Natural Differences in the Legal Dimension: Institutionalisation of the Northern and Mountain Regions of Russia

• Published in: GEOGRAPHY, ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY
• Main Authors: Yuri Golubchikov N., Alexey Gunya N., Matthias Schmidt
• Other Authors: Part of the work was executed within the framework of the State task FMGE-2019-0007 “Assessment of physiographic, hydrological, and biotic environmental changes and their impacts on the foundation of sustainable resource management” (AAAA-A19-119021990093-8)
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Russian Geographical Society 2022
• Subjects: Russia; northern regions; Arctic; mountain territories; regional development; institutionalisation
• Online Access: https://ges.rgo.ru/jour/article/view/2325; https://doi.org/10.24057/2071-9388-2021-084

Natural differences in the regional development of Russia are presented in many legislative acts dedicated to the Russian Far North. In contrast, the unique nature and complexity of mountainous and high-mountain territories are protected only by a few regional acts. The reason for this lies in the complexity and multicomponent criteria required for assigning these territories the status of protected areas and in the fact that their boundaries do not correspond with administrative boundaries. The main materials underlying the article are legal documents (regulations, laws, etc.) concerning the institutionalization of the northern and mountainous territories. A comparative analysis of regional policy in relation to mountainous and northern territories takes into account similar criteria, such as vegetation types and patterns, forest borders or crop frontiers. Almost two-thirds of the territory of Russia refers to the North and more than half of the territory is occupied by mountains. The first attempts to institutionalize the North were undertaken in the 1930s, while the programmes for the development of mountainous territories gained legal support only at the end of 20th century and only in some regions. The most important difference between the institutionalization of the North and the mountains is the fact that the state initiated the creation of special legal conditions for the North. In the case of the mountains, the initiator was the public, initially at the regional level. Currently, three constituent entities of the Russian Federation adopted laws on mountain areas, but so far there are no all-Russian laws. The main lobbyists are the North Caucasian regions, while the Siberian regions (with the exception of the Altai Republic) are rather passive in discussing mountain issues. The elaborated legislation for the North seems to be closely related to the potential and realised income from natural resource extraction. For this reason, corresponding legislation for the mountain regions is not expected particularly soon, due to the lack of legal resources. Efforts aimed to provide legal support for mechanisms that compensate the socio-economic discrepancies between mountainous areas and more developed “flat places” should take into account the experience of institutionalizing the Northern territories of the Russian Federation.