Fisheries management in post-Soviet Russia: Legislation, principles, and structure

Ocean Development and International Law

Volumn 36, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 179-194

  Hønneland, Geir ^a  

^a FRIDTJOF NANSEN INSTITUTE   (Norway)

Author keywords

Fisheries; Legislation; Russian fisheries management

Indexed keywords

FISHERY MANAGEMENT; LEGISLATION; MANAGEMENT PRACTICE; POST-COMMUNISM;

EID: 21244505412     PISSN: 00908320     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00908320590944034     Document Type: Review

References (135)

1. Exceptions include: P. Riggs, "Fisheries and Coastal Management in the Republic of Estonia," Coastal Management, 22 (1994): 25-48;
2. B. Marciniak and S. Jentoft, "Fisheries Management in Post-Communist Poland," Ocean & Coastal Management, 34 (1997): 73-81;
3. C.G. Pautzke, Russian Far East Fisheries Management. North Pacific Fishery Management Council Report to Congress (Anchorage: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1997);
4. M. Vetemaa, V. Vaino, T. Saat, and S. Kuldin, "Co-operative Fisheries Management of the Cross Border Lake Peipsi-Pihkva," Fisheries Management & Ecology, 8 (2001): 443-451;
5. M. Vetemaa, M. Eero, and R. Hannesson, "The Estonian Fisheries: From the Soviet System to ITQs and Quota Auctions," Marine Policy, 26 (2002): 95-102;
6. T. Allison, "The Crisis of the Region's Fishing Industry: Sources, Prospects, and the Role of Foreign Interests," in J. Thornton and C.E. Ziegler (eds.), Russia's Far East. A Region at Risk (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2002).
7. See also some of the previous work of the author of this article: G. Hønneland, "Autonomy and Regionalisation in the Fisheries Management of Northwestern Russia," Marine Policy, 22 (1998): 57-65;
8. G. Hønneland and F. Nilssen, "Comanagement in Northwest Russian Fisheries," Society & Natural Resources, 13 (2000): 635-648;
9. G. Hønneland and F. Nilssen, "Quota Allocation in Russia's Northern Fishery Basin: Principles and Practice," Ocean & Coastal Management, 44 (2001): 471-488;
10. G. Hønneland, "Centre - Periphery Tensions in the Management of Northwest Russian Fisheries," in G. Hønneland and H. Blakkisrud (eds.), Centre - Periphery Relations in Russia: The Case of the Northwestern Regions (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001), 165-186;
11. G. Hønneland and A.K. Jørgensen, "Implementing Russia's International Fisheries Agreements. Lessons from the Northern Basin," Marine Policy, 26 (2002): 359-367;
12. G. Hønneland, L. Ivanova, and F. Nilssen, "Russia's Northern Fishery Basin: Trends in Regulation, Fleet, and Industry," Polar Geography, 27 (2003): 225-239.
13. This article is an updated version of material presented in G. Hønneland, Russian Fisheries Management. The Precautionary Approach in Theory and Practice (Leiden and Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers/Brill Academic Publishers, 2004).
14. For further reference to center - region relations in Russia, see Hønneland, "Russia's Northern Fishery Basin," supra note 1.
15. See: B. Risnes, "Relations between Moscow and the Regions of Northwestern Russia - The Legal Aspect," in Hønneland and Blakkisrud, Centre - Periphery Relations in Russia, supra note 1, 35-60.
16. As of 2002, regional leaders do not themselves occupy seats on the Federation Council; instead, they appoint representatives.
17. For an authoritative outline of Putin's politics, see R. Sakwa, Putin: Russia's Choice (London and New York: Routledge, 2004).
18. I b i d.
19. Interviews with Russian fisheries officials during the period 1993-2002. The draft that was approved by the Federal Parliament and rejected by the President in spring 2001 (see below) is published as "O rybolovstve i sokhranenii vodnykh biologicheskikh resursov" ("On Fisheries and the Conservation of Aquatic Biological Resources"), 2001, http://www.akdi.ru/gd/proekt/079218GD.SHTM. It consists of 15 chapters and 83 articles.
20. Interviews with Russian civil servants, Moscow and Murmansk, October 2000. An overview of the draft's entire history from when it was first presented for discussion in the State Duma in 1996 until the second conciliatory commission was established on 7 June 2001 (after the draft had been rejected by the President on 18 April 2001) is found on the State Duma's website (http://www.duma.ru) under the list of drafts that have been rejected by the President: http://www.akdi.ru/gd/proekt/
21. The approval by the State Duma was given by resolution (postanovleniye) No. 586-III GD; http://www.akdi.ru/gd/proekt/ GD05.HTM.
22. Interviews with Russian civil servants, Moscow and Murmansk, October 2000. The rejection was indicated in resolution (postanovleniye) No. 228-III-SF: http://www.akdi.ru/gd/proekt/GD05.HTM.
23. Interviews with Russian civil servants, Moscow and Murmansk, October 2000. The conciliatory commission was established pursuant to resolution (postanovleniye) No. 628-III GD: http://www.akdi.ru/gd/proekt/ GD05.HTM.
24. The approval by the State Duma on 21 March 2001 was given by resolution (postanovleniye) No. 1265-III GD and the approval by the Federation Council on 4 April 2001 in resolution (postanovleniye) No. 105-SF: http://www.akdi.ru/gd/proekt/GD05.HTM.
25. Interviews with Russian civil servants, Murmansk, June 2001. The draft was rejected by the President in letter No. Pr.722 of 18 April 2001: http://www.akdi.ru/gd/proekt/GD05.HTM.
26. Interviews with Russian civil servants, Murmansk, June 2001.
27. The second conciliatory commission was established in accordance with resolution (postanovleniye) No. 1594-III GD: http://www.akdi.ru/ gd/proekt/GD05.HTM.
28. Russian Fish Report, No. 1 (76), January 2003, p. 3.
29. Interviews with Russian government officials, Moscow, October 2000 and February 2001.
30. Interviews with Russian government officials, Moscow, October 2000 and February 2001. Article 11 of the 2001 Draft, supra note 7, states that governing agencies of the federal and regional level are to participate in the protection of aquatic biological resources under the powers given to them by the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Management of aquatic biological resources on the continental shelf and in the exclusive economic zone of the Russian Federation, as well as all other resources that are federal property, are defined by Article 14 to be a federal responsibility. Article 15 empowers federal units to regulate the use of such resources that are the property of the federal unit, and to take part in the regulation of resources defined as federal property. The definition of federal property in draft Article 23 covers, among other things, resources found within the borders of two or more units of the Russian Federation, in the Russian Federation's internal waters and territorial waters, and "transboundary" (transgranichnye) resources. Article 19 gives to the Government of the Russian Federation the duty to regulate the country's fisheries either directly or through "the federal body of the executive power in the area of fisheries and its territorial (basin) bodies."
31. "Konstitutsiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii" ("Constitution of the Russian Federation"), in B. A. Strashun, Federalnoye konstitutsionnoye pravo Rossii. Osnovnye istochniki ("Russia's Federal Constitutional Law. Fundamental Sources") (Moscow: Izdatelstvo Norma, 1996), Article 72. An English translation of the Constitution is found at http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-01.htm. In Article 76, paragraph 5, the Constitution grants federal legislation precedence over regional legislation in areas of joint jurisdiction. However, the scope of regional legislation is not limited by the areas covered by federal legislation. Article 73 of the Constitution states that, except for the areas of jurisdiction mentioned in Articles 71 and 72, federal units "exercise the entire spectrum of state power."
32. 2001 Draft, supra note 7, Article 23.
33. Ibid., Article 14.
34. Interviews with Russian government officials, Moscow, October 2000 and February 2001. The 2001 Draft, supra note 7, Articles 49 and 79 open up payment for quota shares. As far as other federal agencies' involvement in fisheries management is concerned, there is plenty of reference to "the federal body of the executive power responsible for environmental protection." See, e.g., Articles 41, 48, 50, and 51 of the Draft. Since 2000, the Ministry of Natural Resources performs this task; see the discussion below.
35. See, e.g., Russian Fish Report, No. 1 (76), January 2003, p. 3. The 2001 Draft, supra note 7, Articles 49 and 53 provided for the continuation of the quota auctions. The disagreement about the auction system was seen by many as a continuation of the center - region conflict, "since the center" is in charge of the auctions and gets most of the profits. Interviews with Russian civil servants, Murmansk, November 2001, and Moscow, April and December 2002.
36. "Protokol zasedaniya spetsialnoy komissii" ("Protocol from Meeting in the Special Commission"), 2 June 2004, http:// www.duma.gov.ru/cnature/spec_com/protokol1.htm.
37. "Itogovyy protokol zasedaniya spetsialnoy komissii, sozdannoy v svyazi s otkloneniyem Prezidentom Rossiyskoy Federatsii Federalnogo zakona 'O rybolovstve i sokhronenii vodnykh biologicheskikh resursov' (proyekt No. 96700125-2)" ("Final Protocol from Meeting in the Special Commission Established in Connection with the President of the Russian Federation's Refusal of the Federal Law 'On Fisheries and the Conservation of Aquatic Biological Resources' (Draft No. 96700125-2)"): http://www.duma.gov.ru/cnature/spec_com/ prot_itog.htm.
38. The draft of the third conciliatory commission is published as "O rybolovstve i sokhranenii vodnykh biologicheskikh resursov" ("On Fisheries and the Conservation of Aquatic Biological Resources"), 2004: http://www.duma.gov.ru/cnature/spec_com/ zacon_sogl.htm. An overview of the suggestions of the presidential administration, all of which adopted unanimously by the commission, is published as "Sopostavitelnaya tablitsa statey Federalnogo zakona No. 96700125-2 'O rybolovstve i sokhronenii vodnykh biologicheskikh resursov' prinyatogo Gosudarstvennoy Dumoy 21 marta 2001 goda i otklonyonnogo Prezidentom Rossiyskoy Federatsii 18 aprelya 2001 goda" ("Overview of Articles of Federal Law No. 96700125-2 'On Fisheries and the Conservation of Aquatic Biological Resources' adopted by the State Duma 21 March 2001 and Rejected by the President of the Russian Federation 18 April 2001"), http://www.duma.gov.ru/cnature/ spec_com/home.shtml.
39. 2004 Draft, supra note 25, Article 10, subsection 1. The only exception to exclusive federal ownership is resources found in "isolated water objects," which may be either federal property, the property of federal subjects or municipal authorities, or private property; Article 10, sub-section 2.
40. Ibid., Article 31, subsection 3.
41. Ibid., Article 30, subsection 1.
42. Ob Isklyuchitelnoy Ekonomicheskoy Zone Rossiyskoy Federatsii ("On the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Russian Federation"), Federal Law of the Russian Federation, adopted by the State Duma 18 November 1998 and by the Federation Council 2 December 1998, Moscow. Published in English translation as "Federal Act on the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Russian Federation," Law of the Sea Bulletin, 46 (2001): 37-63.
43. Maritime Doctrine of the Russian Federation to the Year 2020, approved by the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, 27 July 2001, Pr.-1387 (English version of the Doctrine provided by the Norwegian embassy in Moscow; on file with the author).
44. Interviews with Russian civil servants, Moscow and Murmansk, during the period 1994-2001.
45. For a discussion of the precautionary approach to fisheries management, see, e.g., S.M. Garcia, "The Precautionary Principle: Its Implications in Capture Fisheries Management," Ocean & Coastal Management, 22 (1994): 99-125;
46. T. Lauck, C.W. Clark, M. Mangel, and G.R. Munro, "Implementing the Precautionary Principle in Fisheries Management through Marine Reserves," Ecological Applications, 8 (1998): S72-S78;
47. S.B. Kaye, International Fisheries Management (the Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2001);
48. and J. Ellis, "The Straddling Stocks Agreement and the Precautionary Principle as Interpretive Device and Rule of Law," Ocean Development & International Law, 32 (2001): 289-311.
49. Law on the EEZ, supra note 29, Chapter 2.
50. Ibid., Chapter 5.
51. Maritime Doctrine, supra note 30, Chapter 3. As far as protective measures are concerned, the Maritime Doctrine contains the following general passage under its list of goals pertaining to marine commercial fishing: "more active participation of the Russian Federation in the activities of international fishing organizations in connection with further development of the processes of international coordination, international legal regulation of fishing and enhanced requirements to the protection and preservation of the marine environment."
52. Interviews with Russian civil servants, Moscow and Murmansk, during the period 1994-2001. See also infra note 37 for a media reference. The 2001 Draft fisheries act, supra note 7, Article 4, listed as its aims ensuring "rational use and protection of aquatic biological resources" and "sustainable supplies of fish products to the population of the Russian Federation." Among the leading principles of the 2001 draft fisheries act listed in Article 18 were: "conservation of aquatic biological resources and their biological diversity"; "rational use of aquatic biological resources"; "sustainable development of the economy of the fishing industry"; "development of a coastal fishery"; and "priority of the interests of Russian citizens." The 2004 Draft, supra note 25, downplays some of these more nationalistic goals, but mentions as its leading principles in Article 2: "protection and rational use of aquatic biological resources" and "the interests of the coastal population, including indigenous peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East of the Russian Federation."
53. See, e.g., interview with the head of the State Committee for Fisheries (until May 2003), Yevgeniy Nazdratenko, in Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 14 August 2002, p. 1. Commenting on the dilemma between providing food to the population and hard currency for shipowners, he states: "If the authorities had decided that the fish should be a source of hard currency like oil, then this is obviously one way of viewing things. So far, this approach has been the prevalent one, but I am a supporter of the position that we should provide food for the population ourselves and secure the country's ability to provide for itself."
54. Interviews with Russian civil servants, Murmansk, February and June 1994.
55. Vremennoye polozheniye o poryadke raspredeleniya obshchikh dopustimykh ulovov vodnykh biologicheskikh resursov ("Preliminary Provision on the Order for Allocation of Total Allowable Catches of Aquatic Biological Resources"), Order of the State Committee for Fisheries of the Russian Federation No. 49 of 22 March 1995.
56. Ibid., Articles 11.3 and 12.
57. Ibid., Articles 11.6 and 14.
58. Ibid., Article 11.1.
59. Ibid., Article 11.2.
60. Ibid., Article 11.4.
61. Ibid., Articles 11.6 and 13.
62. O kvotakh na vylov (dobychu) vodnykh biologicheskikh resursov vnutrennikh morskikh vod, territorialnogo morya, kontinentalnogo shelfa i isklyuchitelnoy ekonomicheskoy zony Rossiyskoy Federatsii ("On Quotas of Catch [Exploitation] of Aquatic Biological Resources of the Russian Federation's Internal Waters, Territorial Water, Continental Shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone"), Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1010 of 27 December 2000.
63. Ob utverzhdenii polozheniya o raspredelenii kvot na vylov (dobychu) vodnykh bioresursov vo vnutrennikh morskikh vodakh, v territorialnom more, isklyuchitelnoy ekonomicheskoy zone i na kontinentalnom shelfe Rossiyskoy Federatsii mezhdu zayavitelyami, zaregistrirovannymi v subyektakh Rossiyskoy Federatsii, territorii kotorykh prilegayut k morskomu poberezhyu ("On the Confirmation of the Provision on the Distribution of Quotas [Exploitation] of Aquatic Biological Resources in the Russian Federation's Internal Waters, Territorial Water, Exclusive Economic Zone and on the Continental Shelf of the Russian Federation between Applicants Registered in Subjects of the Russian Federation, whose Territories Border on the Coastline"), Order of the State Committee for Fisheries of the Russian Federation No. 344 of 1 November 2001.
64. Ibid., Article 2.
65. For details on these attempted reorganizations, see Hønneland, Russian Fisheries Management, supra note 1, at 56-57.
66. O raspredelenii kvot na vylov (dobychu) vodnykh bioresursov vo vnutrennikh morskikh vodakh, v territorialnom more, isklyuchitelnoy ekonomicheskoy zone i na kontinentalnom shelfe Rossiyskoy Federatsii mezhdu zayavitelyami, zaregistrirovannymi v subyektakh Rossiyskoy Federatsii, territorii kotorykh prilegayut k morskomu poberezhyu ("On the Distribution of Quotas [Exploitation] of Aquatic Biological Resources in the Russian Federation's Internal Waters, Territorial Water, Exclusive Economic Zone and on the Continental Shelf of the Russian Federation between Applicants Registered in Subjects of the Russian Federation, whose Territories Border on the Coastline"), attached to Order No. 344 from the State Committee, supra note 47, Article 3(d). The share of a federal subject's total quota to be directed to such goals should be at least 20 percent. Ibid., Article 7
67. Ibid., Article 6
68. Resolution No. 1010, supra note 46, Article 2(v) (2(c) if the Latin alphabet is used), and Article 4.
69. Interviews with Russian civil servants, Moscow, February 2001.
70. Resolution No. 1010, supra note 46, Article 2(v) (2(c) if the Latin alphabet is used), Article 4. The position taken by Russian fishery authorities to the auctions is discussed in the subsequent section on institutional set-up.
71. Ibid., Article 2 (a). These are shares of quotas in other states' EEZs that the Russian Federation has purchased or acquired through exchange of quotas.
72. Ibid., Article 2 (b). These are shares of quotas mainly intended for research vessels but can also be used to finance enforcement bodies. In such cases, the enforcement bodies are allocated a quota share which they can subsequently sell to ordinary fishing companies.
73. Ibid., Article 2(g) (2(d) if the Latin alphabet is used).
74. O kvotakh no vylov (dobychu) vodnykh biologicheskikh resursov ("On the Distribution of Quotas [Exploitation] of Aquatic Biological Resources"), Governmental Resolution No. 704 of 20 November 2003.
75. Ibid., Article 2.
76. Ibid., Article 3. The federal units are given the possibility to distribute quotas for coastal fisheries; Article 10.
77. Ibid., Article 9.
78. Ibid., Article 21.
79. Ibid., Article 13.
80. O vnesenii izmeneniy v chast vtoruyu Nalogovogo Kodeksa Rossiyskoy Federatsii i nekotorye drugiye zakonodatelnye akty Rossiyskoy Federatsii ("On the Introduction of Changes in Part Two of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation and Other Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation"), Federal Law of the Russian Federation No. 148-FZ of 11 November 2003.
81. 2004 Draft, supra note 25, Article 9.
82. Ibid., Article 31, subsection 1.
83. Ibid., Articles 38, 29, and 32.
84. Otchet o nauchno-issledovatelskoy rabote po teme: Nauchno-issledovatelskiye raboty v oblasti rybnogo khozyaystva Rossii ("Report on Scientific Research Work on the Theme: Scientific Research Works in the Field of Russia's Fishing Industry") (Moscow: VNIERKh, 2002).
85. I b i d.
86. In 2001, the State Committee for Fisheries consisted of seven departments: Department of Biological Resources and Organization of Fisheries (36 employees and 3 subordinate divisions); Department of Protection and Reproduction of Fish Stocks and Regulation of Fisheries (known by the acronym Glavrybvod) (29 employees and 5 subordinate divisions); Department of Research (22 employees and 4 subordinate divisions); Department of Economy and Finance (46 employees and 7 subordinate divisions); Department of Ocean Affairs (22 employees and 3 subordinate divisions); Department of International Co-Operation (18 employees and 3 subordinate divisions); and Department of Personnel Administration and Educational Institutions (24 employees and 3 subordinate divisions). In addition, the Committee had two independent divisions, the Legal Division and the Administrative Division. G.M. Gibatov, Upravleniye rybnym khozyaystvom Rossii i regiona. Opyt i perspektivy ("Management of the Fishing Industry of Russia and the Region. Experience and Perspectives") (Moscow: 2001).
87. Two federal research institutes were subordinate to the State Committee for Fisheries: the All-Russian Institute of Fisheries Research and Oceanography (VNIRO) and the All-Russian Institute of Economic Fisheries Research (VNIERKh). VNIRO, in turn, has nine subordinate research institutes and the regional level: PINRO in Murmansk, SevPINRO in Arkhangelsk, AtlantNIRO in St Petersburg and TINRO, KamchatNIRO, SakhNIRO, MagadanNIRO, KhoTINRO and ChukhotTINRO, all in the far eastern fishery basin. Gibatov, supra note 70.
88. "Preliminary Provision," Order No. 49, supra note 39, Article 17 and "Distribution of Quotas," supra note 50, Article 2. However, things may be less straightforward in practice than they seem judging on the basis of these provisions. The head of the State Committee for Fisheries, Yevgeniy Nazdratenko, was removed from office in the spring of 2003 because he had interfered with the quota allocation in the far eastern fishery basin. It is a typical example of post-Soviet legislation being inconsistent, imprecise or simply not enforced, and that power or money decides its application and interpretation. The State Committee for Fisheries does indeed demand a considerable amount of changes in regional fishery regulations each year, and these are largely complied with. For information about the process that led up to Nazdratenko's removal, see, Moscow Times, 5 May 2003, p. 3 and Moscow Times, 6 May 2003, p. 8.
89. In 2001, Glavrybvod had approximately 30 regional inspection bodies. Gibatov, supra note 70.
90. General directions for coordination and exchange of information between the Federal Border Service and Glavrybvod are given in Polozheniye o vzaimodeystvii i koordinatsii deyatelnosti organov i voysk Federalnoy pogranichnoy sluzhby Rossiyskoy Federatsii i organov po okhrane, vosproizvodstvu rybnykh zapasov i regulirovaniyu rybolovstva Gosudarstvennogo komiteta Rossiyskoy Federatsii po rybolovstvu v sfere okhrany vodnykh bilogicheskikh resursov ("Provision on Interaction and Co-ordination of the Activities of Organs and Troops of the Federal Border Service of the Russian Federation and the Organs Responsible for Protection, Reproduction of Fish Stocks and Regulation of Fisheries under the State Committee for Fisheries of the Russian Federation in the Sphere of Protection of Aquatic Biological Resources"), Order of the Federal Border Service of the Russian Federation and the State Committee for Fisheries of the Russian Federation of 12 January 1999.
91. Interviews with Russian civil servants, Murmansk, September 1998, January and March 1999.
92. O sovershenstvonanii struktury federalnykh organov ispolnitelnoy vlasti ("On the Modification of the Structure of the Federal Organs of the Executive Power"), Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 249 of 17 March 1997.
93. O strukture federalnykh organov ispolnitelnoy vlasti ("On the Structure of the Federal Organs of the Executive Power"), Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 1142 of 22 September 1998.
94. The tasks of the Ministry of Agriculture are outlined in its statutes, Polozheniye o Ministerstve selskogo khozyaystva Rossiyskoy Federatsii ("Provision on the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation:, confirmed by Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 901 of 29 November 2000. For further information (in Russian) on the Ministry of Agriculture, see http://www.mcx.ru/.
95. See: http://www.government.gov.ru/government/minister/ sphere.html?he_id=422.
96. A: σervice" (sluzhba) was also an independent federal agency immediately below ministry level. Although often referred to as a "military" agency, the Federal Border Service is not answerable to the Ministry of Defence. In the spring of 2003, however, the Federal Border Service was incorporated into the Federal Security Service (FSB) (RFE/ RL Newsline, 12 March 2003).
97. O merakh po obespecheniyu okhrany morskikh biologicheskikh resursov i gosudarstvennogo kontrolya v etoy sfere ("On Measures to Secure Protection of Marine Biological Resources and State Control in this Sphere"), Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 950 of 29 August 1997.
98. An example is the massive headline on the front page of Izvestiya on 12 September 1997: "The Mafia Has Beaten the Fishery Inspection. Can the Border Guard Beat the Mafia?"
99. Interviews with Russian civil servants, Murmansk, September 1998.
100. Ibid. As mentioned above, general directions for coordination and exchange of information between the Federal Border Service and Glavrybvod are given in "Provision on Ineraction and Co-ordination," supra note 74.
101. O sozdanii otraslevoy sistemy monitoringa vodnykh biologicheskikh resursov, nablyudeniya i kontrolya za deyatelnostyu promyslovykh sudov ("On the Establishment of a Sector System for Monitoring of Aquatic Biological Resources and Surveillance and Control of the Activity of Fishing Vessels"), Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 226 of 26 February 1999.
102. Without the signature of the Minister of Natural Resources, the fishery authorities, i.e., Glavrybvod and the Federal Border Service, could take action with fishing vessels on the basis of data from the system for satellite tracking, according to established practice; interviews with Russian civil servants, Moscow, April and December 2002. An interview with Yevgeniy Nazdratenko, head of the State Committee for Fisheries until May 2003 (Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 14 August 2002, p. 1) reads as follows regarding the fishery authorities' conflict with the Ministry of Natural Resources: "[Journalist:] Your conflicts with the Ministry of Natural Resources are legendary. People say that Minister [of Natural Resources] Artyukhov does not even lift the receiver when you call on the telephone, and that he has never spoken to you directly. Is that correct? [Nazdratenko:] You could try - please, go ahead! [Journalist rings the number.] [Journalistj Yes, that's right. They don't answer. [Nazdratenko:] You could try to argue your way to a meeting with him. And if you do ever get to see him he will tell you that the State Committee for Fisheries consists of a bunch of idiots. [. . .] The Ministry of Natural Resources thinks that the State Committee for Fisheries should be a department under the Ministry of Natural Resources, nothing less. But we do not think so." The Ministry of Natural Resources in May 2000 "coopted" the (then) State Committee for Environmental Protection, which in turn had had its status reduced from that of a ministry in 1996. For an account of these events, see G. Hønneland and A.K. Jørgensen, Implementing International Environmental Agreements in Russia (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003).
103. Polozheniye o Ministerstve prirodnykh resursov Rossiyskoy Federatsii ("Provision on the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation"), confirmed by Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 726 of 25 September 2000, Article 6, subsection 13. For further information (in Russian) on the Ministry of Natural Resources, see http://www.mnr.gov.ru.
104. Interviews with Russian civil servants, Moscow, April and December 2002.
105. The 2001 Draft, supra note 7, speaks of the "federal body of the executive power responsible for environmental protection." As mentioned, this had been the prerogative of the Ministry of Natural Resources since the State Committee for Environmental Protection was disbanded in 2000. The 2001 draft Fisheries Act provided a role for this agency in the production of fishery regulations (Article 41), the establishment of TACs (Article 48), and quota allocation at the interregional (Article 50) and the intra-regional (Article 51) level.
106. The argument is that Russian vessels chose to deliver their catches abroad not primarily due to variations in price levels, but because the regional offices of many Russian federal authorities had intensified their inspections of fishing vessels since the early 1990s as they came to rely more on the results of their own work (e.g., fines) and less on transfers of federal funds. The newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta (14 August 2002, p. 1) lists 25 federal agencies that inspect Russian fishing vessels when they arrive in a Russian port. The author's interviews with Russian fishers (Båtsfjord, November 1997, June and August 1998) confirm this impression. Whereas a delivery procedure in a Norwegian port takes less than an hour, a similar procedure in Murmansk would take several days since the skippers have to physically show up at the premises of the agencies in question, "knocking on every door." The fishers complained that the veterinary service was one of the federal agencies that made deliveries in Russian ports a hassle. The veterinary service was under the Ministry of Agriculture, and this was one reason why relations between this ministry and the State Committee for Fisheries were strained.
107. It is commonly believed that Nazdratenko was offered the post of head of the State Committee for Fisheries to prevent him from once again entering the race for governor in his home region. See, e.g., Vedomosti, 26 February 2001.
108. Resolution No. 1010, supra note 46, Article 2(v) (2(c) if the Latin alphabet is used) and Article 4. This is an example of how general legislation reduces the scope of action for fishery management authorities. Although a formal law ranks higher in the legal hierarchy than a Governmental Resolution, it may prove difficult to change institutional practices once they have settled. In this case, the principle of quota shares being sold in auctions was incorporated in the 2001 Draft Fisheries Act, supra note 7, Article 49 and 53.
109. See also Russian Fish Report, No. 1 (76), January 2003, p. 3.
110. Interviews with Russian civil servants, Moscow, February 2001.
111. The head of the State Committee for Fisheries until May 2003, Yevgeniy Nazdratenko, commented on the auction system in the following way: The quota auctions are for raw and cynical people. I say it aloud for everyone to hear: We don't carry out the auctions. Not us! It is not us who choose the auction houses where the auctions take place. At the last auction in July, for instance, the house earned 33 million roubles just in rent for the premises. Imagine if we had been able to send this money to Severodvinsk to build purse seiners! But no - there is no money for purse seiners. And after the auction, two lavish dinners were organised for the people involved. If an ordinary fisher had been treated like that, he wouldn't have believed it. It's shameful. It should be possible after all to arrange even things like these auctions less cynically. But however unpleasant it gets, we'll get by somehow. Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 14 August 2002, p. 1. The quote says something about the ideological gap that existed between the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade and the State Committee for Fisheries. For further information (in Russian) on the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, see http://www.economy.gov.ru/. Interestingly, the State Committee for Fisheries, unlike most federal bodies of governance in the Russian Federation, did not have its own statute (polozheniye) which set out its tasks and responsibilities (cf. reference to the statutes of the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Agriculture above). Allegedly, this was the result of a disagreement both within the fishery community and between the State Committee for Fisheries and other bodies regarding the actual tasks of the agency. Interviews with Russian civil servants, Moscow, April and December 2002. Former head of the State Committee for Fisheries, Yevgeniy Nazdratenko, repeatedly demanded such statutes on behalf of his agency, complaining that he was working bez polozheniya ("without statutes"). According to Gibatov, supra note 70, at p. 116, the State Committee for Fisheries had statutes before it was subsumed into the Ministry of Agriculture and Foodstuffs in 1997.
112. Interviews with Russian civil servants, Moscow, February 2001. See also interview with Yevgeniy Nazdratenko, supra note 94.
113. Resolution No. 1010, supra note 46, Article 4. The State Committee for Fisheries and the Ministry of Finance are also supposed to take part in the organisation of the auctions, but the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade is in charge.
114. O sisteme i strukture federalnykh organov ispolnitelnoy vlasti ("On the System and Structure of the Federal Bodies of the Executive Power"), Presidential Decree of 9 March 2004.
115. Ibid., Articles 1 and 2.
116. Ibid., Article 12, Appendix 1.
117. I b i d.
118. Ibid., Article 8.
119. Ibid., Article 2.
120. Ibid., Article 3(a).
121. Ibid., Article 4(a). The Federal Security Service (FSB) and the Border Service (now transformed to a: φederal service for the protection of the Russian Federation") typically fall into the second category.
122. Ibid., Article 5(a).
123. Ibid., Article 3(g) (3(d) if the Latin alphabet is used).
124. Ibid., Article 4(v) (4(c) if the Latin alphabet is used) and Article 5(g) (5(d) if the Latin alphabet is used).
125. Ibid., Article 11. The only exception are a few: πower services," like the FSB, which are directly subordinate to the President.
126. Ibid., Appendix 1. The ministries of, e.g., defence, foreign affairs, and internal affairs are under the President.
127. Ibid., Article 12.
128. Ibid., Article 14.
129. Ibid., Article 13.
130. I b i d.
131. Ibid., Appendix 1.
132. O federalnom agentstve po rybolovstvu ("On the Federal Fisheries Agency"), Governmental Resolution No. 182 of 7 April 2004.
133. Ibid., Article 3(d) (3(e) if the Latin alphabet is used).
134. Ibid., Article 3(b).
135. Ibid., Article 6.