Suchergebnisse

We analyse two approaches to social impact assessment (SIA) traditional SIA and participatory SIA in the context of a large project in the Russian Federation. The key difference between these approaches is the level and depth of stakeholder engagement in the impact assessment process and project. Participatory SIA seeks to observe the three principles of participatory democracy: representativeness, deliberativeness and influence. We identify the requirements for stakeholder engagement in the Russian impact assessment process, and analyse implementation practice by reviewing the stakeholder engagement activities undertaken for the South Stream gas pipeline project, according to national requirements and international best practice (e.g. the International Finance Corporation Performance Standards). We conclude that the Russian process reflects traditional SIA. Its main weaknesses are poor stakeholder identification and planning of engagement activities. The Russian SIA/EIA process is not consistent with the principles of representativeness, deliberativeness and influence and does not enable people to adequately participate in or influence decision-making.

Contemporary social impact assessment (SIA) is rooted in the concepts of civil society and democracy. We analyse whether SIA as practiced in the Russian Federation as part of environmental impact assessment (EIA) is consistent with the key values of civil society and democracy. We consider whether the Russian EIA requirements enable preparation of meaningful assessments that effectively contribute to the decision-making processes that affect people's lives. We review the Rsussian EIA legislation and its requirements for SIA and social baseline, and consider the EIA/SIA practice undertaken in response to these requirements. We specifically analyse the Karmen coal mining project in South Yakutia. We compare the EIA documents completed according to national requirements against the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) documents prepared to be consistent with international standards, as defined by the International Finance Corporation Performance Standards. We conclude that the national requirements for SIA in Russia and the way they are implemented do not encourage the development of meaningful SIAs that comply with the key concepts and social values of SIA, civil society and democracy.

Implementing good practice social impact assessment (SIA) that meets international standards in countries in transition is problematic. We reflect on the challenges faced when undertaking SIA in the Russian Federation. These challenges restrict meaningful SIA processes from being undertaken and limit public participation and the effective community engagement of project-affected local people. Based on the self-reflexive professional experience of two Russian-based social practitioners, and their discursive interactions with two leading academics in environmental and social impact assessment, as well as on in-depth interviews with prominent Russian and international experts, we identified the key challenges that prevent effective SIA from being implemented in Russia: a lack of understanding of the international standards; discrepancy in the determination of the social area of influence between the national requirements and international standards; difficulties in combining national and international impact assessment processes; and a tendency by companies to restrict stakeholder engagement to the minimum. We hope that by having an awareness of these limitations, improvements to SIA practice in Russia and elsewhere will be made.