---

Introduction

Changing Approaches

In the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster, several steps were undertaken to demonstrate immediate changes in official policy approaches toward environmental issues to the international community. At the 1987 session of the United Nations General Assembly, the government of Mikhail Gorbachev offered a resolution entitled "International Environmental Security," and then the next year proposed a program for its implementation. These steps also coincided with new domestic environmental policies, as well as with the upsurge of the environmental movement and environmental glasnost, which were previously suppressed.

In the second half of the 1990s, Russia adopted a broader concept of national security that shifted the foci from a traditional security perspective, which concentrated mainly on military defense, to a more holistic or integrated concept, which incorporated human security issues. This reconfigured conception of national security included non-traditional threats such as economic instability, ethnic conflicts, terrorism and organized crime, infectious diseases outbreaks, drug trafficking and substance abuse (including alcoholism), food and water insecurity, and telecommunications insecurity (Concept of National Security of the RF, 1997; and 2000).

More importantly, during the last decade, new conceptions of environmental security paralleled those of new national security concepts, whereby the definition of the former stated:

These changing environmental security concepts were based on significant institutional reform and modernization of environmental management (see Box 1). The underlying goals associated with environmental security included the protection of the human environment and human health, the ecological rehabilitation of destroyed environmental areas, and the conservation of natural resources. A permanent body - the Commission on Environmental Security - was created within the Security Council to assess major internal and external threats to environmental and human security and design response measures.

Box 1. Reorganization of environmental management in Russia Russia's new approach to environmental security included the introduction of such policies, mechanisms, and instruments as: • the introduction of new environmental legislation; • the creation of a specialized federal agency on environmental protection, which oversees environmental management functions formerly dispersed among various ministries, and to separate these functions from economic ones; • the decentralization of environmental management functions with the transfer of a wide set of responsibilities from the center to the regions; • the introduction of economic mechanisms for environmental management such as pollution charges for emissions of air and water pollutants, and for waste disposal; • the creation of environmental funds; • the introduction of obligatory impact assessment for all industrial projects; and • the development of environmental glasnost.

Existing Major Threats to the Environment and Human Security

The mechanisms for promoting environmental security were thought to be innovative, as well as a sign of success for "the new Russia." Initially, it was hoped that implementing these reforms would improve the overall environmental situation. However, the extent of environmental and human security problems was underestimated, and thus problems emerged in the course of implementing reforms. Hence, despite recent changes in institutional approaches to environmental management, Russia still faces many threats to environmental and human security.

Currently, about 15% of Russia is classified as consisting of ecological crisis zones. These zones of environmental degradation are linked to health and population issues, as well as to other human security threats. Experts assessing environmental insecurity in Russia agree that the most important of these threats are:

The lack of a high-quality freshwater supply tops the national environmental agenda, surpassing such 'hot' issues as the storage and treatment of radioactive waste. Indeed, 70% of surface freshwater does not meet existing quality standards. Only 15% of the total amount of water discharged is thoroughly purified, while nearly 28% is untreated. Half of the population drinks water that does not meet sanitary requirements (State Environment Report, 1999). Poor-quality drinking water directly endangers human health, as high levels of bacteriological pollution result in the spread of infectious diseases, such as hepatitis A.

Air pollution also directly affects human health. In 185 cities, where about 40% of the country's total population resides, air pollution levels exceed existing standards. While a reduction in air pollution from stationary sources took place during the 1990s, pollution levels are increasing due to the rapidly growing number of automobiles.

The general destabilization of the environment is directly linked to the deterioration of human health, which in turn negatively affects human security. Today, Russia ranks only 51st in the world for average life expectancy. Perhaps the most alarming symptom of human insecurity is depopulation, which has been increasing since the early 1990s (Table 1). During recent years, the population has declined annually by nearly one million. Low birth rates, which are characteristic of many developed nations, are not the only factor contributing to the population decline. Increased mortality rates are also a major factor in Russia's depopulation; it ranks first among developed countries on the mortality index (Russian Statistical Annual, 1999).

Table 1. Demographic profile of Russia

	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998
Natural growth of population (thous.)	103.9	-219.8	-750.3	-893.2	-840.0	-777.6	-775.9	-705.4
GNP (% to prev. year, const. prices)	-5	-15	-9	-13	-4	-3	-0	-5
Industrial production (% to prev. Year)	-8	-18	-14	-21	-3	-4	-0	-5
Source: Russian Statistical Annual, 1999

Emerging Threats

In addition to the existing threats to environmental and human security, several new risks emerged during the last decade. The recent spread of infectious diseases and the increasing use of illicit drugs are among the emerging threats in Russia. A decade ago, these threats were insignificant and not of national concern. During the last decade, the level of mortality from different types of infectious diseases almost doubled. Although many infectious diseases, especially among children, have been successfully mitigated, others such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, diphtheria, and syphilis increased. As well, the number of substance abusers in the care of medical institutions multiplied nearly three-fold. A key reason for the increasing trend was a sharp rise in drug trafficking in the late 1990s, which was in part due to unprotected southern borders after the collapse of the USSR.

The degradation of agricultural lands also increased in the 1990s. The collapse of many collective farms, coupled with institutional uncertainties in the process of changing property-rights, significantly affected land-use patterns. The number of agricultural areas under production in Russia declined by more than one-quarter during the 1990s (State Environment Report, 1999) due to abandonment of productive lands, deforestation, erosion, desertification, salinization, and changes in land use patterns to non-agricultural uses. Agricultural lands have subsequently declined in fertility, humus content, and structure, thus lowering productivity. As well, bushes and other forms of wild vegetation continue to reclaim previous agricultural lands.

Russia's ability to participate in the technological arena is declining in terms of investments in new technologies and the inability to maintain existing technologies. Many types of industrial accidents, whether on site, during transport, or from leakages in oil and gas pipelines, are becoming more frequent, despite a decline in industrial production. "Primitivization" of technologies has been one of the main reasons for the increase in industrial accidents in Russia during recent years. Equipment is aging and in critical need of repair or replacement. Safety standards and technological norms are violated more often and the level of training for personnel in control of high-risk enterprises is decreasing. Operators of complex technological systems are constantly under stress (in part due to the deterioration of social and economic welfare) and are unable to fulfill their professional obligations to a high standard.

A Statistical Mirage?

During the 1990s, a number of statistical indicators portrayed the environmental situation in Russia as improving and human pressure on the environment as declining. However, these indicators camouflaged the real state of the environment and the effectiveness of response measures. An evaluation of environmental security should be undertaken cautiously, and include a more comprehensive assessment of the reasons for the seemingly improved ecological profile. For example, official environmental statistics indicated a substantial decrease in pollution during the last decade. However, the installation of additional purification facilities or other anti-pollution measures were not responsible for the decrease; emission decreases were due to a sharp decline in domestic industrial production, by more than two-fold. In other words, the economic depression became an "instrument" for meeting the goals of many national environmental programs and fulfilling the obligations of international agreements. Compliance without implementation occurred. At the same time, even under these conditions, the levels of emission cuts were lagging relative to a more rapid decline in industrial production. Therefore, despite downward trends in pollution levels, the emissions per unit of GNP increased during the 1990s (see Table 2). This raises the question of how environmental pressures, such as emissions can be controlled within the context of the economic growth that started at the end of the 1990s. The protective instruments as they function today seem unable to cope with the effects of economic growth.

	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998
Water withdrawal from water sources (billion m3)	99.6	94.9	86.9	86.6	81.7	81.3	77.2
Discharge of polluted wastewaters (billion m3)	27.1	27.2	24.6	24.5	22.4	23.0	22.0
Air pollutant emissions from stationary sources into atmosphere (millions of tons)	28.2	24.8	22.0	21.3	20.2	19.3	18.7
Land deterioration due to economic activities (thousands of hectares)	1090.6	1294.1	1282.6	1138.4	1180.5	1230.9	1186.3
Source: Russian Statistical Annual, 1999

Ineffective Policies and Deformed Political and Economic Systems

Although the approaches to environmental security have been modified and new environmental policies have been introduced, the environmental situation in Russia is far from being secure; the number of ecological problems has not decreased and new threats to human security have emerged. Why is there a considerable gap between the objectives and the results? The outcomes of new policies depend primarily on economic and political conditions. The success or failure of an environmental policy depends not only on the policy as such, but largely on the progress of domestic economic and political reforms, as well as on the effectiveness of new economic and governmental institutions. The economic instability that characterized the transition period superseded environmental policy advancements. Therefore, opportunities for counteracting environmental degradation sharply decreased during Russia's transition period. Political conditions during the era were also not amenable to effective policy implementation. Newly created environmental institutions designed to respond to environmental threats were unsuccessful because the general institutional framework was rendered ineffective by corruption and self-serving groups. Moreover, the difficulties of the transition period compounded the environmental problems and insecurities inherited from the Soviet regime. (See Box 2 for a breakdown of the factors creating environmental and human insecurity.)

Box 2. Factors of environmental and human insecurity in Russia Several factors have led to increasing environmental and human insecurity during the last decade. These include: • a deeply penetrating corruption, spreading inter alia into environmental protection institutions; • a sharp increase in a shadow economy accounting for 40% of the GNP, which has the effect of suppressing the functioning of a number of environmental instruments, and ultimately leading to their paralysis; • increasing poverty, and as a result, the receding of environmental priorities from the top ranks to the bottom of public concerns before such threats as crime, poverty, inflation, and unemployment; • a sharp decline of environmental priorities in the programs of political parties and most prominent policy-makers; • decreases in public control over environmental protection activities; • economic and financial crises, considerable decrease in environmental investments, including investments in purification facilities; • illegal capital flows from Russia to the West (approximately $240 billion); • Russia's high external debt to the West, with a high portion of it inherited from the Soviet Union, which places constraints on investment opportunities for environmental protection; • insufficient regulation of property rights; and • the general weakness of the state authority and government control, including weakness of environmental institutions.

Crisis of Protective Instruments

The standard instruments of environmental management, which were effective in the West, were recently adopted by Russia. However, these measures had different results for they were not initially adapted to the specifics of the transition period (Kotov and Nikitina, 1998). The application of pollution charges for example, has not come close to meeting the anticipated results. These charges were intended to provide industries with incentives to install purification facilities and environmentally friendly technologies. This did not occur because the government often failed to collect basic taxes, let alone pollution charges. Modifications to the original design of pollution charges also decreased their effectiveness. For example, provisional offsets of (or exemption from) pollution payments have been ineffective for environmental agencies face difficulties in controlling their implementation. The environmental funds accumulated from pollution charges were to be an important source of revenue for financing environmental protection. However, this revenue was much lower than expected and the funds that were collected often were not spent according to the established regulations - regional authorities used them for purposes other than environmental protection.

During the 1990s, financial allocation for environmental protection in the state budget decreased annually and now accounts for less than 0.1% of the GNP. In reality, the government did not even meet these modest obligations, and actual transfers were constantly lower than budget allocations. Governmental financial support for the implementation of programs aimed at the mitigation of major ecological threats was only one-tenth of the amount adopted by the parliament. Only 11 of 25 federal environmental programs were getting some financial support from the state.

The decentralization of authority, particularly over environmental management functions, also did not improve the environmental situation. Instead, regional elites often established control over territorial environmental organs. After eliminating control from above, local authorities avoided democratic processes and public accountability. Corruption in the regional and local state authority was and continues to be much more severe than in the center. Currently, violations of environmental regulations are becoming more numerous. Officials often accept bribes in exchange for granting licenses for natural resource use (e.g., timber licenses), permitting development within conservation areas, and falsifying tender results.

Future Directions: New President - New Environmental Policy?

In 2000, Vladimir Putin was elected President of Russia, and a new government was formed. Environmental security concerns can be identified within President Putin's national security policy, although they are peripheral to economic ones. This is evident in the following excerpts from a recent publication outlining state national security policy directions:

These concerns clearly illustrate that the main priority is to reverse economic depression and promote economic growth.

In contrast to the 1990s, President Putin's policies are not simply idle declarations, but concrete steps towards economic recovery and strengthening government authority and regulations - steps that are supported by the public. Corrupt officials, bureaucrats, and other actors within the shadow economy resist these efforts.

However, one of the steps taken by the Putin government within the environmental sphere appears contradictory. The Environmental Agency was abolished and its functions transferred to the Ministry of Natural Resources during a reorganization of the government in 2000. Does reorganization of the Environmental Agency indicate that Putin is against environmental management and protection? It seems that his position on this issue should be regarded not within an environmental, but within an anti-corruption context. Putin promised to combat corruption and the shadow economy. To accomplish this, he specifically chose deregulation as a method to reduce the possibilities for bureaucratic interference into economic activities; thus, cutting the roots of corruption.

However, in our opinion dismantling the independent Environmental Agency at the federal level is a mistake. Under the new structure of the government, both the use of natural resources and control over the protection of the natural environment are now combined within the same governmental agency. As a result, those bodies that are involved in the use of the environment and natural resources simultaneously have to protect them and control their activities. Corruption within environmental institutions cannot simply be solved through the dissolution of a federal body. Moreover, it cannot be solved through its merging with the ministry involved mainly in the economic use of natural resources. The future will demonstrate whether Russia's new president is able to correct not only the mistakes of others, but his own as well.

Conclusions and Policy Recommendations

What policy prescriptions and instruments are available (at various governmental levels) to overcome the calamities of the transition period and to make environmental institutions effective?

At the national level, it is important to design policy options and strategies on how to strengthen the capacity for enhancing environmental security in Russia. The priority is not to introduce new protective instruments of environmental management, as some observers suggest, as many of them were adopted during the reforms of the 1990s. Rather, the priority is to make these instruments operational and to control and enforce their implementation in order to increase their effectiveness. It is equally important to protect them from the destabilizing influences of deformed economic and political systems. Hopefully, the aggressive general policies initiated recently by President Putin to counteract 'criminalization' of the state and weakening of the state authority will eliminate destabilizing influences. Environmental instruments and the institutions that oversee them must also be adapted to the specifics of the transition period.

Increasing participation of non-state actors in environmental problem-solving is a prerequisite for further advances towards environmentally secure development in Russia. Expansion and diversification of incentives for the business community to increase their participation in environmental problem-solving should be an important item in domestic policies and strategies. This is a priority since the first indications of economic growth have already been registered.

Promoting public awareness of environmental issues to develop an ecological culture will help to reverse the recent trend where environmental concerns dropped to the bottom of the public agenda. Making government administrations accountable before the local public will automatically encourage more public control and participation in environmental decision-making.

At the international level, there is a need to rethink and restructure international aid for environmental capacity building in Russia. During the 1990s, international aid was less effective than expected because of corruption (i.e., aid monies did not go where intended). Aid strategies must also be adapted to the specific circumstances and challenges of transition economies and fledgling democracies. International aid agencies must also find appropriate methods to evaluate the effects of the distorted factors of the transition period.

Although financial transfers from the West to Russia have helped to finance some implementation of environmental security mechanisms, mobilization of domestic resources and institutions is typically more important.

The foregoing discussion demonstrates that during the recent decade new and interesting links between societal change, environmental change, and human security have been identified in Russia, which, together with other Central and Eastern European countries, has been undergoing a transition to both a market economy and a democratic society. Success in the implementation of new instruments to enhance environmental security depends largely on further progress in economic and political reforms and on strengthening domestic capacity.

References and Key Readings

Concept of the national security of the Russian Federation. (1997). In Sobranye Zakonodatelstvo Rossiskoy Federacii. Moscow: Uridicheskaya Literatura, N 52, art. 5909, 10427.

Ecological Security of Russia. (1996). In Materials of the Interdepartmental Commission on Environmental Security, Vol.2, Moscow: Uridicheskaya Literatura, 55-56.

Russian Statistical Annual. (1999). Moscow: Goskomstat Rossii.

State Environmental Report in 1998. (1999). Moscow: Goskomekologia.

Kotov, V. and Nikitina, E. (1998). Environmental protection and capacity building in Russia. In Environmental Policy and the Role of Foreign Assistance in Central and Eastern Europe, M. S. Andersen (ed.). Denmark: KPMG, Paritas Grafik, 69-92.

Concept of the national security of the RF. (2000). In Nezavisimoe Voennoe Obozrenie, N 1, 5-11.

Key Websites

Woodrow Wilson Center Environmental Change and Security Project. The Environmental Outlook in Russia: An Intelligence Community Assessment. http://www.ecsp.si.edu/Russia

Schwellen, M. "Russia's environmental mess". World Press Review, 2/95. http://infomanage.com/environment/russia.html

United States Energy Information Administration. Russia: Environmental Issues. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/russenv.html

Top of page

---