan activities.

Development and implementation of the Development Plan has been exercised in
accordance with:

      •   the Tripartite Cooperation Agreement signed between the Sakhalin Oblast
          Administration, SEIC and the RCAR on 25 May 2006
      •   the protocols of the RCAR of 25 March 2005
      •   the protocols on Distribution of Obligations Relating to Management of the
          Development Plan of 18 January 2007
      •   the protocols of the Expert Group of the Tender Programme Saving Traditions
          of the MGF of the Development Plan
      •   the protocols for SIMDP Committees (SDP, MGF, TEASP) and other regulatory
          documents

Governance/Participation. From the very beginning of their engagement with the Plan,
indigenous representatives were immediate participants of preparing the SIMDP and
other regulatory documents guiding the implementation of the Plan.
To prepare the Development Plan, in 2006 SEIC established an Indigenous Peoples
Subdivision under the guidance of the External Affairs Department of SEIC, which
included three indigenous representatives. In addition, other departments of SEIC are
taking part in the implementation of the Development Plan.

In accordance with the Plan, the indigenous minorities constitute the overwhelming
majority in all the governance committees of the Development Plan, while on the MGF
committee they fill all the slots.

From 2006 to October 2008, the indigenous presence on the governance bodies of the
Development Plan has been as follows:

     1. Supervisory Board (SB; the supreme executive and supervisory authority): 11
     persons, 8 indigenous people

     2. Executive Committee (EC; executive authority; the EC members of the Regional
     Council receive remuneration for their work from the budget of the indigenous
     people programme of Sakhalin Energy): 4 persons, 3 indigenous people

     3. Social Development Program (SDP Committee; program implementation and
     development): 7 persons, 7 indigenous people

     4. Traditional Economic Activities Support Program (TEASP Committee; program
     implementation and development): 8 persons, 6 indigenous people

     5. Mini-Grant Fund (MGF Council; preservation and development of the ethnic
     groups’ traditions): 6 persons, 6 indigenous people

This predominance of indigenous representatives on the Plan’s governance bodies
brings indigenous people directly into the implementation of the Development Plan,
necessitating increased responsibility for making applications and projects, for their
substantiation and defence, preparation of reports (both financial and analytical),
conducting internal monitoring, and other activities.

The Development Plan is being implemented on the basis of projects and applications
approved by the Committees and of the contracts concluded between the beneficiaries
and SEIC.

Funding/Budgets. In general, funding provided by the Development Plan is allocated on
time, through a partner organization, LPO of the IPN Centre for Preservation and
Development of Traditional Indigenous Culture Kykhkykh (Swan), local public
organizations, indigenous communities and enterprises, regional and district cultural,
educational and health institutions. Funding was denied in the following types of cases:
absence of supporting documents, violation of the implementation deadlines and other
technical reasons.

Thus, in the period of 2006–2008, implementation of the Development Plan is
characterized as follows:

According to SEIC reports, by 1 December 2008, 157 out of 173 planned projects were
implemented. The total sum amounted to 20,906,208 rubles, against the planned sum
of 23,453,783 rubles, or 89.1%, including:

      •       the SDP: out of 66 projects, 65 were financed amounting to 10,388,454
              rubles, or 100,01%;
      •       the MGF: out of 54 planned projects, 52 projects were financed amounting
              to 2,255,100 rubles, or 98%;
      •       the TEASP: out of 53 planned projects, 39 projects were financed,
              amounting to 8,262,654 rubles, which constituted 77%.

In addition to the targeted funds of the SIMDP, the Company also made funding
available for indigenous community support, including sustainable development projects
to support the deer herders of the village of Val. They received fuel valued at 340,000
rubles and combined fodder for the deer amounting to 196,000 rubles; they were
allocated shared funding to build a pen for keeping and catching deer in the Nogliki
district, amounting to 560,000 rubles.

Still other additional funds were made available by SEIC to:

          •   Publish a Uilta language primer
          •   Support the participation of Indigenous Peoples in the First Far Eastern
              International Festival of Arts and Crafts of the Indigenous Peoples, The Live
              Thread of Time, which took place in Khabarovsk in August 2008. The
              participants were both the representatives of the Company and Indigenous
              Peoples from Okha, Tymovsk, Nogliki and Poronaysk districts.
          •   Hold a presentation of the album by E.K. Lanina Ancient Nivkhi Traditions,
              (published under the SDP of the Development Plan), which won second
              place in The Best Publication in the Field of Useful Arts and Peoples and
              Arts Crafts of the Far East, with the Company purchasing prizes for the
              participants and winners of the regional sports competition for indigenous
              children.
          •   The Company provided prizes for the participants and winners of the
              regional indigenous children's Olympics.
II. SIMDP Partners’ Evaluation of the SIMDP
 1. Indigenous Peoples

Capacity-Building

When asked what the Indigenous Peoples of the island have learned thus far from their
experience with the SIMDP, one prominent indigenous leader responded:

The SIMDP has given us much good experience and focused our attention on issues
that we hadn’t paid enough attention to before. For instance, this is the first project
we’ve been involved in that can both help local indigenous people with their personal
and social development while at the same time also helping spur the development of
public and community organizations. In addition, as the success of the Plan depends on
cooperation with local authorities, the Plan provides a positive model for collaboration
with government. But most importantly, the Plan has spurred us to proactively develop
our own activities and to take greater responsibility for our own development. This has
led to our developing a new approach: we realize we now want self-directed
development, not dependence on either government or companies.

Drawbacks of the Plan itself, if any, have more to do with Indigenous Peoples ourselves
rather than our implementation partners—the government and the Company—due to
our lack of experience and knowledge. Therefore, we believe strongly that the Plan is
quite appropriately targeted on capacity-building.

According to indigenous informants, since a majority of the SIMDP’s governance
positions are filled by indigenous persons, participation in the Plan has been giving
Indigenous Peoples experience in dealing with issues that others have handled on their
behalf in the past. Although this might lead to conflicts or confusion, conflicts of interest
or even charges of incompetence, indigenous representatives have been garnering
experience in making decisions about, for example, how to distribute monies, as
reflected in the differing opinions heard during the MTR as to whether monies should
be allocated by district according to population or by another formula which would
recognize the size and activity level of clan enterprises and other organizations.

Another indigenous leader stated that the Plan has successfully spurred a rise in the
community’s level of self-awareness, social engagement, and familiarity with the skills
necessary to work in today’s economic conditions. He and others pointed to the greater
numbers of people who can make grant applications, serve on committees, and
represent vocally indigenous interests in government and other committees. Although
these might seem modest accomplishments to some, respondents pointed out that
exposure to the SIMDP has encouraged a new pattern of interacting with non-
indigenous as equals, whether in government or business. “Previously, we were either
more confrontational or supplicative. Now it’s more like a dialogue.”
Yet another leader averred that “the absence of protests by Indigenous Peoples against
either the Company or the Plan is telling. We realize that only one Company is really
involved with our development.” This speaks to the emergence of the Plan itself as a
major influence in indigenous life on the island. One leader told us that “not long ago I
entered my children’s room and saw they had posted the SIMDP logo on their wall. I
had not given it to them; they had received it at a winter sports Olympiad co-financed
by the SIMDP. So you see, the Plan has entered even their world!” With the ongoing
flow of benefits by years two and three of the Plan, this trend of increasing interest in
the Plan has continued.

The Plan was also praised widely for:

   •    Providing financial support to people in the local communities with educational
        and medical benefits, among a roster of social and cultural programs
    • Supporting traditional economic activities through purchase of equipment and
        encouragement of non-profit enterprises
    • Encouraging a rise in ethnic identification and pride in indigenous heritage
        through its MGF “Preserving Traditions” orientation and through the allocation of
        benefits to indigenous-identified families and organizations
    • Including Indigenous People as co-developers of the Plan and including them in
        significant numbers on all Plan governance bodies and in implementation
        mechanisms (which is to a certain degree a unique experience in contrast to
        other indigenous plans in the country which rarely have such a high degree of
        indigenous input in designing and implementing the program)
A critical effect of the Plan that our informants reported to us was its encouragement of
a move away from passivity and towards community self-direction. Remarkably, this is
alleged to have begun within the short three-year timeframe since the Plan began,
although as one respondent commented ruefully, “Seventy years of dependency may
require seventy years of engagement to get rid of our dependency,” with the period of
forced resettlement in the 1960s and 1970s blamed for undermining historic patterns of
self-reliance. A good sign some pointed to was the increasing interest in younger people
in serving on Plan committees, “since that’s how we’ll train our next generation of
leaders.” The Plan has also encouraged the growth of public organizations, both as
needed to participate in the TEAS Program, and in general as reflecting local community
needs such as revitalizing traditional activities.

This wider engagement and encouragement of activity in community affairs has also
led, we were told, to people starting to think of the larger community’s needs and not
just their own family’s or their friends’. In the intense discussions regarding the validity
of support for self-sufficiency grants (for snowmobiles, motorboats, and the like) in the
TEAS Program, questions of sustainability, “welfare vs. development,” and the need not
to “waste” Plan money have all been raised by indigenous stakeholders themselves
(e.g., “The TEASP is just handing out New Year’s presents”). With the Company
standing back and allowing a large degree of Plan self-management, the Indigenous
Peoples have to decide for themselves if giving in to the urge to spend down a
committee’s budget at the end of the fiscal year without determining if the spending
targets are truly worthy is really in their own interests.

As noted above, some have pointed to an increase in the number of public
organizations and clan enterprises formed, spurred by the opportunities associated with
the Plan. This in turn is said to be leading to a greater political sophistication in the
indigenous community, indicated by wider engagement with the larger society. Yet not
all of this is happening without some tensions, as conflicts have arisen over the lack of
full access for some to these new organizations.

Other downsides are also noted by some who point to a perceived increase in conflicts
and tensions brought about by competition over Plan benefits (“In the past we were all
happy; then the SIMDP introduced conflict between individuals and districts”). During
the second year of the Plan, these complaints reached their loudest pitch, with charges
of conflicts of interest and a purposeful lack of full disclosure of information about the
Plan. Some laid the blame for jealousies and conflicts at the door of the post-Soviet
society having done away with Soviet-era equality; once you introduce competition,
people will “naturally” feel slighted if their application or their family or their district
does not win their share of the contests.

 2. Survey of Indigenous Awareness of and Attitudes towards the SIMDP
  (by A. T. Konkov)

The SIMDP, implemented by the SEIC since 2006, is rather widely discussed in the
electronic mass media and the press and at the meetings held by the SEIC liaison
officers with the indigenous population. Information about such meetings became
known to the immediate beneficiaries, their family members, and friends.
Simultaneously with the SIMDP, a Sakhalin Indigenous Minorities Support Program is
being implemented by the Sakhalin Oblast Administration, which includes social support
to the indigenous minority people, medical services, educational projects, local
economic development, and support for traditional activities. As many measures
included in the SIMDP have a similar orientation, the public may confuse the actions
implemented under the SIMDP with those implemented under the regional Program of
providing social support to the indigenous minority people, as well as with the actions
provided by the priority national projects carried out on the federal level.

In most cases, the interviewees did not find it difficult to name particular activities or
projects implemented under the SIMDP. Only a small portion of the interviewees living
in the settlements of Nogliki (2.32%) and Val (8.33%) had difficulty naming particular
SIMDP actions. In the settlements of Nekrasovka and Poronaysk, there were more such
interviewees; however, the share did not exceed 20%. More often the interviewees
associated the following programs with the SIMDP: grants, support of clan enterprises,
grants provided to educational and cultural institutions, financial support for traditional
arts and crafts, and funds for ethnic festivals.

In general, the degree of the interviewees’ awareness is rather high: the interviewees
correctly indicate the activities actually being implemented under the SIMDP. A very
favorable and generally favorable impression about the SIMDP prevailed in all the
settlements covered by the survey—the total share of the interviewees who provided
such evaluations amounted to over 58% in the villages of Nekrasovka and Val, more
than 53% in the town of Nogliki, and 48% in the town of Poronaysk.

The survey allowed the researchers to obtain information about the motivation for the
positive or negative attitude of the residents of different settlements to the Plan. In the
course of the survey, the indigenous minority repeatedly stressed that the SIMDP
allowed solution of the most acute problems of the residents, such as development of
traditional occupations through grants issued to purchase necessary equipment and
develop clan enterprises. In addition, residents noted that a number of activities held
under the SIMDP improved the quality of indigenous people's lives through better
medical services, pharmaceuticals, and education grants for indigenous children.

In three of the four settlements covered by the survey, more than 70% of the
interviewees were able to name three successful projects. In each settlement, the
statements made by the interviewees allowed the researchers to form a rating list of
the most successful projects under the Development Plan, according to the opinions of
the indigenous people (see Appendix 1).

In the village of Nekrasovka, the interviewees rated the following projects as the most
successful (the parentheses indicate the share of the interviewees who mentioned the
given project or program):
       1.      Payment for indigenous students’ tuition (41.66%);
       2.      Financing of clan enterprises and assistance to clan enterprises in
               purchasing Buran snowmobiles, boat engines, equipment, etc. (33.32%);
       3.      Free medicine to the indigenous people (30.55%).

In the village of Val, the interviewees rated the following as the most successful:
       1.      Providing free medicines and free medical services to the indigenous
               people (33.33%);
       2.      Financing of clan enterprises and assistance to clan enterprises in
               purchasing Buran snowmobiles, boat engines, equipment, etc. (33.33%);
       3.      Payment for indigenous students’ tuition (25%).

In the town of Nogliki, the interviewees rated the following as the most successful
projects:
       1.     Financing of clan enterprises and assistance for clan enterprises in
              purchasing Buran snowmobiles, boat engines, equipment, etc. (51.15%);
       2.     Holding festivals and cultural events (32.55%);
       3.     Payment for indigenous students’ tuition (27.9%).

The indigenous residents of Poronaysk said that the most successful projects were:
       1.   Holding festivals and cultural events (32.0%);
       2.   Payment for indigenous students’ tuition (16.0%); exhibitions devoted to
             the life of indigenous minorities (16.0%);
       3.   Publication of an ABC-book and of ethnic literature (12.0%).

The positive influence of the projects implemented under the SIMDP was noted by the
overwhelming majority of interviewees in relation to such aspects of life as culture and
sports development; the possibilities of becoming better educated; access to medical
services, and development of clan enterprises. Concerning the influence of the SIMDP
on the development of public organizations’ activities, the majority of interviewees had
difficulty giving an answer; besides, a large part of the interviewees believe that the
SIMDP has not had a strong influence on this aspect of Sakhalin indigenous people’s
lives.

Of great interest are the differences in the estimates of the interviewees living in
different settlements. In the village of Nekrasovka, a large majority of interviewees
responded that the SIMDP positively influenced the development of culture (80.55%)
and enhanced educational opportunities for indigenous people (77.77%). Residents of
Nekrasovka noted: “Everything is being done to preserve the culture of the indigenous
people;” “Financial assistance is needed for all students; [now] it is accessible not only
to regular students but even correspondence students.” In addition, the indigenous
people living in the village note the positive influence of the SIMDP on the development
of the health sector and especially on the accessibility of medical services for the village
residents. According to one interviewee, “Now it is possible to get treatment in our own
village [we do not have to go to the district centre].” Another interviewee noted: “They
distribute free medicines, which are unaffordable [in the pharmacy].” Concerning the
influence of the SIMDP on the development of clan enterprises, positive estimates
prevail, although they are less numerous than those among the residents of Nogliki.

Among the residents of Val, interviewees gave the highest evaluations of the SIMDP’s
influence on such aspects of community life as development of the health sector and
accessibility of medical services (83.33%), cultural life and sports development (75%),
and educational opportunities (66.66%). Interviewees noted positive changes in the
area of health: “We feel the company cares about the people: it is possible to get free
medical treatment;” “They opened a dental office here, so now we don’t have to go to
Nogliki [to get our teeth treated].” Another interviewee noted: “The most important
thing is education, as it is the future of the people – education and preservation of good
health”. At the same time, some interviewees noted the necessity of further expansion
of programs supporting the indigenous minority. One said, “These are all the necessary
basic projects; life has become a little easier in these areas; they are helping us in that,
but the help is extended only to organizations.”

Although most interviewees were not able to say how the SIMDP influenced the
development of public organizations, several positive judgements were made by
interviewees. One said: “Everybody gets close in obtaining grants”.

The residents of Nogliki more often noted the positive influence of the SIMDP activities
aimed at developing clan enterprises (74.41%), as well as access to education and
development of the education sector (67.44%). Compared to the residents of other
settlements, the share of interviewees who noted the positive influence of the SIMDP
on the development of cultural life, sports development (62.79%), and access to
medical services (46.51%) is somewhat less. In the town of Nogliki, where a substantial
part of the recorded Sakhalin clan enterprises is concentrated, the highest share of
interviewees was recorded who evaluated the SIMDP's influence on the development of
clan enterprises positively. The interviewees noted that: “Funds are allocated for
development; they are helping clan enterprises;” “They allocate funds to clan
enterprises;” “They are allocating grants, helping us with machines: spare parts, petrol,
boats, cars, and Buran snowmobiles;” “The development programme is working.”

In the education sector, interviewees noted the following positive changes:”[Allocating
grants] is a chance for our children, since not all parents can afford education for their
children;” “They are providing assistance to the school and the kindergarten—they
provide free meals there;” “At school No. 2, they organized a Nivkhi language class.” At
the same time, some interviewees do not distinguish between the activities of the local
administration and activities under the SIMDP. According to one interviewee, the SIMDP
had both positive and negative influences on the accessibility of education for
indigenous children: “They have removed the boarding school [for the indigenous
children] but did not provide a replacement.”

Comparatively few interviewees in Nogliki noted a positive influence on health. Nogliki is
a rather large settlement, with a district hospital, a clinic, and other medical facilities. In
this regard, the medical activities implemented under the SIMDP, due to their limited
scale, could have seemed less significant in a big settlement compared to small villages,
where the medical services are often unavailable or there are no medical institutions.

Most of the indigenous representatives interviewed in Poronaysk recorded a positive
influence of the SIMDP on an increase of educational possibilities, the development of
the educational sector (80%), and the development of the cultural life and sports
(80%).1 One interviewee noted: “I have heard about the help provided to the boarding
school and the local school; they help students with their tuition, they are providing

1
    Editor’s Note: these references are probably to other projects of SEIC, not the SIMDP.
scholarships and donations to schools. The young people’s desire to study is boosted—
50% of tuition is covered, and sometimes 100%”. Among other statements, typical are
the following explanations: “[They provide] help in holding sports competitions; they
organize sports events; people write grant applications to preserve and support ethnic
traditions”; “Sporting events are held with the grant money;” “[They organize] trips to
Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk to attend cultural events.”

In this settlement, the lowest share of interviewees among the four settlements was
been recorded who noted a positive influence of SIMDP on access to medical services
by indigenous people (36%) and the development of clan enterprises (48%). Similar to
residents of the other settlements, the residents of Poronaysk are better informed of
such programs in the health sector as provision of dentures, free medical treatment,
medical checkups, and free provision of medications. According to one resident,
“Medication is free and the life span has increased.” Another noted: “We have a new
ambulance; we have new drugs and new equipment; they helped the clinic.” However,
there are critical opinions as well: “They are not helping in this area; we have not
received any benefits—maybe because we did not apply for them;” “I have not been
provided any medications or medical help.”

Despite the differences in the answers provided by indigenous people living in the
various settlements, the attitude of indigenous people toward the SIMDP is largely
positive. Our surveys allow us to make the following conclusions:
    • In general, the SIMDP has had a positive influence on the economic position of
       clan enterprises, the accessibility of educational services, and the accessibility of
       medical services (the latter are more noticeable in small settlements). It also has
       had a positive influence on the development of traditional crafts, sports, and the
       cultural life of the indigenous population.
    • The indigenous people are relatively well acquainted with the SIMDP’s positive
       influence on the indicated aspects of indigenous people’s life; the general
       emotional atmosphere around the plan’s perception is positive.

At the same time, the indigenous population has not yet realized the influence of the
SIMDP on the public activity of the local indigenous communities and formation of the
basics of self-government and self-organization. The opinions of the common
indigenous people indicate that most of them do not see the direct connection between
implementation of the SIMDP and development of civil activities and indigenous
organizations. Only in two settlements out of four did the share of interviewees who
noted such an influence exceed 20% (Nogliki—20.93%, Poronaysk—24%).

The survey of indigenous people’s public opinions shows that the population perceives
the SIMDP in a positive light and connects it with improvements in the social and
economic situation of the indigenous people, development of their culture and sports,
and improvement in the accessibility of education and medicine. The evaluations of the
SIMDP expressed by the indigenous population testify to the presence of objective
changes in the quality of the local population’s life as a result of implementation.

 3. The Sakhalin Oblast Administration and Regional Administrations

The Sakhalin Oblast Administration (SOA) and Regional Administrations involved with
the SIMDP uniformly see the plan as properly focused not only on benefits-sharing but
also on indigenous capacity-building, leading eventually to greater self-sufficiency. They
are very positive about the Plan and are actively engaged in promoting it in their official
government capacities. It is seen as a needed and useful complement to their own
responsibilities and programs. One regional administration Indigenous Peoples
representative stated that the SIMDP has had very positive effects on the development
of clan/family enterprises (rodovoye hozaitsva) while also helping raise the social status
of the indigenous community through public celebrations of indigenous holidays.

Regional administrations are most positive about the benefits distributed by the SDP
and MGF components of the Plan. Although they point to some programs that have not
worked out as planned (e.g., an anti-alcoholism project), others (such as eye
treatments, student scholarships, and dental treatment) are warmly praised for dealing
with serious needs of the local community. Some others, however, cynically claim that
the SIMDP is merely replacing falling federal and oblast administration support—a claim
vociferously denied by government representatives.

Government representatives also pointed to some effects of the SIMDP:

   •   Uniting Indigenous Peoples from all districts to consider common problems
   •   Stimulating local Indigenous People to expand their economic activities and
       become more active in engaging government and the outer world; reluctance to
       serve on SIMDP governance bodies or to apply for its programs has yielded to a
       positive enthusiasm for participation as new people and young people are
       showing growing interest in the plan.

Other elements of the SIMDP praised included:
   • The strong degree of cooperation in the plan’s implementation with both SEIC
      and the RCAR
   • The plan’s general transparency regarding its process and implementation record
   • The positive functions of the reports of the EM in raising difficult issues in the
      implementation of the plan in an objective manner
   • The growing national and international reputation of the SIMDP, leading to the
      SOA considering the plan to be a desirable model for other companies operating
      on Sakhalin Island
In addition, the SOA indicated its strong appreciation of SEIC for its continuing support
for indigenous development, as displayed not only in the SIMDP but through other
programs.

The main problem with the SIMDP was seen to be its lack of a clear direction on how to
promote traditional economic activities, including its misstep in turning to a focus in
2008 on self-sufficiency grants and away from Business Plans. However, optimism was
expressed that the SB in December 2008 had turned the SIMDP appropriately back to a
more sustainable economic development approach.

 4. Sakhalin Energy Investment Company

SEIC believes the SIMDP is functioning well and has accommodated well to the
transition to new company majority ownership. The first year marked the transition
from conflict and protests to a new relationship of partnership and a challenge for both
sides in learning how to accommodate their respective styles. With experience, both
sides saw the advantages of cooperation, so that during the second year, with benefits
and funding visible, the SIMDP began to attain community acceptance. Year Three,
2008, was the “Year of Recognition,” as they see it, with the SIMDP becoming a model
of cooperation between government, Indigenous Peoples, and business.

SEIC sees itself as a socially responsible company, one whose commitment to
indigenous groups on the island goes far beyond its support of the SIMDP itself and is
motivated by more than the minimum legal obligations to its corporate lenders. Beyond
the confines of the SIMDP, the Company has supported other indigenous-related
initiatives, such as the development of a primer for Uilta children to learn their own
language. These extra activities, and the costs of the Indigenous Peoples Unit in the
Company itself, raise indigenous-related expenditures to the Company far beyond the
300,000 USD spent in the SIMDP yearly budget.

For its efforts, SEIC has also reaped a good deal of positive publicity, both on the
national and international levels:

   •   In 2008, the Sakhalin Indigenous Minorities Development Plan became a winner
       of the most authoritative Russian contest of social investments, The Corporate
       Donor of Russia, in the nomination of the Russian Federation Ministry of
       Economic Development as the Best Tripartite Cooperation Programme between
       Business, Non-profit Organizations and Authorities in the Regions.
   •   The Development Plan was included into the volume, The Best Corporate Social
       Projects of 2006-2007 (the publication of the Expert rating agency of the donors’
       forum and of the information centre, Charity, in Russia).
   •   The International Finance Corporation (a subdivision of the World Bank focusing
       on the private sector) included the Development Plan as a good practice model
       in its publication Interaction with Stakeholders: a Best Practices Manual
   •   In October 2007, the International Consulting Company АЕА, an independent
       advisor for potential creditors of the Sakhalin II Project, Phase 2, indicated in
       their report that the Sakhalin Indigenous Minorities Development Plan complies
       with the Operational Directive 4.20 (of the World Bank) and corresponds to the
       best world practices.
   •   Independent advisors named development of the given Development Plan to be
       one of the best practices of the Sakhalin II Project
   •   In 2008, the Head of the subdivision of Sakhalin Energy directly involved in
       implementation of the Development Plan was awarded with the Certificate of
       Honour of the Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North (RAIPON).
   •   The Development Plan was praised by the North Issues and Indigenous Peoples
       Committee of the Federation Council and by the Ethnic Issues Committee of the
       RF State Duma

“We follow the world’s best practice, and now we have become a good practice
example ourselves,” remarked a company official. Yet the Company also recognizes that
their influence on development for Indigenous Peoples is limited, which is one reason
they too emphasize that the SIMDP is all about capacity-building. Company staff
involved in the Plan are perhaps the best positioned to evaluate increases in indigenous
capacity, as they work closely with local community representatives to implement the
Plan. SEIC staffers see some development, but are doubtful Indigenous Peoples can run
the Plan themselves any time soon. They note that some learning has clearly taken
place—with the grant applications process, with greater activity at the regional level,
and the emergence of obschinas as critical players—but also note some key challenges,
including conflicts of interest, factional tensions, and a lack of what they would consider
good projects.

The SDP is seen as the most successful component, distributing money efficiently and
working in complementary fashion with SOA programs. Although the SEIC’s evaluation
of the MGF is generally positive, it has also shown some concern about a claimed
decline in the competitiveness of the program. The TEASP, in the Company’s view, has
given the indigenous community valuable experience in understanding what the
Company sees as the most critical element in the SIMDP’s capacity-building approach—
raising awareness of the importance of sustainability in all development efforts. For this
reason, the Company applauds the emerging recognition that self-sufficiency projects
are not sustainable and that some form of business plan development must be the
center of efforts to invigorate traditional economic activities. Yet the Company remains
somewhat doubtful that a clear way forward for TEASP has been found as of now.

Like its indigenous and government partners, finally, the Company also has noticed the
increasing willingness of indigenous community members to be involved in the Plan and
the emerging expectation that other programs and interactions with outsiders should
also follow the participatory format that the Plan has pioneered. Thus, even though
staff will agree that they too have seen some degree of increased conflict which could
be traced to the Plan’s implementation, they see this as an inevitable outcome of
heightened community activity, competition, and development.



    5. The Midterm Review Team

In the three years since Plan launch, all of the partners present at the creation of the
Plan have changed the actors involved in Plan management and coordination. RCAR,
the SOA, and SEIC all changed key personnel so that the three signers of May 2006’s
Tripartite Agreement have all gone on to other pursuits.2 One might note that even the
bank lending consortium has changed, with the original key player, EBRD, declining
engagement with the Project. Yet the Plan continues in good stead because the three
organizations remain committed to Plan implementation.

SEIC’s relationships with Indigenous Peoples have undergone a significant improvement
in the years since 2005 opened with public demonstrations by Indigenous Peoples
against some activities of the Company, which some viewed as unresponsive despite
ongoing outreach activities including significant interaction with reindeer herders. Under
this outside pressure, which was occurring in tandem with that of potential lender
banks, Company management took a new tack and changed its approach. Whereas
earlier the Company displayed the typical patronizing attitude of the corporate world to
indigenous populations wherein the Company itself decided on a benefits package for
indigenous groups after a minimum of consultation, with the SIMDP the Company
transitioned to partnership, providing conditions for the Indigenous Peoples to make
decisions on their own.

This positive approach to indigenous engagement has led to a surge in popularity for
the Company on Sakhalin. There is broad appreciation for the Company’s support for
the Plan’s programs, which are seen as funded at a meaningful level.

This does not mean that the SIMDP is immune to criticism. Our MRT heard a good
number of critical comments that largely repeated comments reported in previous EM
reports. Yet such criticism should not discourage Company management, nor should it
blind them to the reality that the SIMDP they have promoted is well appreciated by a
significant majority of the island’s Indigenous Peoples, as confirmed by the recent
survey on indigenous attitudes reported elsewhere in this MTR.

As reported by the SIMDP stakeholders in the sections above, the Plan has emerged as
a good practice model on both an international level, with perhaps the most telling
endorsement by RAIPON, Russia’s preeminent Indigenous Peoples organization.

2
 One should note, however, that SEIC’s CEO Ian Craig, was and continues both in his post and
as a firm supporter of the SIMDP.
RAIPON recommends that the Plan be used as a model for other regions in the country
for Indigenous Peoples in their relations with industrial companies, particularly when
there is foreign investment. Some observers also believe that the SIMDP can serve as a
model for domestic companies.

Perhaps one of the most significant effects of the Plan has been for the Plan’s activities
and governance bodies to serve as a forum for island-wide discussion of indigenous
issues. This was made possible by SEIC’s decision early in the Plan preparation process
to apply the SIMDP to the entire island and not just to those areas affected directly by
the SEIC pipelines and related activities. This has well complemented the RCAR as the
SIMDP provides a training ground to carry out in practical ways the issues that the
Council may discuss. The SIMDP and its Supervisory Board also serves as a locus and
catalyst for collective decision-making with the SOA, as was demonstrated during
December 2008’s Board meeting when the SOA agreed to facilitate the Board’s
discussion of the TEASP and the need to move forward on working with clan
enterprises.

Similar activities have revealed the role the SIMDP is serving as a stimulus for strategic
thinking for indigenous development on the Island. The vibrant discussions regarding
the TEASP reveals just such debate as indigenous representatives grapple with the
question of how best to advance indigenous economic development in a sustainable
and equitable fashion. What economic activities should be encouraged? Should social
criteria be appended to Business Plan decisions (such as numbers of people employed)?
Do grants without obligations simply make people dependent? Should funding be
distributed strictly by population quotas per district or by merit?

The Plan has indeed stimulated a greater degree of public involvement, as indicated
both in the expansion of public organizations and in the greater level of interest and
participation in this Plan. As one former leader said, “We like the SIMDP because in the
past, others just gave us what they thought was good for us. We were too passive.
Now with the SIMDP this is the first time we get respect and can help determine our
own future.” Similarly, some see the possibility of the SIMDP providing the indigenous
communities of Sakhalin with a bridge to a long-sought after indigenous goal: that of an
Indigenous Fund which would be self-managed by the indigenous communities on the
Island on behalf of their own development. The SIMDP is providing direct experience in
the skills and tasks necessary to set up and manage just such an enterprise.

Antonina Nachetkina reports:

      In the period 2006–2008, Indigenous People created a mechanism of interacting
      with the oil companies and government authorities, and the potential of public
      organizations grew substantially. This was well revealed by the SIMDP partner
      organization Center for the Preservation and Development of the Traditional
      Indigenous Culture Kykhkykh (Swan), which has been helping to implement the
      projects of the SDP.

      Active self-organization is continuing in the districts. In the course of helping to
      implement the Plan, the activities of the Regional Public Organization The Union
      of the Indigenous Peoples of the North (chaired by A.G. Limanzo) have
      expanded. The organization has become part of RAIPON, an information center
      has been established, and the bulletin Ethnosoyuz was published in December
      2008. A Union of Nanaitsi, Evenki, and Uilta has also been established in
      Poronaysk, and this district public self-government organization has established a
      location for its activities.

      In 2008, three new clan communities emerged in the Okha district: i) a Nivkhi
      family clan enterprise Targongu (L.Z. Kravchuk), and ii) two territorial-
      neighbourhood clan enterprises Chari (E.P. Khailova) and Oira (L.F. Agnyun).
      And in the Nogliki district: Ruvgu (V.V. Zhuldybin), Sakvongun (E.A. Kerker),
      Venivongun (T.N. Railik) and others as well.

      This is encouraging, as we are witnessing a rise in the self-esteem of the
      Indigenous People, a desire on their part to solve their own problems,
      determining their position in ensuring self-sustenance.

The MRT views the SIMDP’s strengths and challenges in the context of the recent
history of the Indigenous Peoples on Sakhalin. Their cultures were heavily undermined
beginning in the 1950s and 1960s and on into the 1980s by forced resettlement, the
establishment of the internat system of boarding schools, an intensified patronizing
approach to indigenous communities by state policies, and the weakening of their
traditions of self-subsistence and self-reliance. Whereas indigenous self-consciousness
began to revive in the 1990s, the SIMPD has provided a practical stimulus where
questions about what type of culture and society the indigenous on the Island want
have been raised and require answers. The recent conflicts and jealousies and the
conflicting approaches to Plan spending formulas somewhat reflect two competing
paradigms: i) the Soviet and traditional approach which emphasize the equal
distribution of benefits, and the ii) “modern” and “business” approach which sees
benefits or grants distribution as rewards for “merit,” gained through previous success
or proactive social engagement (whether through competitive grant applications or
profit-making in business).

“It has been our dream that we Indigenous Peoples will become more aware of their
conditions and be responsible for our own destiny. We need to try to recover our
traditions. Now we have begun to realize our dream. Fortunately, we now have a Plan
which can help keep our traditions somewhat longer. Any problems we have with the
Plan are not with the Plan itself but with our own mindset: we have lost the wisdom of
our ancestors. We need to learn how to move on and adapt to the new conditions.” And
the SIMDP is helping them do just that with its capacity-building emphases.
III. Mitigation Measures
   SIMDP mitigation issues derive from the items listed in the Mitigation Matrix (MM)
   section of the SIMDP, as well as the free-standing agreement to work on such
   issues signed during the Project Launch in May 2006 by the representatives of the
   Company and the RCAR. The latter agreement interprets the MM to be more of a
   process for dealing with issues of potential or perceived harm to the indigenous
   communities on the island by the Project than as a finalized document. Most issues
   in the original matrix have been adequately dealt with to the satisfaction of both
   sides, and the MM continues to serve a valuable purpose in providing a convenient
   venue for community representatives to raise grievances large or small.

   The MM included provisions for three studies of Project effects, one of which was
   concluded in 2006 (the Fish Specialist’s Report) and two of which were undertaken
   in 2007 (the Project Documentation Review and the Marine Biologist Review). SEIC
   emphasizes the lack of any evidence in the reports that Sakhalin II has negatively
   affected indigenous lives or livelihoods. While indigenous representatives thank the
   Company for its aggressive pursuit of these investigations, they also point to the
   calls in the reports for more research and/or other suggestions. The RCAR has
   repeated its call on SEIC to respond to recommendations found in the completed
   reviews.

   Yet what is noteworthy is that both the Company and the RCAR have paid little
   attention to these mitigation issues in the last year or more. This indicates that
   both sides have moved on to the more immediate and more relevant benefits
   sections of the SIMDP

   The ability to track grievances from Indigenous Minorities is important to help
   determine how they are affected by the Project and the SIMDP. In the three years
   of the Plan, there has yet to be a formal complaint registered. However, this
   dearth of officially lodged complaints regarding the project or the IMDP should not
   be taken as a sign of lack of complaints about the Plan’s operation. Many such
   comments can indeed be heard, though verbally and often with the explicit
   admonition not to report such comments officially. Given both the close-knit nature
   of the community and the cultural preference for the oral over the written, this is
   understandable.
IV. SIMDP Benefits
  1. OVERVIEW

The Social Development Program (SDP) and the Mini-Grant Fund (MGF) were generally
well received, with recipients grateful to SEIC and the Plan for its benefits. Attitudes
toward the TEASP, though generally positive as well, were more divided, with
complaints focused around charges of improper distribution of funds.

 2. Social Development Program

The SDP is working well and is also a good example of collaboration between Plan
partners. For example, even when a project’s implementation is not going as well as
hoped for, it can be the locus of positive collaboration between the SOA and the Plan,
as happened with the project to have Health Department medical personnel travel north
from Yuzhno-Sakhalin and bring their diagnostic specializations directly to the
indigenous inhabitants in their settlements. However, although many received quality
health treatment, serious complaints were heard that not all those who were supposed
to go north did, nor was the attitude of the personnel as helpful as could be expected.
When this was discussed at the Supervisory Board meeting in December 2008, the
Indigenous Peoples Department director pledged to intervene directly in the matter and
adjust the issue to the satisfaction of both the SIMDP and the SOA to ensure that such
uneven performance not be repeated. Similarly, when problems arise in the delivery of
SDP medicines or other goods when they pass through intermediary organizations, both
SEIC Indigenous Peoples Department staff and SOA Indigenous Peoples officials will
personally deliver the needed items when they travel north in a admirable display of
community spirit and responsibility.

The public organization from the Okha Region, Kykhkykh, serves as a local partner
organization to help implement elements of the SDP programs, particularly in education
and health.

Health Component. The indigenous people get free dentures, ophthalmologic
operations, along with medical checkups with medications. Tuition of medical students
is paid for; equipment and furniture are purchased for them. Out of 21 planned projects
21 are financed (100%); out of planned funds of 3,510,962 rubles there are 3’648’250
rubles (96.2%) financed. At the same time, the indigenous people express their
dissatisfaction with the way the medical checkups are held. When conducting medical
checkups in the districts, preparatory work has to be carried out: the central district
hospitals carry out field checkups, they do tests, carry out ultrasound examinations, do
ECG and other necessary procedures, after which specialists from the regional capital
are invited. In addition, the indigenous people consider alcoholism treatment to be
ineffective.
Education component. Out of 18 planned projects, 18 projects were funded or 100%,
amounting to 3,617,803 rubles; 3,768,014 rubles were paid or 104.15%. Allocation of
funds under this component is perceived by the indigenous people extremely positively.
Non-recurrent and stimulating financial support of the students and payment for their
tuition contribute to enhancing the stimulus to study well, graduate, and become a
professional. The number of indigenous young professionals and college students is
growing: young people are striving to become educated, despite the severe financial
situation of their parents, unemployment and the low standard of living.

At the committee meetings, the committee members discussed the applications made
by the students and their parents on the basis of the “Provision on the Criteria of
Selecting Participants for the Students’ Support Programmes.” Unfortunately, many
indigenous people do not know of this Provision, so a certain degree of discontent and
misunderstanding may arise. At the same time, certain indigenous people consider it
necessary to conclude contracts with the parents of the students whose tuition has to
be paid (whose number is growing from year to year). The Committee should consider
the wisdom of including a clause in such contracts, providing for returning part of the
funds in case the student drops out of the educational institution.

Cultural component. Funding of the cultural component amounted to 103%, which
constituted 1,901,947 rubles, against the planned 1,850,000 rubles. Out of 17 planned
projects, 16 projects were funded; all the projects support funding of the local folk
museums’ activities and activities of folk groups, publication of literature in indigenous
languages, ethnic customs and rites, etc. At the same time, the indigenous culture is
going through hard times: some culture institutions have been closed and some good
projects have not been implemented due to improper preparation of documents, and
inadequate budgets.

Leadership Potential Development component. This component has been fulfilled 95%:
out of 10 planned projects, 10 projects were funded, amounting to 1,207,531 rubles,
out of the planned sum of 1,271,000 rubles. It is obvious from the statements made by
the Indigenous People that this component should work effectively, as it is necessary to
train not only the members of the managing staff of the Development Plan but also the
applicants, the local public organizations, the clan enterprises and households. Such a
desire was expressed by the indigenous people in the districts, who feel the need to be
trained in business basics.




           RECOMMENDATIONS:

          √ In order to carry out medical checkups in the districts, it is
          necessary to conduct preliminary work: to do tests, carry out
          ultrasound examinations, do ECG and other necessary
          procedures, after which specialists from Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk
          should be invited.

          √ Inform municipal formations, the indigenous public
          organizations and the managerial structures of the Development
          Plan of the “Provision on the Criteria of Selecting Participants for
          the Students’ Support Programmes.”

          √ Consider making amendments in the contracts with the
          parents of those students whose tuition has to be paid: should a
          clause be included in such contracts, providing for returning part
          of the funds in case the student drops out of the educational
          institution?

          √ Provide assistance to cultural institutions in funding projects
          by meeting with them to develop applications, especially in
          remote settlements; to reconsider interesting projects which
          were rejected.

          √ Discuss with Indigenous Specialists in the Regional
          Administrations whether it is a good idea for them to arrange
          public displays of SIMDP projects and application procedures



      3. Mini-Grant Fund (MGF)

The projects of the Mini-Grants Fund for the period of 2006–2008 were fulfilled 98%,
out of 54 planned projects 52 projects were funded in the amount of 2,255,100 rubles
out of the planned sum 2,304,930 rubles, accordingly, which amounted to 98%.
Applications averaged about 40 per year, with the peak of over 50 in 2007.
Considerable growth of the Fund’s projects is to be noted. Thus, in 2006, out of 14
submitted projects, 14 were funded in the amount of 810,000 rubles, the execution
degree constituting 100%. In 2007, 17 projects were adopted out of 18 projects
planned, in the total amount of 754,000 rubles, with 26,000 rubles not spent, due to
return of funds by the liquidated orphanage No. 4, a project was not implemented.

In 2008, 21 projects out of 22 projects were adopted in the total amount of 691,100
rubles (one project amounted to 23,830 rubles was not financed: the sum was not paid
under the project Children are our Heritage of clan enterprise Nin-Mif due to the closure
of Sakhalin-West bank). In 2006, the beneficiaries of the Saving Traditions project
expressed their gratitude to Sakhalin Energy, to the Council of the Mini-Grants Fund
and to other contractors for implementing actions under this project.
Excellent projects have been financed under the program Reviving Traditions in Lyceum
No. 3 The Technology of Traditional Arts and Crafts of the Indigenous Peoples of the
North (Poronaysk), providing assistance in the repair of the souvenir facility of the LPO
of IPN of the Poronaysk district for the clan enterprise Tyi, publication of collected
Nivkhi folk songs called “Quiet Ancestors’ Songs” by the compiler N.A. Mamcheva,
Sakhalin Regional Folk Arts and Crafts Centre Heirs of Traditions, MSEI Children’s Art
School of the Nogliki district, Preservation and Development of the Nivkhi Language,
LPO of IPN Centre for Preservation and Development of the Traditional Indigenous
Culture Kykhkykh (Swan), The Legends and Myths of Sakhalin for the Future
Generations, Sakhalin State Regional Local Lore Museum (G.A. Otagina), Inter-
generation Ties in a Family, Nivkhi family (clan) enterprise Targungu, etc.

The MGF, with all new committee members as of December 2008, is in great need of
training, a process beginning at the first committee meeting where those committee
members who had received training with professional grantsmanship people conveyed
the same materials they had received earlier to their novice colleagues. This was a good
example of SIMDP capacity-building and sustainability as the lessons learned were
passed along to the next generation. The values and principles orally passed along to
the new members by previous committee leaders to guide their work during their first
meeting were also noteworthy: transparency, democracy, and loyalty to Indigenous
Peoples.

How to interpret the latter could also itself be considered an exercise in capacity-
building as the MGF Committee has grappled with the same question the other
committees have: how to distribute money. Do it strictly according to “merit” (according
to some external critieria) or according to the “traditional” egalitarian approach where
everyone gets a little. SEIC’s critique of MGF operations, presented in 2008 to the
Supervisory Board, can be also seen in this light as a critique of the egalitarian
approach. Given the hope that eventually the MGF could morph into the Indigenous
Peoples Fund that has been the stated goal of the Island’s indigenous organizations for
a number of years, such capacity building and consideration of fundamental issues
needs to be continued.



           RECOMMENDATIONS:

          √ Reconsider interesting projects which were rejected; suggest
          that the applicants improve their applications for the committee
          members to consider them again.

          √ The MGF Committee needs to consider the questions raised
          by SEIC and presented by O. Bazaleev at the June 2008
          Supervisory Board meeting and report their response at the next
          Board meeting. In doing so, the MFG Committee should consult
          closely with those with MGF experience.



2. TEASP

Overview. The TEAS Program has been funded since 2007: during the two years 39
projects amounting to 8,262,654 rubles were funded, accordingly, which amounted to
77%, against the planned 53 projects and planned funding of 10,761,800 rubles. In
2007, 28 projects were implemented out of 31 planned projects; their sum was
7,038,154 rubles and 7,420,000 rubles, accordingly, which amounted to 95%. In 2008,
out of the planned 22 projects, 9 projects were implemented, amounting to 3,341,800
rubles and 1,224,500 rubles, accordingly, which amounted to 37%.

Reduction in project funding in 2008 occurred due partially to the absence of consultant
support to prepare business plans and applications. Since in 2006 consultants from the
Russian-American Training Centre worked with applicants, in 2007 a great number of
applications were made. However, in 2008 a significant reduction in the number of
applications took place and thus funding of projects fell as well, due to the absence of
consultants. Analyzing the TEAS Program, out of 39 approved projects amounting to
8,262,654 rubles, 13 projects considered were not funded due to the absence of
documents supporting certain parameters.


                                    District breakdown of funds
      Districts            Number of         Amount, rubles (financed   General number of
                         financed / not           / not financed)       projects / General
                            financed                                    sum (in rubles) per
                            projects                                    district
        Okha                   9/1             2 584 000/753 250            10/3 337 250
       Nogliki                 21/3             3 702 654/350 000           24/4 052 654
      Tymovsk                  3/4               955 000/244 590             7/1 199 590
   Aleksandovsk-               2/1               272 000/129 247              3/401 247
    Sakhalinsky
      Poronaisk               3/4              704 000/426 000              7/1 130 000
 Co-financing of the          1/0                 45 000/0                    45 000
    workshop of
 accounting in tribal
    enterprises,
  communities, etc
(beneficiaries are all
      districts)
     Budget for              0/1                 0/596 059                  596 059
     education
              Total        38/13          8 262 654/2 499 146           53/10 761 800


Unfortunately, it did not seem possible for the MRT to check the actual implementation
of the projects. It may be necessary instead to conduct internal monitoring in the
districts. The following projects are particularly interesting: construction of an open-air
museum in Chir-Unvd, Tymovsk district (695,000 rubles), development of a fishing
complex on the basis of EC Aborigen (520,000 rubles), establishing a fish smoking
facility Nmif in the Okha district (412,000 rubles), establishing a facility for processing
and packing wild plants in the village of Nekrasovka in the Okha district (858,000
rubles), establishment of a fishing complex in Nogliki, Nin-Mif clan enterprise (587,041
rubles).

Challenges. The experience of the TEASP during its first three years revealed some
significant challenges both for the SIMDP and for the indigenous communities on the
Island. While the original idea for the TEASP was to develop traditional economic
activities through the solicitation and support of business plans, such an approach was
hard to follow given the low capacity of most economic or family enterprises to
formulate such plans and a general lack of a strategy or vision of what indigenous
economic development should look like on Sakhalin. Faced with problems of developing
and implementing proper business plans, there was an understandable tendency to
redirect the committee’s funds to the more understandable and easy to apply for “self-
subsistence grants” which meant in practice mostly distributing snowmobiles and
motorboats to families and clan enterprises. This concentration of funds on self-
sufficiency led to much criticism of TEASP and some heated discussions.

Nevertheless, these discussions and conflicts can be seen to have had positive results.
They have raised clearly the two issues noted above which the TEASP needs to deal
with and which can simultaneously serve the larger indigenous community as well: i)
the need to develop an economic strategy, and ii) the need to raise capacity.

Need to Develop an Economic Strategy. The switch from the original TEASP funds
allocation division of 80% for business plans and 20% for self-subsistence grants to the
bulk for the grants caused much discussion of what was the proper use of economic
development funds. Some referred to any money given to such grants as a “waste,” or,
in the Russian expression, simply “money into sand,” while others saw such allocations
as appropriate as long as the recipients were really pursuing traditional economic
activities. But how do we define the latter? Just living some time during the year on the
bay coast or a similar locale? Or must it be year-round?

By December of 2008, it appears that those who argued for spending the money where
it could have ramifications beyond the benefits to a single family for a season or two—
beyond “welfare”—were winning the debate. Many now advocate that if the problem
with developing good Business Plans in the past was lack of capacity for individual clan
enterprises (“rodovaye hozaitzva”) the TEASP should support one or two larger projects
per year which would bring together smaller entities to develop a joint activity such as
fish or wild plant processing facilities or a handicrafts outlet. For such a perspective, the
key is to develop processing and marketing and not mere gathering activities which is
what the Self-Sufficiency Grants support.

These issues need to be discussed not only by the TEASP committee but by the SIMDP
Supervisory Board as well. At the December 2008 meeting the Board discussed the
need to more systematically address such questions by way of an assessment of clan
enterprise capacities and the convening of a congress of clan enterprises to determine a
way forward. This development is very positive and it should be used to guide the
TEASP forward. Including the SOA, the RCAR, and the corporate world experience of
SEIC, the SIMDP can serve a positive function in developing an island-wide Indigenous
Peoples economic development strategy.

Capacity-Building. The other major impediment to business plan formulation has been
low capacity to work with such economic and financial planning documents and
requirements. People in the communities are reluctant to deal with the paper work,
often possessing little self-confidence and considering themselves lacking in proper
technical and financial skills (e.g., mechanical and accounting) to prepare a business
plan which could meet what they see as the high standards of the SIMDP. There is a
clear need to help people prepare their business plan proposals as few can accomplish
this on their own. Consultants or peer advisors might be the way this could be
accomplished.



            RECOMMENDATIONS:

          √ Consider using remaining TEASP funds for 2009-2010, in
          whole or in part, to support activities which would develop a
          coherent economic development strategy for indigenous
          communities of Sakhalin: e.g., an assessment of clan and
          community enterprises, a congress involving such enterprises
          along with SOA, RCAR, and experts. The strategy resulting
          could be included in the Second SIMDP (2011-2015).

          √ Focus on processing and marketing approaches rather than
          simple gathering enhancement (e.g., catching more fish or
          gathering more berries) as basis for TEASP funding

          √ Conduct monitoring of TEASP grants
√ Review the Committee’s previously approved criterion for
what constitutes “traditional economic activities” when
awarding “self-sufficiency grants” and use this criterion or
amend it

√ Provide training in making business plans and applications,
call specialists in business planning
V. Governance Issues and Recommendations
     1. The Three-way Partnership

Over the past three years, the three parties have continuously improved their positive
collaboration on the Plan.

The great workload of the Indigenous Peoples Unit of Sakhalin Energy is obvious: the
document flow is huge in the subdivision, judging by the number of reports, of
committees’ meetings, correspondence, replies, provision of assistance in making
applications, projects and reports and other actions held by the Company. At the same
time, some comments were heard by the MRT regarding the poor response to criticism
and suggestions of one of the members of the Indigenous Peoples Unit. Also there was
the observation that the work of the Unit could be better integrated.

In discussions with the MRT, the SOA also invited members of the SEIC Indigenous
Peoples Unit to establish regular contact regarding SIMDP implementation and their
mutual collaboration. Regional administrations also report satisfactory relations with the
Plan. At the local or regional level, however, some difficulties were noted. Due to the
lack of detailed familiarity with the SDP, MGF and TEAS programmes, projects and
applications are prepared without substantiation and the documents are filled in
incorrectly. The committees suggest making improvements in the projects, requesting
the applicants to consider the criticism expressed and send them back to the
committees. Too often, though, this doesn’t happen and thus good projects often do
not get approved, finding no support.

To respond to this weakness in the application process, the SIMDP partners should
consider an innovation in how the applications are processed. Would it be reasonable to
first have the applications in the districts examined by an informal regional committee
formed by the Indigenous Peoples specialists of the regional administrations, the SIMDP
committee members, and by the members of indigenous public organizations? These
are the Indigenous People from the districts, who know the local situation, know the
people, know the activities of the clan enterprises and their problems. Therefore it will
be easier for them than for others to help improve the applications, work with the
applicants, and to explain the projects at the meetings of the Committees. Discussing
projects in the districts in this manner could ensure better selection of applications at
the meetings of the Committees.



           RECOMMENDATIONS:

           √ Consider ways of integrating the work of the SEIC
           Indigenous Peoples Unit better without adding unduly to
           their workload; one possibility would be to have the
           Coordinator and Project Assistant attend meetings of all
           committees, with the latter providing secretarial support to
           all committees.

           √ Encourage the forming of informal groups at the regional
           level composed of the indigenous specialists of the regional
           administrations, the district SIMDP committee members, and
           by representatives of public organizations, to examine
           project applications to ensure a more complete
           understanding of the application, to offer practical assistance
           to its proponents based on the knowledge of the problems,
           of the actual situation and on what it takes to achieve the
           desired effect. This will contribute to the quality examination
           of applications and projects at the committee meetings.



 2. Committees/Governing Bodies

After two years and more of service, many of the members of the governance structure
have been changed recently. This presents the Plan with a loss of collective experience
regarding Plan governance. Many interviewees suggested to the MRT the need for
training to be provided as to how to the responsibilities of a committee member as well
as in the details of the application process for the committee the member is serving on
(SDP, MGF, TEASP). Even prior to the recent membership changes, however, criticisms
had been raised that committee members were too passive, and did not actively take
responsibility for the committee’s work. Such lack of activity may reflect a lack of
experience and thus self-confidence in carrying out actively the committee member
role. Infrequent meetings may exacerbate such disengagement. Some revisions may be
necessary to enable and encourage greater Indigenous Peoples engagement on the
Plan’s boards and committees. Some suggested that the Supervisory Board and
Executive Committee need to meet more often to more fully carry out their
responsibilities, including a more active approach to Plan publicity and implementation.

Governance bodies were fairly well balanced in terms of ethnicity (Nivkh, Nanaitsy,
Evenki, Uilta). Regional balance was also not bad, although some believed that
Tymovskoye and Aleksandrovsk-Sakhalinsky districts should be granted representation
on the TEASP committee.


           RECOMMENDATIONS:

         √ Training for new committee/board members should be held,
          using both written materials prepared by experienced
          committee members as well as hands-on training in how to
          advise people in their communities to apply for SIMDP
          programs

          √ Each committee and board should consider its frequency of
          meetings in relation to the degree of engagement expected
          from committee/board members; to keep expenses
          reasonable, consideration should be given to holding any
          added meetings by teleconference

          √ For the next Plan (SIMDP II), staggered committee terms
          should be considered to avoid losing committee experience
          with a complete turnover of membership



 3. Information Disclosure

Transparency and information disclosure is critical to the success of the SIMDP and to
dealing with the conflicts or jealousies that benefits distribution can sometimes
engender. In the opinion of the Indigenous Peoples of Sakhalin, the information
disclosure of the Development Plan is sufficient. Information is obtained at the meetings
with the Indigenous Peoples Team of Sakhalin Energy, by the management staff of the
Development Plan, by the administrations of municipal formations, mass media, family
members and friends. Sakhalin Energy publishes analytical information bulletins and
maintains a website. All the districts received computers, which they are supposed to
use to inform the local population.

Awareness of the SIMDP. Currently, the Development Plan is rather well-known among
the indigenous communities, with the exceptions of Poronaysk and Alexandrov-
Sakhalinsk where there is significantly less awareness of the Plan. However, even in the
districts where people are relatively aware of the Plan, they do not always clearly
distinguish the events held under the Plan from other actions exercised by the local
authorities, the other operators of the offshore projects and by the local
administrations. Also, a significant segment of the indigenous population (between 11
and 41%, depending on the locality), still do not have a clear understanding of essential
elements of the Plan.

According to the survey conducted, most of the Indigenous Peoples have learned about
the Plan from two sources: from friends and acquaintances they communicate with on a
daily basis (the share of the interviewees who obtained information about the Plan from
this source varies from 32% to 66.66% in different settlements) or from meetings with
the indigenous people held by the local authorities, by Sakhalin Energy or by its
contractors. In total, such meetings serve as a source of information for 30%–66.66%
of the interviewees in different settlements. The other sources of information, such as
newspapers and television, have limited audience among the indigenous people as
sources of information about the Plan.

Information and Plan Governance. As regards information disclosure and the workings
of the Plan’s committees, the following points were made to the MRT:

   •   Committee reports need to include more substantial information (see
       recommendations)
   •   The TEASP Committee Reports on expenditures for 2006-2008 were particularly
       lacking in relevant details, including what the funds were used for
   •   Information to be used for committee meetings too often arrived at the time of
       the meeting or shortly beforehand; too little time is given for adequate review by
       committee members: if you want committee members involved, you must give
       them the tools in a manner which respects them. Similarly, comments were
       received that often not enough advance notice was given for meetings or
       teleconferences for governance body members who wanted to participate
       actively to do so.
   •   What are the committee rules or restrictions on who can attend committee or
       Board meetings? Should they be open or closed? Who should be allowed to
       attend and who should make those decisions? In the interest of transparency,
       these are important questions.
   •   Committee meeting minutes need to capture fully the committee discussion and
       decisions; the SDP meeting minutes are very useful in this regard.
   •   When unsuccessful applicants for grants did not receive any explanation for why
       their application was turned down, they naturally get suspicious or resentful.

Partnering Regarding Information Disclosure. As noted above, while SEIC and its
Indigenous Peoples Unit has been very proactive in spreading awareness of the SIMDP
and its programs, the Company itself is undergoing a significant change as it transitions
from construction to operations. Field offices will be closed in the north, there will be
fewer media outlets, and field trips to the North will become more infrequent as the
construction infrastructure there shuts down. In such circumstances, both the SOA and
the RCAR need to reinvigorate their obligations for Plan publicity and information
disclosure. So too, the local informal district committees suggested above might help
with this information disclosure to supplement the Indigenous Peoples Unit’s activities.




           RECOMMENDATIONS:

          √ The Plan’s Six Month Reports need to include more detailed
          information on program implementation
√ Committee reports should include the names of beneficiaries
(these need not be made public), as well as an accounting of
financing per district of the different programs

√ The Executive Committee and the Supervisory Board should
be provided with full lists of all applications, both approved and
rejected, along with reasons for the decisions

√ Reissue the TEASP Committee report on spending for 2006-
2008 with details on what was purchased, for BP or for Self-
Subsistence Grant, and by/for whom

√ List allocations by component and by district

√ Committees and the Indigenous Peoples Unit need to re-
emphasize getting information/documents out sufficiently early
before meetings are held, and giving adequate notice for
meetings and teleconferences

√ Each committee/board should specify and make clear to all
what the rules are for non-committee members attending;
recommendation is for the SIMDP Coordinator and staff to be
invited to all meetings, as well as all members of the Executive
Committee

√ Although the Committees send out rejection letters to those
whose projects were not approved, they need to explain why
applications were not approved--perhaps working with the
committee members from the applicant’s district and through
the local district groups, if such are formed

√ RCAR should include SIMDP information in its own information
dissemination activities

√ Other indigenous organizations, such as Kykhkykh and
RAIPON, could publish appropriate SIMDP documents on their
websites or other Island venues

√ The SOA could consider ways to collaborate to spread SIMDP
information to the Regional Administrations

√ Regional administrations could arrange public displays or
         other methods to spread SIMDP information for all components
         in their districts



      4. Monitoring

The Plan currently lacks a systematic internal monitoring process. Such a monitoring
process could both check on whether proposals were carried out as reported and also
serve a financial auditing function.
 VI. SIMDP Future Issues
     1. External Monitor Reviews

  The External Monitor for the SIMDP will resume his reviews of the Plan in June,
  2009, conducting the Fifth External Monitor Review at that time. A Sixth EM Review
  is anticipated during December, 2009, with a Close-Out EM Report expected in
  December, 2010.




         RECOMMENDATIONS:

        √ Proposed EM visit itinerary and interview schedule should be
        jointly discussed between the three Plan partners: SOA, RCAR,
        and SEIC and agreed upon with the EM.

        √ Prior to EM visits to Sakhalin, minutes of all governance body
        meetings including attachments should be sent to the EM.



        2. Plan Completion Evaluation

  During and around June, 2010, a Final SIMDP Evaluation will be conducted by the
  External Monitor, a representative of the Indigenous Peoples of Sakhalin, and a
  social scientist professional familiar with Sakhalin Island society, working as a team.



         RECOMMENDATIONS:

        √ The Plan partners (SEIC, SOA, RCAR) should agree on the
        indigenous and social scientist members of the Plan
        Completion Evaluation Team by November, 2009.



        3. SIMDP II

     The current, and first, SIMDP will be finished at the end of 2010. According to
both the current SIMDP and SEIC commitments, future SIMDPs will be devised
throughout the life of the project. The Second SIMDP is tentatively scheduled to run
between 2011-2015 and SEIC should make clear its intentions during the June 2009
Supervisory Board meeting. Ideally, results (“lessons learned”) of the SIMDP
Completion Evaluation should inform the planning for the Second SIMDP.



        RECOMMENDATIONS:

        √ Planning for the Second SIMDP needs to begin in 2009,
        particularly regarding securing SEIC funding for the Plan

        √ A Tripartite Working Group to devise the Second SIMDP
        should be appointed by December 2009, with a schedule for
        plan preparation in 2010
Annex 1: Recommendations Allocated as to Action
Items Matrices for Responsible Parties

Note:

   • These matrices capture all recommendations applicable to each body from
     throughout this External Monitor Report
   • Each party is responsible for responding to its Action Items Matrix and for
     designating the other responsible parties
   • Check recommendation in main body of Report for full text of recommendation


Supervisory Board Action Items Matrix (As of May 2009)
Recommendation            Response             Status
√ The Executive Committee and
the Supervisory Board should be
provided with full lists of all
applications, both approved and
rejected, along with reasons for
the decisions
√ Encourage the forming of
informal groups at the regional
level composed of the indigenous
specialists of the regional
administrations, the district
SIMDP committee members, and
by representatives of public
organizations, to examine project
applications to ensure a more
complete understanding of the
application, to offer practical
assistance to its proponents
based on the knowledge of the
problems, of the actual situation
and on what it takes to achieve
the desired effect. This will
contribute to the quality
examination of applications and
projects at the committee
meetings
√ A Tripartite Working Group
to devise the Second SIMDP
should     be     appointed     by
December      2009,     with    a
schedule for plan preparation in
2010
√ Each committee and board
should consider its frequency of
meetings in relation to the
degree      of      engagement
expected                     from
committee/board members; to
keep expenses reasonable,
consideration should be given
to holding any added meetings
by teleconference


Executive Committee Action Items Matrix (As of May 2009)
Recommendation           Response              Status
√ For the next Plan (SIMDP II),
staggered committee terms
should be considered to avoid
losing committee experience with
a complete turnover of
membership
√ Although Committees send out
letters of rejection to those
whose projects were not
approved, they need to explain
why applications were not
approved; perhaps working with
the committee members from
the applicant’s district and
through the local district groups,
if such are formed
√ Training for new
committee/board members
should be held, using both
written materials prepared by
experienced committee members
as well as hands-on training in
how to advise people in their
communities to apply for SIMDP
programs
√ Each committee and board
should consider its frequency of
meetings in relation to the
degree       of      engagement
expected                      from
committee/board members; to
keep expenses reasonable,
consideration should be given
to holding any added meetings
by teleconference
√ Encourage the forming of
informal groups at the regional
level composed of the indigenous
specialists of the regional
administrations, the district
SIMDP committee members, and
by representatives of public
organizations, to examine project
applications to ensure a more
complete understanding of the
application, to offer practical
assistance to its proponents
based on the knowledge of the
problems, of the actual situation
and on what it takes to achieve
the desired effect. This will
contribute to the quality
examination of applications and
projects at the committee
meetings.
√ The EC should keep a list of
decisions taken and submit them
to the next meeting of the SB to
be confirmed, overturned or
adjusted by the SB.
√ The EC should clarify with
committees its prerogative to
have EC members attend any
and all meetings of the
committees.
√ Each committee/board should
specify and make clear to all
what the rules are for non-
committee members attending;
recommendation is for the
SIMDP Coordinator and staff to
be invited to all meetings, as well
as all members of the Executive
Committee
√ The Executive Committee and
the Supervisory Board should be
provided with full lists of all
applications, both approved and
rejected, along with reasons for
the decisions
√ A Tripartite Working Group
to devise the Second SIMDP
should      be    appointed     by
December       2009,     with    a
schedule for plan preparation in
2010
√ Committees and the
Indigenous Peoples Unit need to
re-emphasize getting
information/documents out
sufficiently early before meetings
are held, and giving adequate
notice for meetings and
teleconferences

√ The Executive Committee
should consider instituting an
accounting audit and internal
monitoring process in
preparation for the Second
SIMDP and report its
deliberations to the Supervisory
Board in December 2009




RCAR Action Items Matrix (As of May 2009)
Recommendation           Response           Status
√ Planning for the Second
SIMDP needs to begin in 2009,
particularly regarding securing
SEIC funding for the Plan
√ A Tripartite Working Group to
devise the Second SIMDP
should      be   appointed     by
December       2009,     with   a
schedule for plan preparation in
2010
√ The Plan partners (SEIC,
SOA, RCAR) should agree on
the indigenous and social
scientist members of the Plan
Completion Evaluation Team by
November, 2009
√ Proposed EM visit itinerary
and interview schedule should
be jointly discussed between
the three Plan partners: SOA,
RCAR, and SEIC and agreed
upon with the EM
√ Include SIMDP information in
RCAR information dissemination
activities
√          Other       indigenous
organizations,       such      as
Kykhkykh and RAIPON, could
publish     appropriate    SIMDP
documents on their websites or
other Island venues



SOA Action Items Matrix (As of May 2009)
Recommendation            Response         Status
√ Planning for the Second
SIMDP needs to begin in 2009,
particularly regarding securing
SEIC (and other?) funding for
the Plan
√ A Tripartite Working Group to
devise the Second SIMDP should
be appointed by December
2009, with a schedule for plan
preparation in 2010
√ The Plan partners (SEIC, SOA,
RCAR) should agree on the
indigenous and social scientist
members of the Plan Completion
Evaluation Team by November,
2009
√ Proposed EM visit itinerary
and interview schedule should
be jointly discussed between the
three Plan partners: SOA, RCAR,
and SEIC and agreed upon with
the EM
√ The SOA could consider ways
to collaborate to spread SIMDP
information to the Regional
Administrations
√     Regional     administrations
could arrange public displays or
other methods to spread SIMDP
information for all components
in their districts
√ For the next Plan (SIMDP II),
staggered committee terms
should be considered to avoid
losing committee experience
with a complete turnover of
membership



MGF Committee Action Items Matrix (As of May 2009)
Recommendation          Response             Status
√ Although the Committees send
out rejection letters to those
whose projects were not
approved, they need to explain
why applications were not
approved--perhaps working with
the committee members from the
applicant’s district and through
the local district groups, if such
are formed
√ Reconsider interesting projects
which were rejected; to suggest
that the applicants should
improve their applications for the
committee members to consider
them again
√ The MGF Committee needs to
consider the questions raised by
SEIC and presented by O.
Bazaleev at the June 2008
Supervisory Board meeting and
report their response at the next
Board meeting. In doing so, the
MFG Committee should consult
closely with those with MGF
experience
√ Each committee/board should
specify and make clear to all
what the rules are for non-
committee members attending;
recommendation is for the SIMDP
Coordinator and staff to be
invited to all meetings, as well as
all members of the Executive
Committee
√ List allocations by component
and by district
√ Committees and the
Indigenous Peoples Unit need to
re-emphasize getting
information/documents out
sufficiently early before meetings
are held, and giving adequate
notice for meetings and
teleconferences
√ Committee reports should
include the names of
beneficiaries (these need not be
made public), as well as an
accounting of financing per
district of the different programs
√ The Executive Committee and
the Supervisory Board should be
provided with full lists of all
applications, both approved and
rejected, along with reasons for
the decisions
√ Training for new
committee/board members
should be held, using both
written materials prepared by
experienced committee members
as well as hands-on training in
how to advise people in their
communities to apply for SIMDP
programs
√ Each committee and board
should consider its frequency of
meetings in relation to the
degree       of     engagement
expected                    from
committee/board members; to
keep expenses reasonable,
consideration should be given
to holding any added meetings
by teleconference



TEASP Action Items Matrix (As of May 2009)
Recommendation           Response            Status
√ Provide training in making
business plans and applications,
call    specialists    in business
planning
√ Consider using remaining
TEASP funds for 2009-2010, in
whole or in part, to support
activities which would develop a
coherent                  economic
development         strategy    for
indigenous       communities     of
Sakhalin: e.g., an assessment
of     clan     and     community
enterprises,        a      congress
involving such enterprises along
with SOA, RCAR, and experts.
The strategy resulting could be
included in the Second SIMDP
(2011-2015)
√ Each committee/board should
specify and make clear to all
what the rules are for non-
committee members attending;
recommendation is for the SIMDP
Coordinator and staff to be
invited to all meetings, as well as
all members of the Executive
Committee
√ Although the Committees send
out rejection letters to those
whose projects were not
approved, they need to explain
why applications were not
approved--perhaps working with
the committee members from the
applicant’s district and through
the local district groups, if such
are formed
√ Focus on processing and
marketing approaches rather
than        simple        gathering
enhancement (e.g., catching
more fish or gathering more
berries) as basis for TEASP
funding
√ Conduct monitoring of TEASP
grants
√ Review the Committee’s
previously approved criterion
for what constitutes “traditional
economic       activities”     when
awarding           “Self-Sufficiency
Grants” and use this criterion or
amend it
√ List allocations by component
and by district
√ Committees and the
Indigenous Peoples Unit need to
re-emphasize getting
information/documents out
sufficiently early before meetings
are held, and giving adequate
notice for meetings and
teleconferences
√ Reissue the TEASP Committee
report on spending for 2006-
2008 with details on what was
purchased, for BP or for Self-
Subsistence Grant, and by/for
whom
√ Training for new
committee/board members
should be held, using both
written materials prepared by
experienced committee members
as well as hands-on training in
how to advise people in their
communities to apply for SIMDP
programs
√ Each committee and board
should consider its frequency of
meetings in relation to the
degree        of      engagement
expected                        from
committee/board members; to
keep expenses reasonable,
consideration should be given
to holding any added meetings
by teleconference
√ Committee reports should
include the names of
beneficiaries (these need not be
made public), as well as an
accounting of financing per
district of the different programs
√ The Executive Committee and
the Supervisory Board should be
provided with full lists of all
applications, both approved and
rejected, along with reasons for
the decisions
√ List allocations by component
and by district
√ Committees and the
Indigenous Peoples Unit need to
re-emphasize getting
information/documents out
sufficiently early before meetings
are held, and giving adequate
notice for meetings and
teleconferences



SDP Action Items Matrix (As of May 2009)
Recommendation            Response         Status
√ Although the Committees send
out rejection letters to those
whose       projects    were    not
approved, they need to explain
why applications were not
approved--perhaps working with
the committee members from the
applicant’s district and through
the local district groups, if such
are formed
√ Each committee/board should
specify and make clear to all
what the rules are for non-
committee members attending;
recommendation is for the SIMDP
Coordinator and staff to be
invited to all meetings, as well as
all members of the Executive
Committee
√ Committees and the
Indigenous Peoples Unit need to
re-emphasize getting
information/documents out
sufficiently early before meetings
are held, and giving adequate
notice for meetings and
teleconferences
√ List allocations by component
and by district
√ Committee reports should
include the names of
beneficiaries (these need not be
made public), as well as an
accounting of financing per
district of the different programs
√ The Executive Committee and
the Supervisory Board should be
provided with full lists of all
applications, both approved and
rejected, along with reasons for
the decisions
√ In order to carry out deep
serious medical checkups in the
districts, it is necessary to
conduct preliminary work: to do
tests, carry out ultrasound
examinations, do ECG and other
necessary       procedures,    after
which specialists from Yuzhno-
Sakhalinsk should be invited
√ Inform municipal formations,
the         indigenous        public
organizations and the managerial
structures of the Development
Plan of the Provision on the
Criteria of Selecting Participants
for     the    Students’    Support
Programmes
√ Consider making amendments
in the contracts with the parents
of those students whose tuition
has to be paid: should a clause
be included in such contracts,
providing for returning part of
the funds in case the student
drops out of the educational
institution?
√ Provide assistance to cultural
institutions in funding projects by
meeting with them to develop
applications, especially in remote
settlements;       to    reconsider
interesting projects which were
rejected.

√ Discuss with Indigenous
Specialists in the Regional
Administrations whether it is a
good idea for them to arrange
public displays of SIMDP projects
and application procedures
√      Training      for   new
committee/board        members
should be held, using both
written materials prepared by
experienced           committee
members as well as hands-on
training in how to advise people
in their communities to apply
for SIMDP programs
√ Each committee and board
should consider its frequency of
meetings in relation to the
degree       of     engagement
expected                    from
committee/board members; to
keep expenses reasonable,
consideration should be given
to holding any added meetings
by teleconference



SEIC Action Items Matrix (As of May 2009)
Recommendation            Response          Status
√ Prior to EM visits to Sakhalin,
minutes of all governance body
meetings including attachments
should be sent to the EM
√ Consider ways of integrating
work of the SEIC Indigenous
Peoples Unit better without
adding      unduly     to    their
workload; one possibility would
be to have the Coordinator and
Project      Assistant     attend
meetings of all committees,
with    the    latter   providing
secretarial support to all
committees
√ Planning for the Second
SIMDP needs to begin in 2009,
particularly regarding securing
SEIC funding for the Plan
√ A Tripartite Working Group to
devise the Second SIMDP
should      be    appointed    by
December       2009,     with    a
schedule for plan preparation in
2010
√ The Plan partners (SEIC, SOA,
RCAR) should agree on the
indigenous and social scientist
members of the Plan Completion
Evaluation Team by November,
2009.
√ Proposed EM visit itinerary and
interview schedule should be
jointly discussed between the
three Plan partners: SOA, RCAR,
and SEIC and agreed upon with
the EM
√ Each committee/board should
specify and make clear to all
what the rules are for non-
committee members attending;
recommendation is for the SIMDP
Coordinator and staff to be
invited to all meetings, as well as
all members of the Executive
Committee
√ Committees and the
Indigenous Peoples Unit need to
re-emphasize getting
information/documents out
sufficiently early before meetings
are held, and giving adequate
notice for meetings and
teleconferences
Annex 2: Report On the Results of the Survey of
the Indigenous Minority Population of Sakhalin
Relating to the Sakhalin Indigenous Minorities
Development Plan Developed by Sakhalin Energy
Investment Company




The report was prepared by:
Professor A.T. Konkov, Doctor of Sociology,
Head of the Sociology Chair of the
Sakhalin State University




Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk
2008
EXPLANATORY NOTE
The survey was conducted by the members of the Sociology Chair of the Sakhalin State
University among the indigenous minority people of Sakhalin, at the request of Sakhalin Energy
Investment Company Ltd. on 3–10 December 2008.
In accordance with the requirement specifications provided by the Customer, the goal and the
tasks of the survey were the following.


THE GOAL AND THE TASKS OF THE SURVEY
The goal was to reveal the opinions regarding implementation of the Sakhalin Indigenous
Minorities Development Plan expressed by the people living on Sakhalin Island in the
settlements indicated by the Company (Nekrasovka, Val, Nogliki and Poronaysk).
The goals were to reveal the opinions of the people regarding implementation of the Sakhalin
Indigenous Minorities Development Plan, namely:
A. To get an idea of the level of awareness regarding the Plan;
B. To reveal the general opinion of the people about the Plan’s implementation and about its
   particular aspects;
C. To sum up, evaluate and provide the collected information.


THE OBJECT AND SUBJECT OF THE SURVEY
The object of the survey is the indigenous minority population of Northern Sakhalin living in
Sakhalin in the settlements indicated by Sakhalin Energy Investment Company Ltd., aged from
17 years old and older.

The subject of the survey is the opinions of the indigenous population about implementation of
the Sakhalin Indigenous Minorities Development Plan.
In accordance with the Requirement Specifications, it was planned to obtain the following
information:
A. The people’s awareness of the Development Plan;
B. The people’s opinions about implementation of the Plan as a whole and about its
   particular programmes, projects and divisions;
C. The people’s opinions about the benefits and positive effects from the Project’s
   implementation and from the programmes of supporting the Sakhalin indigenous
   minorities.
THE SAMPLING METHOD
In accordance with the goal of the survey, the people to be interviewed were the indigenous
minority people living in the settlements of Nekrasovka, Val, Nogliki and Poronaysk. The
total sample was 2,225 people.
To obtain representative data, a quota sample was used, presupposing interviewing 5% of
the indigenous minority population in each of the indicated settlements. In accordance with
the given principle, the number of interviewees subject to be interviewed in each settlement
varying from 12 to 43 persons. The total number of interviewees was 115 persons (see Table
1.1).
                                                                                      Table 1.1
                    The breakdown of interviewees by the settlements

                                                The number of            The share of the
                       The number of the         interviewees            interviewees (%)
                      indigenous minority                                 from the total
Settlement                   people                                          number
Nogliki                          843                      43                  5.10%
Val                              189                      12                  5.29%
Nekrasovka                       694                      35                  5.04%
Poronaysk                        499                      25                  5.01%
Total                         2,225                   115                     5.17%

The principle of selecting interviewees is targeted selection based on the lists of the
indigenous residents’ addresses. In each household (family) which was chosen for the
sample, only one adult family member aged 17 and older was to be interviewed. The
indicated procedures of selecting interviewees allowed the surveyors to ensure the principle
of random selection and representation of the survey sample. The actual sample structure
implemented as a result of the survey complies with the project characteristics. The data
provided in Tables 2 and 3 reflect the breakdown of the interviewees by the gender and age.
The indicated breakdowns adequately reflect the actual gender and age population structure
of the indigenous people in the respective settlements.
                                                                                      Table 1.2
                        Breakdown of the interviewees by gender
        Gender          Nekrasovka             Val             Nogliki          Poronaysk
          Male           47.22%              50.00%            46.51%            44.00%
        Female            52.77%             50.00%            53.48%            56.00%
        Total              100.0%              100.0%             100.0%             100.0%

                                                                                        Table 1.3
                              Breakdown of interviewees by age
        Age              Nekrasovka              Val                 Nogliki         Poronaysk
17-29                     27.77%                8.33%                30.23%           28.00%
30-49                      41.66%               58.33%               44.18%           48.00%
50 and older               30.55%               33.33%               25.58%           24.00%
        Total              100.0%               100.0%               100.0%           100.0%



tHE STUDY METHOD
The survey was conducted by using the method of interviewing in the form of a personal
formalized interview on the basis of a preliminarily developed survey. The survey was approved
by the Customer. The survey included questions of several types, including:
A) Closed questions presupposing selection of one or several options from the proposed list of
answers;
B) Closed questions proposing to the interviewee to formulate his/her opinion without proposed
answer options;
C) Combined questions proposing to the interviewee to choose an answer from the proposed
list or presupposing a free answer.
Combination of the indicated types of questions is accounted for by the character of the issues
studied and by the method of doing research. Part of the questions asked to the interviewees
regarding the Sakhalin Indigenous Minorities Development Plan presupposed obtaining
information about different facts and the interviewees’ experience. As a rule, such questions
allowed a possibility of providing multiple-choice answers and were formulated as closed
questions. These questions include questions about the sources of obtaining information about
the Plan, about evaluation of certain projects implemented under the Plan by the population,
and demographic issues.
Questions oriented on revealing the motives for certain attitudes of the interviewees to the Plan,
requiring explanations to be provided on certain evaluations, etc., were formulated as open
questions.
The answers obtained from the interviewees were processed and summed as percentage
breakdown of the answers. Answers for open questions were copied, systematized and united
into groups of statements base done on the principle of semantic proximity. As a result, all the
answers to open questions are represented as groups of statements, for which percentage
breakdowns were obtained.


the principles of data provision
In this report, the survey results are represented on the basis of the following principles:
1. Percentage breakdowns are given as a breakdown of answers for each particular settlement.
At that, the total number of interviewees interviewed in each settlement is taken to be 100%.
This form of presenting data allows the differences in the answers of interviewees living in
certain settlements clearly to be seen.
2. During data procession, attention was paid to recording all the interviewees’ answers to open
questions. Identical and semantically similar statements were united into categories under a
common name. Breakdown of answers to open questions is represented as percentage
breakdowns under the indicated categories.
3. Non-informative answers and interviewees’ answers to open questions, which did not allow
an opinion regarding the essence of the questions asked to be determined, were united under a
category “Other”.
4. In some cases, for the sake of illustration, this report provides interviewees’ answers to open
questions in their original form as quotations. Such statements are given in italics and are
shown in inverted commas. After a quotation, parentheses indicate the name of the settlement
in which the special opinion was recorded. Square brackets inside a quotation embed words
missing in the interviewee’s original statement are added to facilitate understanding of the
statement.


terms
       The following terms are used in this report, the meaning of which is determined as
follows:
•   SIM—Sakhalin Indigenous Minorities;
•   SIMDP—the Sakhalin Indigenous Minorities Development Plan of Sakhalin Energy
    Investment Company Ltd.;
•   PLAN (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)—the Sakhalin Indigenous Minorities Development Plan of
    Sakhalin Energy Investment Company Ltd.;
•   COMPANY—Sakhalin Energy Investment Company Ltd.;
•   CUSTOMER—Sakhalin Energy Investment Company Ltd.;
•   CONTRACTOR—the Sociology Chair of the Sakhalin State University;
•   SURVEY SAMPLE (SAMPLE)—a set of interviewees consisting of 115 persons, interviewed
    in 4 settlements in accordance with the current quotas of the place of residence, gender and
    age (Tables 1–3).
•   SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE—the difference between percentages exceeding four items
    (4%).
•   INSIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE—the difference between percentage values equal to 4%
    and lower.
•   DIFFERENCE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE SURVEY’S STATISTICAL ERROR—the
    difference between percentage values within 4%.
•   ABSOLUTE MAJORITY OF THE INTERVIEWEES—the share of interviewees exceeding
    50%.
•   RELATIVE MAJORITY OF THE INTERVIEWEES—the share of interviewees which is the
    largest in the given breakdown but not exceeding 50%.
THE GENERAL ATTITUDE OF THE POPULATION TO THE dEVELOPMENT pLAN

The Sakhalin Indigenous Minorities Development Plan, implemented by the Company since
2006, is rather widely discussed in the electronic mass media and in the press, at the meeting
held by the Company's liaison officers with the indigenous population; information about such
meetings become known to the immediate beneficiaries, the members of their families, their
relatives and friends. Simultaneously with the SIMDP, a Sakhalin Indigenous Minorities Support
Programme is being implanted by the Sakhalin Oblast Administration, which presupposes
measures of providing social support to the indigenous minority people, of developing a system
of medical services, educational projects, development of the local economy and of traditional
activities. As many measures presupposed in the SIMDP have similar orientation, the public
opinion may confuse the events implemented under the Plan with the events implemented
under the regional Programme of providing social support to the indigenous minority people, as
well as with the events provided by the priority national projects carried out on the federal level.
It is also to be noted that the attitude of Sakhalin indigenous minority people to the SIMDP may
be caused by different factors, both by those directly related to the experience of the Plan’s
implementation and by those covering the areas beyond its limits. For example, the attitude of
the indigenous minority people to the Plan may be affected by their perception of the general
economic situation in the given settlements, by the local population’s attitude to the events
implemented in the framework of other projects of SIM support and by the experience of
interacting between the people and the oil and gas companies, their contractors, etc.
Studying the attitude of the SIM to the Plan presupposed revealing several aspects of the public
opinion: the interviewees’ awareness of the Plan, their knowledge of particular projects being
implemented under the Plan, evaluation of the importance of different events aimed at the SIM
support and provided by the Plan. The survey demonstrated the awareness of the majority of
the population of the existence of the Plan, indicated by the data presented in the following
table.
                                                                                           Table 2.1
 Do you know anything about the Sakhalin Indigenous Minorities Development Plan?
                                                I have heard                             Total
                                               something but I
         Settlement           Yes, I do                             I do not know
                                               do not know for
                                                    sure
 Nekrasovka                    44.44%              47.22%              8.33%            100.0%
 Val                           58.33%              41.66%               0.0%            100.0%
 Nogliki                       37.20%                 62.79%            0.0%             100.0%
 Poronaysk                     24.00%                 56.00%           20.00%            100.0%
        Total                  100.0%                 100.0%           100.0%            100.0%
In most cases, the interviewees did not find it difficult to name particular events or projects
implemented under the SIMDP. Only a small part of the interviewees living in the settlements of
Nogliki (2.32%) and Val (8.33%) had difficulty naming particular SIMDP events. In the
settlements of Nekrasovka and Poronaysk, there were more such interviewees; however, the
share did not exceed 20% here, either. More often the interviewees associated the following
programmes with the Development Plan: grants, support of clan enterprises; grants provided to
educational and cultural institutions; financing development of traditional arts and crafts, as well
as allocating funds for holding ethnic festivals.
                                                                                           Table 2.2
 What do you know about the Sakhalin Indigenous Minorities Development Plan?
                Description                   Nekrasovka         Val           Nogliki    Poronaysk
 Free medical treatment                         27.77%         8.33%           4.65%        0.0%
 Purchasing medical equipment and
 pharmaceuticals                                30.55%         8.33%           9.30%        4.00%
 Holding medical checkups                        0.0%          16.66%          6.97%        4.00%
 Indigenous minority students’ tuition
 payment                                        16.66%         25.00%       16.27%          8.00%
 Payment for professional training
 courses and for holding seminars and
                                                    0.0%       0.0%            0.0%         4.00%
 workshops
 Organization of children’s summer
                                                    0.0%       0.0%            4.65%        0.0%
 vacations
 Equipment and financial assistance
 provided to children’s rooms and
                                                    5.55%      0.0%            4.65%        0.0%
 kindergartens
 Grants provided to educational and
 cultural institutions                          36.11%         0.0%         23.25%         24.00%
 Financing SIM festivals and rites
                                                13.88%         16.66%       25.58%          4.00%
 Financing traditional arts and crafts
                                                19.44%         16.66%       34.88%          8.00%
 Publishing an ABC-book, books and
                                                    0.0%       8.33%           4.65%        0.0%
 albums
 Purchasing sports equipment, clothes
 and footwear                                       5.55%      0.0%            2.32%        0.0%
 Grants provided to public SIM
 organizations                                  33.33%         8.33%        23.25%         12.00%
 Grants     and    financial  assistance
 provided to clan enterprises                   38.88%         25.00%       30.23%         28.00%
 Buying equipment for clan enterprises
                                             11.11%        16.66%       11.62%          0.0%
Employment                                    0.0%         8.33%         4.65%          0.0%
Repair of houses                              0.0%         8.33%         6.97%          4.00%
Construction of housing, a senior
citizens’ home                               2.77%         8.33%         2.32%          0.0%
I have heard about such support, I know
that there is such a Plan                    2.77%         16.66%        6.97%         28.00%
Other                                        8.33%         8.33%         2.32%          0.0%
It is hard to say                            13.88%        8.33%         2.32%         20.00%
                    Total                    100.0%        100.0%        100.0%         100.0%
It is to be noted that in general the degree of the interviewees’ awareness is rather high: the
interviewees correctly indicate the events really being implemented under the Plan. In single
cases, erroneous confusion of the Development Plan by the interviewees has been recorded
with the events having no relation to the Development Plan. For example, 8.33% of the
indigenous people interviewed in Val, 6.97% of the indigenous people interviewed in Nogliki and
4% of the indigenous people interviewed in Poronaysk mentioned repair of houses in relation to
the Plan’s implementation. As one of the interviewees said, “They are going to provide home to
those who have poor living conditions" (Poronaysk).

Speaking about the general impression of the Plan expressed by the indigenous minority
people, a very favourable and generally favourable impression about the Plan prevailed in all
the settlements covered by the survey—the total share of the interviewees who provided such
evaluations amounted to over 58% in the villages of Nekrasovka and Val; more than 53% in the
town of Nogliki and 48% in the town of Poronaysk. As it follows from the answers given in
Tables 2.2 and 2.3, the indigenous minority people living in Poronaysk are generally less aware
of the projects being implemented under the Plan; the share of those who had difficulty
expressing their attitude to the SIMDP was higher compared to the other settlements.
                                                                                       Table 2.3
How would you characterize your impression of implementation of the Sakhalin
Indigenous Minorities Development Plan?
            Description                Nekrasovka         Val         Nogliki     Poronaysk
Very favourable                          13.88%         16.66%        9.30%        12.00%
Generally favourable                      44.44%        41.66%       44.18%        36.00%
Equally favourable and unfavourable
                                          19.44%        8.33%        25.58%        20.00%
Generally unfavourable                     2.77%        25.00%        9.30%         0.0%
Very unfavourable                         5.55%          0.0%         2.32%         4.00%
 It is hard to say                           13.88%         8.33%         9.30%         28.00%
                     Total                   100.0%        100.0%         100.0%        100.0%
The survey allowed the researchers to obtain information about the motivation for the positive or
negative attitude of the residents of different settlements to the Plan. In the course of the survey,
the indigenous minority people repeatedly stressed that the SIMDP allowed solution of the most
acute problems of the residents, such as the possibility of developing traditional occupations
due to grants issued to purchase the necessary equipment and outfit and to develop clan
enterprises. In addition, the residents note that a number of events held under the Development
Plan allow the quality of the indigenous people's life to be improved, considering such
characteristics as accessibility of medical services, pharmaceuticals, and educational services
for the indigenous children (Table 2.4).
                                                                                           Table 2.4
Please explain the reasons for your impression of the Plan (favourable)
                  Description                Nekrasovka          Val         Nogliki      Poronaysk
 This is at least some help, making our
                                                36.11%         33.33%        25.58%        24.00%
 life easier
 People get employed at the projects            13.88%         25.00%        11.62%         8.00%
 We do not get help from the
 government, we only get help from
                                                5.55%           0.0%         11.62%          0.0%
 foreign companies
 Real help is provided to the indigenous
                                                   0.0%         0.0%          2.32%        20.00%
 people
 This is a good idea                            2.77%           0.0%          2.32%          0.0%
 If there had been no Plan, our life would
 be more difficult                                 0.0%         0.0%          2.32%          0.0%
 Other                                             0.0%        8.33%          0.0%           0.0%
 It is hard to say                              41.66%         33.33%        44.18%        48.00%
                      Total                     100.0%         100.0%        100.0%         100.0%
The following motive determining their positive attitude to the Plan was present in the replies of
some interviewees: foreign companies implementing the Plan provide assistance to the
indigenous people, which the government and/or the local authorities cannot or do not want to
provide.

Among the part of the interviewees who expressed their unfavourable impression of the Plan,
the following replies were recorded (Table 2.5).
                                                                                           Table 2.5
 Please explain the reasons for your impression of the Plan (unfavourable)
              Description               Nekrasovka        Val      Nogliki               Poronaysk
 There is no support, mere talks                   0.0%          0.0%         4.65%           0.0%
 There is no targeted support                      0.0%          8.33%        2.32%           0.0%
 They do not help common people,
 helping only clan enterprises of their
 own                                              2.77%         16.66%        2.32%           0.0%
 I have not been supported; I do not feel
 any support                                      8.33%         16.66%        4.65%           0.0%
 Other                                             0.0%          0.0%          0.0%           0.0%
 It is hard to say                               88.88%         58.33%        86.04%         100.00%
                     Total                       100.0%         100.0%         100.0%         100.0%
Some interviewees stated that, in their opinion, the Plan was implemented not properly, or
expressed their dissatisfaction with certain aspects of the Plan’s implementation. The following
statements were made regarding this:
    •   Financial support under the SIMDP is provided to clan enterprises, indigenous people’s
        organizations and other legal entities, not to individuals or individual families;
    •   Financial support is provided not to all the clan enterprises and SIMDP organizations but
        randomly;
    •   Not all the interviewees understood the criteria of choosing organizations to be provided
        support;
    •   Some interviewees believe that there are cases when support is provided to the same
        clan enterprises or organizations, whereas the others are denied this help.

The highest share of the interviewees who had an unfavourable impression of the SIMDP was
recorded in the village of Val (25%). The residents of this settlement noted more often,
compared to the people from other settlements, that they did not see targeted help (usually
meaning assistance rendered to particular families). Besides, according to some interviewees,
“There is little information [about the Plan] provided to all” (Val) and “Not all the people get
helped” (Val, Nogliki).

All the interviewees were offered to indicate 3 projects implemented under the SIMDP which
they considered most successful and to provide explanations of their choice. Such questions
are open, which allowed the researchers to obtain such estimates which were based on the
actual knowledge of the interviewees about the concrete events of the Plan. In three of the four
settlements covered by the survey, more than 70% of the interviewees were able to name three
most successful projects. In the village of Val, such interviewees totalled more than 58%;
however, 41.66% of the interviewees interviewed in the given settlement had difficulty naming
the most successful events.
In each settlement, the statements made by the interviewees allowed the researchers to form a
rating list of the most successful projects under the Development Plan, according to the
opinions of the indigenous people (see Appendix 1).
In the village of Nekrasovka, the interviewees indicated the following successful projects (the
parentheses indicate the share of the interviewees who mentioned the given project or
programme):
1. Payment for the indigenous students’ tuition (41.66%);
2. Financing clan enterprises and providing assistance in clan enterprises in purchasing Buran
   snowmobiles, boat engines, equipment, etc. (33.32%);
3. Providing free medicines to the indigenous people (30.55%).
In the village of Val, the interviewees indicated the following most successful projects:
1. Providing free medicines and free medical services to the indigenous people (33.33%);
2. Financing clan enterprises and providing assistance in clan enterprises in purchasing Buran
   snowmobiles, boat engines, equipment, etc. (33.33%);
3. Providing free medicines to the indigenous people (25%), payment for the indigenous
   students’ tuition (25%).
In the town of Nogliki, the interviewees indicated the following most successful projects:
1. Financing clan enterprises and providing assistance in clan enterprises in purchasing Buran
   snowmobiles, boat engines, equipment, etc. (51.15%);
2. Holding festivals and cultural events (32.55%);
3. Payment for the indigenous students’ tuition (27.9%);
The indigenous residents of Poronaysk said that the most successful projects were:
1. Holding festivals and cultural events (32.0%);
2. Payment for the indigenous students’ tuition (16.0%), holding exhibitions devoted to the life
   of the indigenous minorities (16.0%);
3. Publication of the ABC-book and of ethnic literature (12.0%).

While explaining their choices, the interviewees noted that the events indicated by them were
best known to them, they embraced wide circles of the indigenous population (for example, the
medication programme, the free medical services programme and sponsoring students’ tuition)
or are essential for the economic prosperity of the population (like material and financial
assistance provided to the indigenous clan enterprises). Thus, when explaining their positive
attitude to the programme of clan enterprises’ support, an interviewee indicated: "It is impossible
to live without sponsoring the purchase of equipment needed for traditional arts and crafts”
(Nogliki). It is to be noted that the residents of Poronaysk indicated less concrete events and
programmes. It was among the residents of this settlement that the highest share of the people
who were unable to recall any concrete events implemented under the Development Plan was
recorded. Based on the data obtained, the following conclusions can be formulated:

       •   In general, the character of the interviewees’ replies shows that in most cases
           the population correctly identified the events carried out under the SIMDP.
       •   First of all, the people consider those events which have practical orientation
           and are able to produce an immediate effect on improvement of the quality of
           life to be the most successful projects.
       •   Events having cultural and educational goals received more restrained
           positive estimates.
       •   Negative estimates in relation to the Plan are not wide-spread.
       •   At the same time, an essential part of the indigenous minority people (from
           11% to 41% in different settlements) do not have clear understanding of
           essential social projects carried out under the SIMDP. Further educating and
           information propagating work is required to popularize the events.
OPINIONS      ABOUT    PARTICULAR       PROGRAMMES           AND   AREAS     OF    BUSINESS
    DEVELOPED UNDER THE PLAN
To reveal the opinions of the population regarding the impact of the SIMDP on the different
aspects of life of the indigenous minority people of Northern Sakhalin, the interviewees were
offered a series of open and closed questions. The impact of each programme or area of
business was proposed to be evaluated using a 4-score scale (a closed question). In addition,
the interviewees were proposed to explain why they had provided this or that answer (an open
question). The answers systematizing the estimates for each area are shown in Table 3.1.
                                                                                     Table 3.1
How do you think the projects and events implemented under the Plan influenced the
following aspects of the indigenous people’s life?
1. The possibility of getting educated/the education area
               Description           Nekrasovka       Val          Nogliki    Poronaysk
  Positive influence                   77.77%       66.66%         67.44%      80.00%
 Negative influence                      0.0%         0.0%          2.32%         0.0%
 Did not influence                     16.66%        33.33%        20.93%         0.0%
 It is hard to say                      5.55%         0.0%          9.30%         20.00%
                 Total               100.0%          100.0%        100.0%         100.0%
2. Cultural issues, sports development
               Description         Nekrasovka          Val         Nogliki    Poronaysk
  Positive influence                 80.55%          75.00%        62.79%      80.00%
 Negative influence                      0.0%         0.0%          0.0%          0.0%
 Did not influence                     13.88%        25.00%        25.58%         8.00%
 It is hard to say                      5.55%         0.0%         11.62%         12.00%
                 Total                 100.0%        100.0%        100.0%         100.0%
3. The possibility of getting medical services
               Description           Nekrasovka        Val         Nogliki   Poronaysk
  Positive influence                    61.11%       83.33%        46.51%     36.00%
 Negative influence                      0.0%         0.0%          0.0%          0.0%
 Did not influence                     11.11%        16.66%        34.88%      32.00%
 It is hard to say                     27.77%         0.0%         18.60%      32.00%
                 Total               100.0%          100.0%        100.0%      100.0%
4. Development of clan enterprises
               Description         Nekrasovka          Val         Nogliki   Poronaysk
  Positive influence                  58.3%           58.3%        74.41%     48.00%
 Negative influence                      0.0%          0.%         2.32%          0.0%
 Did not influence                          5.55%             16.6%    4.65%          0.0%
 It is hard to say                         36.11%         25.00%      18.60%        52.00%
                 Total                  100.0%            100.0%      100.0%        100.0%
5. Boosting the activities of public organizations
               Description            Nekrasovka                Val   Nogliki     Poronaysk
  Positive influence                    16.66%                8.33%   20.93%       24.00%
 Negative influence                          0.0%             0.0%     0.0%           0.0%
 Did not influence                         27.77%         41.66%      37.20%        20.00%
 It is hard to say                         55.55%         50.00%      41.86%        56.00%
                 Total                     100.0%         100.0%      100.0%        100.0%
The positive influence of the projects implemented under the SIMDP was noted by the
overwhelming majority of the interviewees in relation to such aspects of life as culture and
sports development; the possibilities of getting educated; the possibilities of getting medical
services, and development of clan enterprises. Concerning the influence of the Plan on the
development of the public organizations’ activities, the majority of the interviewees had difficulty
giving an answer; besides, a large part of the interviewees consider that the Plan had no
influence on this aspect of Sakhalin indigenous people’s life.

Of great interest are the differences in the estimates of the interviewees living in different
settlements. In the village of Nekrasovka, more interviewees responded that the Plan exerted
positive influence on the development of culture (80.55%), as well as on the education sector
and the possibility of getting educated by the indigenous people (77.77%). The residents of
Nekrasovka note: “Everything is being done to preserve the culture of the indigenous people”,
“Financial assistance is needed to all the students; however, [now] it is accessible not to all the
students, even the students studying by correspondence need that”. In addition, the indigenous
people living in the village note the positive influence of the SIMDP on the development of the
health sector and especially on the accessibility of medical services for the village residents.
According to one interviewee, “Now it is possible to get treatment in our own village” [we do not
have to go to the district centre]. Another interviewee notes: “They distribute free medicines,
which are unaffordable [in the pharmacy]”. Concerning the influence of the Plan on the
development of clan enterprises, positive estimates prevail, although they are less numerous
than those of the residents of Nogliki. As in the other settlements, most interviewees living in
Nekrasovka had difficulty evaluating the Plan’s influence on the development of the activities of
the indigenous people’s public organizations. Rather common is the following explanation of the
interviewees relating to this: “I have not heard about it”.
Among the residents of the village of Val, the interviewees gave the highest evaluations of the
Plan’s influence on such aspects as development of the health sector and accessibility of
medical services (83.33%), cultural life and sports development (75%), the possibilities of
getting educated and development of the education sector (66.66%). Thus, interviewees noted
positive changes in the area of health: “We feel care about the people, it is possible to get free
medical treatment”, “They opened a dental office here, now we don’t have to go to Nogliki” [to
get our teeth treated]. Another interviewee noted: “The most important thing is education, as it is
the future of the people, education and preservation of health”. At the same time, some
interviewees noted the necessity of further expansion of the programmes supporting the
indigenous minority people. As one interviewee said, “These are all the necessary basic
projects; life has become a little easier in these areas; they are helping us in that, but the help is
extended only to organizations”.
Although most interviewees were not able to say how the Plan influenced the development of
public organizations, several positive judgments made by the interviewees regarding that were
recorded: “Everybody gets close in obtaining grants”.

The residents of Nogliki more often noted the positive influence of the actions of the SIMDP
aimed at developing clan enterprises (74.41%), as well as the possibility of getting educated
and development of the educational sector (67.44%). Compared to the residents of other
settlements, the share of the interviewees who noted the positive influence of the Plan on the
development of cultural life, sports development (62.79%) and the possibility of getting medical
services (46.51%) is less. In the town of Nogliki, where the majority of the recorded Sakhalin
clan enterprises are concentrated, the highest share of the interviewees was recorded who
positively evaluated the Plan’s influence on the development of clan enterprises. The
interviewees noted that
“Funds are allocated for development; they are helping clan enterprises”; “They allocate funds
to clan enterprises”; “They laid gas to the clan enterprise”; “They are allocating grants, helping
us with the machines: spare parts, petrol, boats, cars and Buran snowmobiles”; “The
development programme is working”.
In the education sector, the interviewees noted the following positive changes:”[Allocating
grants] is a chance for the children, as not all the parents can afford education for their children”;
“They are providing assistance to the school and to the kindergarten—they provide free meals
there”; “At school No. 2, they organized a Nivkhi language class”. At the same time, some
interviewees do not distinguish between the activities of the local administration and the actions
held under the Development Plan. Thus, according to one interviewee, the Plan exerted not only
positive but also negative influence on the accessibility of education for the indigenous
children—“They have removed the boarding school [for the indigenous children] but did not
provide any replacement”.
Interesting is the comparatively low share of the interviewees interviewed in the town of Nogliki,
who noted the positive influence of the Plan on health development. Nogliki is a rather large
settlement, where there is a district hospital, a policlinic and other medical institutions. In this
regard, the medical actions implemented under the Development Plan, due to their limited
scale, could have seemed less significant in a big settlement compared to small villages, where
the same actions were more noticeable due to the low level or absence of medical institutions
and programmes.
The interviewees are well aware of the major health programmes being implemented in the
town of Nogliki under the Development Plan. The interviewees noted “financing purchase of
equipment for the hospital and of the diagnostic equipment for the policlinic”, “help with
dentures”, ‘treatment of eye diseases”, “free treatment” and “free medical check-up”. At the
same time, part of the interviewees noted their dissatisfaction with how the medical services
were provided: “Nobody helps me”; “They provide free medical services but not to all, only to the
chosen”; “If I ask them, they should provide medical assistance to me, but I do not go there”.

As for the Plan’s influence on the development of the activities of the indigenous public
organizations, the relative majority of the interviewees from the town of Nogliki had difficulty
giving a concrete answer. However, in some cases, the interviewees gave rather clear answers
as to how the work under the Plan contributed to the public activities of the local indigenous
population. One of the interviewees noted: “People have become to get together and to discuss
our life more often; they are helping the people to write grant applications. The people get
together more often: they establish public organizations, for example, the autonomies
Changum, Lyaok and the community Nin-Mif are meeting the needs of the people”. To be true,
there is a different opinion, too: “[The Plan] did not have any influence. There used to be
[indigenous organizations] before”.

Among the indigenous residents of the town of Poronaysk, the high share of the interviewees is
recorded, who note that the Plan has positive influence on the possibility of getting educated
and on the development of the educational sector (80%) and the development of the cultural life
and sports (80%). An interviewee notes: “I have heard about the help provided to the boarding-
school and the local school; they help students in their tuition quite well, they are paying
scholarships and provide donations to schools. The young people’s desire to study is boosted—
tuition applications get 50% paid, and sometimes 100%”. Among the other statements, typical
are the following explanations: “[They provide] help in holding sports competitions; they
organize sports events; they write grant applications to preserve and support ethnic traditions”;
“The sports competition is held with the grant money”; “[They organize] trips to Yuzhno-
Sakhalinsk to attend cultural events”.
In this settlement, the lowest share of interviewees among the four settlements has been
recorded, who noted the positive influence of the Plan on the possibilities of getting medical
services by the indigenous people (36%) and on the development of clan enterprises (48%).
Just as the residents of the other settlements, the residents of Poronaysk are better informed of
such programmes in the health sector as provision of dentures, free medical treatment and
medical checkups and free provision of medications. According to one resident, “Medication is
free and the life span has increased”. Another interviewee notes: “We have got a new
ambulance; we have new drugs and new equipment; they helped the policlinic”. However, there
are critical judgments, too: “They are not helping in this area; we have not received any
benefits—maybe, because we did not apply for them”, “I have not been provided any
medications or medical help”.
Clan enterprises of the indigenous people are not officially registered in the town of Poronaysk.
In this regard, it is understandable that the indigenous people living here have less clear ideas
of how the Plan could have influenced on the development of clan enterprises. Nevertheless,
about half of the interviewees of this town noted the positive influence of the Plan on the
development of clan enterprises. The following comments on this issue were obtained: “They
are helping them with the grants; the traditional economic activity is supported—they write grant
applications and business-plans”; “grants are used to buy machines; they are developing, and
are sometimes given funds”; “They seem to be provided help”; “I know little about it; we have
practically no clan enterprises here”.
Just as in the other settlements, most interviewees interviewed in Poronaysk had difficulty
evaluating how the SIMDP influenced the development of the activities of the indigenous public
organizations. Still, part of the interviewees have quite definite opinions about how the work
under the Plan contributed to boosting the activities of the indigenous public organizations: “The
RAIPON took part in adopting the Plan”, “Establishing the Union of the Nanai, Uilta, and Evenk”,
“Intellectuals is raising head—they have become active in grant development”.

Despite the existing differences in the answers provided by the indigenous people living in
different settlements, the public opinion of the indigenous people represents the prevailing
evaluations and judgments, characterizing the people’s attitude to the Plan and its impact on the
life of the aboriginal people as a whole. The character of the judgments provided allows us to
make the following conclusion:

          •   In general, the Plan has positive influence on the economic position of
              the clan enterprises, the accessibility of educational services and the
              accessibility of medical services (the latter are more noticeable in small
              settlements). It also has positive influence on development of traditional
              crafts, sports and cultural life of the indigenous people.
          •   The indigenous people are rather well aware of the Plan’s positive
              influence on the indicated aspects of the indigenous people’s life; the
              general emotional atmosphere around the Plan’s perception is positive.


At the same time, the public opinion of the wide circles of the indigenous population has not yet
realized the influence of the Development Plan on the public activity of the local indigenous
communities and formation of the basics of self-government and self-organization. The opinions
of the common indigenous people indicate that most of them do not see the direct connection
between implementation of the SIMDP and development of the civil activities and public
organizations of the indigenous people. Only in two settlements out of four, the share of
interviewees who noted such influence exceeded 20% (Nogliki—20.93%, Poronaysk—24%).

Currently, the Development Plan is rather well-known among the indigenous communities.
However, the people do not always clearly distinguish the events held under the Plan from other
actions exercised by the local authorities, the other operators of the offshore projects and by the
local administrations. In this regard, the following may be noted:
          •   Further positioning of concrete events (programmes) as held under the
              Plan and their relation to the activities of Sakhalin Energy and the
              Sakhalin II Project seems to be promising, which would allow clearer
              identification of the Plan against the background of the other
              programmes of the indigenous people’s support being implemented in
              the Sakhalin Oblast.
          •   It is still important to continue popularizing the possibilities of the
              population’s participation in discussion, decision-making and evaluation
              of different events held under the Plan.
THE INFORMATION ASPECTS OF SIMDP IMPLEMENTATION

In the course of conducting the survey among the indigenous people, the basic sources of
information were revealed, from which the local people obtained information about the SIMDP.
As it follows from the interviewees' answers, most of them have learnt about the Plan from two
sources:
1. From friends and acquaintances they communicate with on a daily basis (the share of the
interviewees who obtained information about the Plan from this source varies from 32% to
66.66% in different settlements).
2. From meetings with the indigenous people held by the local authorities, by Sakhalin Energy
or by its contractors. In total, such meetings serve as a source of information for 30%–66.66%
of the interviewees in different settlements.

The other sources of information, such as newspapers and television, have limited audience
among the indigenous people as sources of information about the Plan. It is to be noted that the
press and the electronic mass media have relatively small audiences. In total, not more than
10% of the interviewees interviewed in each settlement named the press and the electronic
mass media as a source of information from which they learnt about the Development Plan.
This is related to a number of reasons. The people are not always provided with the technical
possibilities for receiving the Sakhalin television programmes; the possibilities of forwarding the
broadcasts of Sakhalin television in the North of Sakhalin are limited.

Newspapers also have limited audience, as their circulation is small; they are not always
accessible in the retail network of newsstands and are published at large intervals, not allowing
them to publish current information promptly. These problems are topical for the other districts
of the region, too, and for the other ethnic groups of Sakhalin population; however, they have
special importance for the indigenous people, as their lifestyle and the level of their income
often limit the possibilities of using the indicated sources of information.

The data obtained indicated that the share of the interviewees who learnt about the Plan from
the group of sources related to Sakhalin Energy varied from 7.27% (Nogliki) to 24.99% (Val).
The indicated group of sources includes meetings with the representatives of Sakhalin Energy,
actions held by the Company; information materials provided by Sakhalin Energy; projects and
measures implemented under the Plan. The corresponding data are summed up in Table 4.1.
                                                                                       Table 4.1
What are the sources of your knowledge about the Plan? (The relative percentage; the
sum of replies exceeds 100%, as the interviewees could indicate several sources).
               Description                Nekrasovka         Val        Nogliki      Poronaysk
From my friends and acquaintances           55.55%         66.66%       60.46%        32.00%
I have participated in the meetings
devoted to the issues of the
indigenous minority people                  38.88%         50.00%       25.58%        36.00%
I have participated in the meetings
with the representatives of Sakhalin
Energy, I have attended the events
held by the Company                         16.66%         16.66%        4.65%         8.00%
Sovetsky Sakhalin newspaper                  8.33%          0.0%         6.97%          0.0%
Znamya Truda newspaper                        0.0%          0.0%         6.97%          0.0%
Telesem newspaper                            0.0%           0.0%         2.32%          0.0%
Nivkhdif newspaper                           2.77%          0.0%          0.0%          0.0%
Zvezda newspaper                             0.0%           0.0%          0.0%         4.00%
Express newspaper                            0.0%           0.0%          0.0%        16.00%
On Sakhalin regional television
                                             0.0%           0.0%         2.32%         8.00%
From the information materials of
Sakhalin Energy                              2.77%         8.33%          0.0%          0.0%
I have participated in the projects and
events of the Plan                           5.55%          0.0%          0.0%         4.00%
I am a participant of the Plan               0.0%           0.0%         2.32%          0.0%
From the Internet                            0.0%           0.0%          0.0%          0.0%
I have heard about it at school              0.0%           0.0%         2.32%          0.0%
Other                                        0.0%           0.0%         4.65%          0.0%
It is hard to say                            8.34%          0.0%         2.32%        24.00%
The data obtained allow us to state that there is certain potential for expanding the information
coverage of the indigenous population regarding implementation of the SIMDP. The people
preserve their interest for the meetings devoted to the issues of the indigenous minorities. The
people are accustomed to sharing information on such issues on an informal basis,
communicating with their friends, acquaintances and relatives. In this regard, meetings with
informal indigenous leaders and authoritative representatives of the local small indigenous
groups may become one of the effective information channels to inform the people about the
Development Plan and about the available possibilities of participating in it. Such local groups
may include individual families, groups of families related by kinship, working teams with a
significant share of the indigenous people among their staff, as well as the staff of educational
institutions.



FINAL CONCLUSIONS

The survey of the indigenous people’s public opinions has shown that the population perceives
the Development Plan primarily in a positive context, connecting with it improvement in a
number of aspects of the social and economic situation of the indigenous people, development
of their culture and sports, improvement in the accessibility of education and medicine. The
evaluations of the Development Plan expressed by the indigenous population testify to the
presence of objective changes in the quality of the local population’s life as a result of the Plan’s
implementation.

At the same time, it is to be emphasized that the given survey was not meant to find out, and,
accordingly, no information was obtained on the issue how the positive changes caused by the
Plan’s measures contributed to the formation of foundations for long-term sustainable
development of indigenous households, families and communities in different settlements of
Sakhalin Island.

The character of the indigenous people’s opinions regarding implementation of the
Development Plan is such that the majority of the indigenous population is aware of the Plan to
a certain degree. Currently, the primary awareness of the population has been reached;
however, such issues as clearer positioning of the events implemented under the Plan from the
other events having no relation to them remain to be topical; as well as further wide
popularization of the opportunities for the population to take part in the discussion of the Plan’s
events and to take part in its programmes.

Objectively the Plan could not but contribute to boosting of the public activities, to establishment
and to boosting the activities of the indigenous organizations. This is recognized by the part of
the interviewees interviewed during the survey. However, speaking in general, the public
opinion of the indigenous people does not distinguish the cause and effect relationship between
the Plan’s implementation and development of the public activity. It seems that this contradiction
may be overcome as the information gets spread about the available opportunities for the wide
circles of the indigenous population to take part in the implementation and discussion of the
Development Plan, using the information channels for this purpose, which are popular with the
population, such as person communication in local groups; meetings with the participation of the
authoritative representatives of the local indigenous communities, as well as meetings of the
Company’s representatives with the local indigenous people, which have already proven to be
quite effective.
                                                                          Appendix 1
Which 3 projects implemented under the Plan do you consider most successful?
              Description                Nekrasovka     Val    Nogliki   Poronaysk
Holding festivals and cultural events      8.33%      8.33%    32.55%     32.00%
Grants for the local museum                13.88%     0.0%     20.93%     12.00%
Free medical treatment and medical
                                           16.66%     33.33%   6.97%       8.00%
services
Buying equipment for medical
                                           11.11%     8.33%     0.0%       8.00%
institutions
Free medication                            30.55%     25.00%   6.97%       8.00%
Construction of the boarding-school         0.0%      16.66%   2.32%       4.00%
Buying equipment for the local
                                           5.55%      8.33%    2.32%       4.00%
kindergartens
Financing clan enterprises                 16.66%     8.33%    13.95%      8.00%
Helping the clan enterprises in buying
Buran snowmobiles, boat engines and        16.66%     25.00%   37.20%      8.00%
equipment
Sponsoring trips                           5.55%      0.0%      0.0%       0.0%
Sponsoring sports competitions and
                                           11.11%     0.0%     13.95%      4.00%
sports events
Payment for students’ tuition              41.66%     25.00%   27.90%     16.00%
Construction of the school building        5.55%      8.33%     0.0%       8.00%
Sponsoring the local school (grants,
purchasing equipment and school            5.55%      0.0%     6.97%       0.0%
lunches)
Publication of the ABC-book and of
                                           2.77%      0.0%     9.30%      12.00%
indigenous literature
Exhibitions of the indigenous culture      2.77%      0.0%     2.32%      16.00%
Health improvement events for old-
                                           2.77%      0.0%      0.0%       0.0%
age people
Construction of a senior citizens’
                                            0.0%      0.0%     2.32%       0.0%
home, housing for elderly people
Repair of houses                            0.0%      0.0%     6.97%       0.0%
Financial assistance to poor people        2.77%      0.0%     9.30%       0.0%
Financing dog-raising                       0.0%      0.0%     2.32%       0.0%
Establishing a fishing farm                2.77%      0.0%      0.0%       0.0%
Helping families with many children        2.77%      0.0%     4.65%       0.0%
Funding small grants                       13.88%     8.33%    13.95%      0.0%
Providing transport and fuel               2.77%      8.33%    2.32%       0.0%
There are no such events, I have not
                                           11.11%     0.0%      0.0%      16.00%
heard about them
It is hard to say                          11.11%     41.66%   13.95%     16.00%
                  Total                     100.0%         100.0%      100.0%        100.0%




                                                                                     Appendix 2

                                      An interview form
Settlement: 1. Nekrasovka 2. Val 3. Nogliki 4. Poronaysk
Interviewer:                                                             Date

Dear Sakhalin residents,
The sociologists of the Sakhalin State University are holding a survey among the
indigenous minority people of Sakhalin regarding implementation of the Sakhalin
Indigenous Minorities Development Plan. This Plan has been implemented by Sakhalin
Energy since 2006 in the framework of the trilateral agreement signed between Sakhalin
Energy, the Sakhalin Oblast Administration and the Sakhalin Indigenous Minorities
Council. We would be interested in your opinions about different actions of supporting
the indigenous minority people of Northern Sakhalin being implemented under the Plan.
1.      Do you know anything about the Sakhalin Indigenous Minorities Development
Plan, which provides for assistance rendered to the indigenous minority people of
Northern Sakhalin by Sakhalin Energy?
1. Yes, I do            2. I have heard something but I do 3. I do not know
                        not know for sure
2.      If your answer is ‘yes’, what do you know about the Sakhalin Indigenous
Minorities Development Plan?
1.
____________________________________________________________________________
______
____________________________________________________________________________
________
____________________________________________________________________________
________
2. I know nothing
3.      What are the sources of your knowledge about the Plan? (several sources may be
indicated)
1. From my friends, acquaintances, etc.
2. I have participated in the meetings with the representatives of Sakhalin Energy, I have
attended the events held by the Company, where the Plan was mentioned
3. I have participated in the meetings devoted to the issues of the indigenous minority people
4. From newspapers (please indicate the title):
5. On television (please indicate the programme’s title):
6. From the information materials of Sakhalin Energy
7. I have participated in the projects and events of the Plan (please explain the title of the
project                                         or                                         event)
________________________________________________________________________

8. I am a participant of the Plan (please explain: for example, I am a member of one of the
Plan’s committees, I have submitted an application, I have received a grant, etc.)
________________________________________________

9. From the Internet
10. From other sources (please explain):
11. It is hard to say
4.        Generally speaking, how would you characterize your impression of how the
Sakhalin Indigenous Minorities Development Plan is being implemented?
1. Very favourable
2. Generally favourable
3. Equally favourable and unfavourable
4. Generally unfavourable
5. Very unfavourable
6. It is hard to say
5.    Please explain why your impression of the Plan is such
Favourable and generally favourable                                                  Code


Unfavourable and generally unfavourable                                              Code


Equally favourable and unfavourable                                                  Code



6.    Which three projects (events or areas) implemented under the Plan do you
consider most useful or successful?
                                                                          Code




7.     Please explain why you consider these projects (events or areas) to be most
useful or successful
                                                                              Code



8.      How do you think the projects and events implemented under the Plan influenced
the following aspects of the indigenous people’s life? (1—positive influence; 2—negative
influence; 3—did not influence; 4—it is hard to say).
The possibility of getting educated/the education area                     1     2     3 4
Please explain your answer___________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
Cultural issues, sports development                                 1     2   3   4
Please explain your answer___________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

The possibility of getting medical services/the health area         1     2   3   4
Please explain your answer___________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________

Development of clan enterprises/communities                         1     2   3   4
Please explain your answer___________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Boosting the activities of public organizations                     1     2   3   4
Please explain your answer___________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Other aspects of life (indicate)                                    1     2   3   4
Please explain your answer___________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________



9. The interviewee’s gender: male_____ female_____
10. Age _____________ years old
11. Social status:
1. A worker
2. An employee
3. A manager of a company or organization
4. An entrepreneur
5. A pensioner
6. A student
7. Out of job (unemployed)
8. Other ____________________________________________________________________
Name, patronymic and surname (by the interviewee’s consent)
_______________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
                             Thank you for cooperation!

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:122
posted:6/4/2010
language:English
pages:91