TITLE : ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES and CONSTRAINT Sin the FORMER SOVIET REPUBLICS :

Chapter 1 . The Environmental Implications of Republic Sovereignt y

AUTHOR : PHILIP R. PRYDESAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY

THE NATIONAL COUNCI LFOR SOVIET AND EAST EUROPEA N

RESEARC H

TITLE VIII PROGRA M

1755 Massachusetts Avenue, N .W .Washington, D .C. 20036

PROJECT INFORMATION :*

CONTRACTOR :

San Diego State Universit y

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR :

Philip R . Pryd e

COUNCIL CONTRACT NUMBER :

807-04

DATE:

January 27, 1994

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

Individual researchers retain the copyright on work products derived from research funded b yCouncil Contract. The Council and the U.S. Government have the right to duplicate written reportsand other materials submitted under Council Contract and to distribute such copies within th eCouncil and U.S. Government for their own use, and to draw upon such reports and materials fo rtheir own studies; but the Council and U.S. Government do not have the right to distribute, o rmake such reports and materials available, outside the Council or U.S. Government without thewritten consent of the authors, except as may be required under the provisions of the Freedom o fInformation Act 5 U.S.C. 552, or other applicable law .

The work leading to this report was supported in part by contract funds provided by the National Counci lfor Soviet and East European Research, made available by the U . S. Department of State under Title VIII (th eSoviet-Eastern European Research and Training Act of 1983) . The analysis and interpretations contained in th ereport are those of the author.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS OF REPUBLIC SOVEREIGNTY

Executive Summar y

Philip R . Pryde

Preface to the following Executive Summary:

The research report which is summarized on the following pages is part of an NCSEERfunded project entitled "Environmental Resources and Constraints in the Former Sovie tRepublics ". This research project in all consisted of 21 such reports, 18 of which (written b yother authors) deal with the fifteen former republics, and three of which (written by Dr . Pryde)are summarizing reports. Collectively, they will become the 21 chapters of a book by the sam ename which will be published in 1994 by Westview Press . The following summary is of ChapterOne .

On December 31, 1991, the Soviet Union was superseded by fifteen independent

countries, most of them members of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) . All have

severe environmental problems . This paper looks at the general environmental situation tha t

existed in 1992-93 following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and at some of the primar y

ways in which the fifteen new nations differ from one another .

Economic Implications of Independence for the Environment . In the short run, th e

independence of the former Soviet republics will have a generally unfavorable effect o n

environmental improvement. The reasons relate to potential underemployment, lack o f

investment capital, and a tendency to give priority to rapid economic advancement . In difficult

economic times, it is easy for environmental issues to be seen as "frills" . This could be the

tendency in many of the former republics, since in most, environmental conditions hav e

deteriorated still further from 1991 levels .

The availability of natural resources will also be an important variable, as many republic s

will now have to import much of their timber, ores and fuels from Russia or other foreig n

countries on less favorable economic terms . Most republics will become net importers of energy

supplies . Some republics, to acquire foreign income, may have to pursue environmentall y

questionable economic activities, such as continuing to operate their nuclear power stations .

Another environmental challenge will be public health questions, especially among workers . And

although indices of environmental pollution have shown "improvement" in recent years, most o f

this is because factories are operating below full capacity (or have been shut down) . Therefore,

if the economy improves, large increases in industrial emissions, and related health problems, ca n

be expected .

Decentralized Considerations . Today, fifteen independent countries, rather than jus t

one, are involved in the environmental decision-making process . To fulfill these functions, new

groups of regional associations are emerging, especially among the Baltic states and the Centra l

Asian republics . Russia, Ukraine and Belarus have talked of a possible "slavic economic union" .

Commercial nuclear reactors are located in five separate republics, but run by Mosco w

ministries . Will these reactors now be operated by local nationals, or by Russian ministries, and

who will dispose of their radioactive wastes ?

Geographic and Political Implications . The geographic and political implications o f

independence are immense . One of these is that a great many new bilateral and multilatera l

treaties will be required . One prime example involves the shared waters of Central Asia, where

a multilateral basin compact is essential . Another important geographic consideration is tha t

many of these new nations are land-locked, thus, the right to move goods over existin g

transportation life-lines will probably have to be negotiated with adjacent states . Another spatia l

environmental consideration is the movement of transboundary pollutants .

Mapping the Patterns of Soviet Environmental Deterioration . Almost all of the Soviet

Union's natural zones have undergone severe ecological deterioration, and in recent years, map s

of critical ecological zones have been created . Sixteen highly critical areas were initially

identified : the Aral Sea, the Chernobyl fallout region, the Sea of Azov, the Donbass, Moldova ,

the Black Sea coast, the Caspian Sea, the Kalmyk republic, the Volga River, the Kola Peninsula ,

the Ural region, the Kuzbass, Lake Baikal, Moscow oblast, the Fergana Valley, and th e

Semipalatinsk region of Kazakhstan . Many might place the Kyshtym disaster area (near

Chelyabinsk) and perhaps Novaya Zemlya and the Kara Sea region, into this category as well .

Military Activities and the Environment . It has been observed that the greates t

environmental disaster is war, and unfortunately, in 1993, at least four armed conflicts existed i n

various parts of the former Soviet Union . In the USSR, military manufacturing, training, an d

testing programs were routinely conducted in ways that imperiled both civilians and the

environment . The atmospheric nuclear weapons program near Semipalatinsk is one of the mos t

graphic examples . Also of concern are the remaining nuclear weapons themselves ; in 1991, the

number of nuclear nations increased by three (Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan) . The retentio n

of these weapons as a convenient political bargaining chip hinders the cause of nuclear non -

ii

proliferation . A further issue is the disposition of the conventional explosives, rocket propellants ,

nuclear submarine reactors, chemical and biological weapons, etc ., that still exist in larg e

quantities .

Other Considerations . The fifteen new countries will be facing other environmenta l

challenges, of which one is demographic . In Central Asia and Azerbaijan, the combination o f

high birth rates and limited employment opportunities could subordinate environmental concern s

to efforts to create jobs . Yet, these same regions already have severe health problems relating t o

pesticides and air and water pollution.

The factor of financial resources can hardly be overemphasized . Environmental clean-u p

requires capital, and none of the republics enjoy such a luxury . In 1993, all the new nations

were seeking foreign financial aid, but such aid can be environmentally harmful . In their quest

for economic growth, will the former Soviet republics exercise sufficient control over th e

development of their natural resources by foreign companies ?

Within the former Soviet republics, these are critical times . While some might wish t o

argue that most of these new nations have more urgent problems than environmenta l

improvement, this would be an unfortunate and misleading conclusion . In many of them, the

state of the environment is so deteriorated that other problems, such as public health, agriculture ,

and even the ability to site new industry, are severely impacted by the ecological crisis itself .

The proper way to view the situation is that environmental improvement is an essentia l

component of all the national priorities of the new republics . There is no such thing as a health y

economy built on top of a polluted environment . It is necessary to internalize the costs of a

healthy environment into the production and pricing procedures of today so that the former Sovie t

republics can avoid inflicting the environmental misjudgments of the past onto their own futur e

generations .

iii

Chapter 1 .

THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS OF REPUBLIC SOVEREIGNTY

Philip R. Pryde

December, 1991, was a month perhaps without precedence in the history of the world .

For during that month, one of the two most powerful countries on the planet simply disappeare d

from the face of the earth . Virtually overnight, without a shot being fired . Other countries ,

generally much smaller ones, have been greatly transformed or diminished as a result of war, bu t

usually at least the name remained . But by December 31, 1991, the Union of Soviet Socialis t

Republics (USSR), which had been the largest and most militarily powerful country on earth a t

the start of the month, was no longer extant in either form or name. It was superseded by fifteen

independent countries, most (but not all) of them joined together in a loose confederation terme d

the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), created to address the common interests an d

problems of these newly independent republics (Figure 1 .1) .

These fifteen new countries vary tremendously, both in size and in population

characteristics (Table 1 .1) . Some, such as Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan, are large and ric h

in natural resources, while others, such as Tadzhikistan, Armenia, Moldova, and Latvia, hav e

relatively few mineral deposits . Some of the more interior republics are land-locked and lack an y

direct access to the ocean . Almost all have severe environmental problems that have been wel l

studied and reported upon in recent years, in such works as those listed in the bibliography b y

DeBardeleben, Feshbach, Jancar, Komarov, Massey-Stewart, Mnatsakanian, Peterson, Pryde,

Singleton, and Ziegler . With the exception of Mnatsakanian and Peterson, however, all of thes e

books were written prior to the break-up of the Soviet Union, and thus they view thes e

environmental problems in an administrative context that no longer exists . The new politica l

reality requires that the environmental situation be examined in the specific context of each o f

these fifteen new nation-states . Some of the new nations will have an economic foundation tha t

will permit a modest amount of financial resources to be devoted to environmental enhancement ,

and some, unfortunately, will not .

The process of national independence typically constitutes a period of great euphori a

followed by a long period of increasing realization that severe economic hardships (an d

sometimes political instability) are frequently the price of independence . In the case of the

former Soviet republics, the second phase has already been encountered, and a number o f

1.

Table 1 .1 .

Population characteristics of the former Sovlet Republics

Republic

198 9Populatlon

Area

(Sq. Km .)

Popu -

lation

per

Sq. km

Titular

Group as% of pop'n

Russian sas a %

of pop'n

Birth

Rate ,

1 987

% Natura l

Populatio nIncrease

1 98 9

Russia 147386000 17075400 8 .63 81 .5 81 .5 19 .8 0 .2 0

Ukraine 51704000 603700 85 .65 72 .6 22 .1 14 .8 0 .1 0

Uzbekistan 19906000 447400 44 .49 71 .3 8 .3 37 .0 2 .7 0

Kazakhstan 16538000 2717300 6 .09 39 .7 37 .8 25 .5 1 .4 0

Belarus 10200000 207600 49 .13 77 .8 13 .2 16 .1 0 .3 0

Azerbaijan 7029000 86600 81 .17 82 .6 5 .6 26 .9 2 .0 0

Georgia 5449000 69700 78 .18 70 .2 6 .3 17 .9 0 .9 0

Tajikistan 5112000 1 431 00 35 .72 62 .2 7 .6 41 .8 3 .2 0

Moldova 4341000 33700 128 .80 64 .4 12 .9 21 .8 0 .8 0

Kyrgyzstan 4291000 198500 21 .62 52 .3 21 .5 32 .6 2 .20

Lithuania 3690000 65200 56 .60 79 .6 9 .4 16 .2 0 .4 0

Turkmenistan 3534000 4881 00 7 .24 71 .9 9 .5 37 .2 2 .7 0

Armenia 3283000 29800 110 .17 93 .3 1 .6 22 .9 1 .8 0

Latvia 2681000 63700 42 .09 52 .1 34 .1 15 .8 0 .1 0

Estonla 1573000 451 00 34 .88 61 .5 30 .3 16 .0 0 .20

Source :

Schwartz (1991) ;

and Populatiom Reference Bureau, "1992 World Populatiom Data Sheet"

sobering implications of independence are already apparent. The goal of this book is to examine

one particular set of challenges these new countries face, those relating to natural resources an d

environmental problems . This first chapter will look at the general environmental situation tha t

existed in 1992-93 following the dissolution of the Soviet Union as a national entity, and some o f

the more important ways in which the fifteen new nations differ from one another .

Economic Implications of Independence for the Environmen t

In the short run, the independence of the former Soviet republics will tend to hav e

generally unfavorable implications for environmental improvement . The reasons are mainl y

economic, and relate to the potential for underemployment, lack of investment capital, and a

tendency to give highest priority to rapid economic advancement . In difficult economic times, i t

is easy for environmental issues to be seen as a "frill", and to be relegated to a future agenda .

The nature of the economic problem can be appreciated by the following example from the Balti c

states .

There are many factories in the Baltics that make good consumer products, though no t

quite up to US/EEC/Japanese standards . Thus, their market has been limited in the past to the

USSR and Eastern Europe . They could still sell in these regions today, but Russians and mos t

other peoples of eastern Europe have no money to buy expensive durable goods, and the Balti c

countries aren't particularly desirous of acquiring rubles anyway . A further complication is that

Russia may also be the major supplier of raw materials or parts for these factories, but Russi a

doesn't currently view the Baltic states as a favored trading partner, and may delay shipment o r

increase the prices of these materials . The Baltic factories do not have the economic ability t o

acquire these materials from western Europe or other outside sources ; and as a result, many o f

these factories have had to decrease production, sometimes greatly . If privately owned, the

factory might be bankrupt and forced out of business . But they are at present governmen t

owned, and are now kept operating on a part time basis so that people will still have jobs . Thi s

situation, however, places severe economic strains on the governments of the Baltic countries ,

which formerly derived operating incomes from value-added taxes levied on these firms '

products . As a result, there is presently little money for many worthwhile government programs ,

and among these is environmental enhancement . This same general scenario applies to all th e

other former republics as well .

4

Further, a focus on environmental health has caused many factories and mines to shut

down, at lest temporarily . When coal miners in Ukraine or West Siberia go out on strikes, stee l

mills may be forced to cut back production, as well as the enterprises that use the steel .

For the above and other reasons, careful allocation and redirection of economic resource s

will be needed in most of the newly independent countries (McAuley, 1991) . Each new country

will now be responsible not only for funding its own environmental improvements, and all it s

parks and nature preserves (see Appendices 1 .1 and 1 .2), but all of its other social needs a s

well . In many of the former republics, economic development may well be given a priority ove r

environmental enhancement, echoing a philosophy found both in numerous developing nations ,

and in developed ones during hard economic times . In many republics, environmental condition s

may at best fail to improve, and in some might actually deteriorate further from 1991 levels . To

achieve environmental improvements, in many cases outside economic help will need to b e

sought .

The availability of natural resources will also be a significant consideration, resultin g

from the inherently uneven distribution of such resources throughout the territory of the forme r

Soviet Union (Table 1 .2) . Many of the new nations may find themselves cut off from eas y

access to key natural resources that exist mainly in other republics, or at least find them to b e

more expensive . For example, many southern republics will now have to import much of thei r

timber needs, their metallurgical resources, and perhaps petroleum products as well, from Russi a

or other foreign countries on less favorable terms than they enjoyed under the economic umbrell a

of the USSR .

Energy resources are central to the economy of all nations, and will be a critical facto r

for many of the new republics . The vast majority of the nations of the world are not

self-sufficient in energy resources, and the same will be true for most of the former Sovie t

republics . Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and Ukraine have one or more fossi l

fuel resource in abundance, but other republics will become net importers of energy products .

Table 1 .3 indicates the relative advantages or disadvantages of each republic with regard t o

internal fossil fuel resources. Trade agreements regarding these energy resources are emerging ,

but may be different from those that existed under the USSR . For example, Ukraine has

indicated an interest in acquiring fossil fuels from Iran, and Turkmenistan may sell its surplu s

natural gas to Turkey, Pakistan, and other non-CIS countries (as well as to some former USS R

republics) .

5

Table

1 .

2 . Economic Resources of the Former Soviet Republic s

Republic

Soi lfo r

Agriculture

Fossil

Commercia lFuel

NuclearResources(a)

Reactor Units

Non-Fue lMinera l

Resources

Electrica lEnergy

Production1990

(b )

Few 2Armenia Fair* Some 3 .17(b )

Azerbaijan Good* Moderate 0 ,Some NG 0 Some 3 .3 0

Belarus Good Some NG 0 Few 3 .8 7

Estonia Fair Sizable OS 0 Some 10 .9 3

Georgia Good Few 0 Moderate 2.6 1

Kazakhstan Very good Sizable C, 0 ,Some NG 1 Abundant 5.28

Kyrgyzstan Good* Some C 0 Some 3 .1 2

Latvla Good Few 0 Few 2 .4 6

Lithuania Good Few 2 Few 7.70

Moldova Very good Few 0 Few 3 .62

Russia Fair -V. good

Abundant C ,0, NG 28 Abundant 7 .34

Tadjikistan Good* Some NG 0 Some 3 .5 4

Turkmenistan

Good* Abundant NG ,Some O 0 Some 4 .1 3

Ukraine Very good Sizable C ,NG, Some O 1 5 Sizable 5.77

Uzbekistan Good* Sizable NG, Some C 0 Some 2 .8 3

If

irrigated .NG = natural gas ; OS = oil shale(a)

C = coal ;

0 = oil ;(b) In 1000 kWh per capita ; in 1990 the average for the USSR as a whole was 6,02 0kWh/p .c .

Sources : Atlas SSSR , 1984 ;

Shabad, 1969 ;

Jensen et al. , Soviet Natural Resourcesin the World Economy , U . of Chicago Press, 1983 ; Post-Soviet Geography , Vol . 32 ,

no. 4 (April 1991), and Vol . 33, No . 4 (April 1992) .

6

Table

1 .3 : Fossil

Fuel Productlon

by

Republlc,

199 0

Republic

1989Population(millions)

1990oi l

outpu tMmt/yr

Tons o foutput ,

percapita

1990natural gas

outputbill . m3/yr

1000cubic

meters ,per cap .

1 9 9 0 Tons o fcoal

outputoutput,

perMmt/yr capita

Russia 147.4 516.4 3.50 640 .4 4.34 395

2 .68Ukraine 51 .7 5.0 0.09 29 .0 0.56 165

3 .1 9Belarus 10 .2 2.0 0.19 0.2 0.02 0

0Kazakhstan 16 .5 25.1 1 .52 7.1 0.43 131

7 .94Uzbekistan 19.9 2.8 0.14 40.8 2.05 6

0 .30Turkmenistan 3.5 5.6 1 .60 87 .8 25 .08 0

0Kyrgyzstan 4.3 0.2 0.05 0.1 0.02 4

0 .93Tajikistan 5.1 0.2 0.04 0.2 0.04 1

0 .20Azerbaijan 7.0 12 .2 1 .74 9.0 1 .29 0

0Georgia 5.4 0.2 0.04 0 0 1

0 .1 8Armenia 3.3 0 0 0 0 0

0Moldova 4.3 0 0 0 0 0

0Lithuania 3.7 0 0 0 0 0

0Latvia 2.7 0 0 0 0 0

0Estonia 1 .6 0 0 0 0 0

0

Ex-USSR : 286.7 569 .7 1 .99 814 .7 2.84 703

2.45

Source : Sagers, M . J., "Review of Soviet Energy Industries in 1990" ,Soyiet Geography , Vol . 32, No. 4 (April 1991), pp. 251-280 .

7

Some republics will have valuable resources to export to improve their foreign trad e

balance. As noted, Turkmenistan has natural gas, and Ukraine has iron ore, Azerbaijan has oil ,

and Kazakhstan possess a wealth of mineral resources of many types . In certain of these cases ,

however, gaining access to world trade routes may be a problem . Also, some republics, in the

interest of gaining foreign income, may have to pursue economic activities that they might prefer

to curtail for environmental reasons . As examples, Armenia, Ukraine, and Lithuania might hav e

to continue to operate their Soviet-built nuclear power stations, and Estonia may have to mine a t

least a small portion of its phosphate deposits in the interest of both its internal economy and it s

international trade balance .

Among the environmental consequences of the former Soviet system with which the ne w

countries will have to deal are those relating to public health, especially among workers . The

generally adverse state of the natural environment in the former Soviet Union has been wel l

known for over two decades (Goldman, 1972 ; Pryde, 1972) . More recently, detailed informatio n

has appeared on the disastrous effects on human health that has resulted from the Stalinis t

insistence on industrial development at any cost, most notably in the recent volume by Feshbac h

and Friendly, and the article by Cole (see Table 1 .4) .

Another potential reason for future environmental neglect relates to inter-republi c

competition . Will all these new republics tend to compete for foreign economic investments ,

using relaxed environmental regulations as "bait", in order to entice new employmen t

opportunities to locate there, rather than in a neighboring republic? This is a common tacti c

among states in the U .S .A ., and could appear in the republics of the former Soviet Union, a s

well .

Finally, an odd paradox exists in the former USSR's economy-environment equation .

Indices of environmental pollution have shown "improvement" in recent years, but most of thi s

improvement merely reflects that many factories are operating at less than full capacity, for th e

reasons outlined above . Worse, it has been noted that the decreases in harmful emissions ove r

the past four years have been generally less than the decrease in levels of economic production ,

implying that per-unit-of-production pollution levels have actually been increasing in recent years .

Therefore, if the economy improves, large increases in industrial emissions can be expected, wit h

a corresponding increase in human health problems .

8

Some republics will have valuable resources to export to improve their foreign trad e

balance. As noted, Turkmenistan has natural gas, and Ukraine has iron ore, Azerbaijan has oil ,

and Kazakhstan possess a wealth of mineral resources of many types . In certain of these cases ,

however, gaining access to world trade routes may be a problem . Also, some republics, in the

interest of gaining foreign income, may have to pursue economic activities that they might prefe r

to curtail for environmental reasons . As examples, Armenia, Ukraine, and Lithuania might have

to continue to operate their Soviet-built nuclear power stations, and Estonia may have to mine a t

least a small portion of its phosphate deposits in the interest of both its internal economy and it s

international trade balance .

Among the environmental consequences of the former Soviet system with which the ne w

countries will have to deal are those relating to public health, especially among workers . The

generally adverse state of the natural environment in the former Soviet Union has been wel l

known for over two decades (Goldman, 1972 ; Pryde, 1972) . More recently, detailed informatio n

has appeared on the disastrous effects on human health that has resulted from the Stalinis t

insistence on industrial development at any cost, most notably in the recent volume by Feshbac h

and Friendly, and the article by Cole (see Table 1 .4) .

Another potential reason for future environmental neglect relates to inter-republic

competition . Will all these new republics tend to compete for foreign economic investments ,

using relaxed environmental regulations as "bait", in order to entice new employment

opportunities to locate there, rather than in a neighboring republic? This is a common tacti c

among states in the U .S .A., and could appear in the republics of the former Soviet Union, a s

well .

Finally, an odd paradox exists in the former USSR's economy-environment equation .

Indices of environmental pollution have shown "improvement" in recent years, but most of thi s

improvement merely reflects that many factories are operating at less than full capacity, for th e

reasons outlined above . Worse, it has been noted that the decreases in harmful emissions ove r

the past four years have been generally less than the decrease in levels of economic production ,

implying that per-unit-of-production pollution levels have actually been increasing in recent years .

Therefore, if the economy improves, large increases in industrial emissions can be expected, with

a corresponding increase in human health problems .

9

Table 1 .4 .

Quality of Life Variables in Soviet Republics as Percentage of Most Favorabl e

Republic Score (= 100) a

(1 )

Urban

(2)Lifeexp .

(3 )Nat.incr.

(4 )Inf.

mort

(5 )Fer-tility

(6 )Ind.

empt.

(7)Womenin work

(8)Cap.inv.

(9)Highinc .

(10 )Ret.

sale

(11) (12)

Serv . Tele .

RSFSR 100 97 53 58 95 97 94 100 65 72 76 45Estonia 97 98 68 90 95 92 100 87 100 100 100 78Latvia 96 98 85 100 95 95 100 79 84 94 91 100Lithuania 92 100 55 96 95 95 96 92 71 82 77 84Belorussia

(Belarus) 88 99 47 84 100 92 98 80 58 72 68 62Moldova 64 94 25 48 75 87 96 57 33 60 57 4 1Ukraine 91 98 100 77 100 90 96 61 42 62 68 53Georgia 76 100 34 50 91 95 85 59 49 59 72 57Armenia 92 95 25 43 81 100 89 52 28 53 54 7938Azerbaijan 73 97 14 41 72 80 80 53 19 39 40 3 9Turkmenia 61 91 10 21 44 66 78 61 15 45 45 2 6Uzbekistan 55 95 10 25 46 70 80 41 8 39 36 29Tadzhikistan 45 96 8 22 37 70 72 36 4 35 31 1 8Kyrgyzstan 51 94 12 30 50 80 91 40 14 45 44 2 7Kazakhstan 77 96 17 38 66 98 91 84 39 55 60 4 3USSR 89 96 32 45 84 93 94 81 51 65 68 50

(13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23)High Sci. Doc- Hosp . Hous. Alco- Pollu- Grand USSRed. wkrs . tors beds space hol Crime tion total Ave . = 100

RSFSR 100 100 81 99 74 6 18 9 1439 72 .0 110.6Estonia 81 63 83 87 100 13 16 8 1556 77 .8 1193Latvia 86 74 86 100 91 7 18 37 1616 80 .8 124. 1Lithuania 94 60 78 91 89 10 23 19 1499 75 .0 115 .2Belorussi a

(Belarus) 92 61 69 97 81 9 31 19 1407 70 .4 108 . 1Moldova 66 34 69 93 82 7 22 24 1134 56 .7 87 . 1Ukraine 87 60 74 96 82 7 32 11 1387 69 .4 106 . 6Georgia 85 77 100 80 89 67 58 27 1410 70 .5 108338Armenia 87 94 69 63 65 100 64 48 1381 69 .1 106 . 138Azerbaijan 74 46 67 71 57 71 100 24 1157 57 .9 88 .9Turkmenia 59 23 60 78 50 26 39 15 913 45 .6 70 . 0Uzbekistan 81 29 60 87 55 28 48 34 956 47 .8 73 .4Tadzhikistan 60 26 48 75 43 31 64 100 921 46 .1 70 . 8Kyrgyzstan 69 33 62 84 55 16 34 56 987 49 .4 75 .9Kazakhstan 87 36 69 96 64 9 2.5 9 1159 58 .0 89 . 1USSR 92 76 76 94 73 8 23 11 1301 65 .1 100.0

' For variables (4) - (6) and (19) - (21) low has been taken as "fayorable " and the valuesreversed .

b Underlined values represent the highest- or lowest-ranking republic(s) on each variable ,standardized in relation to the most favorable republic score (= 100) .

1 0

Source : Cole, J . P . (1991), p . 594 . Reprinted by permission V.H .Winston 6 Son.

Decentralization Consideration s

Under the previous system, only one nation was involved in environmental management .

Currently, fifteen independent countries are involved in a vast array of environmenta l

decision-making processes . Under the structure of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ,

decisions concerning natural resources conservation and environmental protection were made by

what were termed all-Union, or Union-republic, ministries and state committees . With the

dismemberment of the USSR, a new process will be needed to fulfill these functions . The new

Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), although a possible vehicle, seems an unlikely

choice due to the fourteen minority republics' distrust of any centralized authority . Also, the

three Baltic republics and Georgia do not belong to the CIS . Independent control by agencie s

within each of the new nations seems a far more likely course of action . In 1993, a new trend

appeared to be emerging : regional associations . In addition to the Baltic states' commonality o f

interests, the Central Asian republics have created an economic association with neighborin g

Islamic nations, and Russia, Ukraine and Belarus have begun looking at a possible "slavi c

economic union" .

With regard to environmental protection, in all probability fifteen different structures wil l

emerge . Some republics may divide responsibilities among a number of regulatory agencies ,

others may opt for a 'super-agency' concept . Given that no form of governmental structure i s

perfect, leadership priorities will become an important factor . Each republic will have to create

its own mechanisms for ensuring a high level of environmental quality, and find the resources to

carry them out in practice. Well-worded laws that have meaning only on paper, a longstandin g

Soviet stock-in-trade, will no longer suffice .

One of the most critical regulatory concerns will involve nuclear energy . Most

commercial nuclear reactors are located in Russia and Ukraine (see Table 1 .2), and sufficien t

expertise may exist in these large and diverse nations to satisfactorily carry out their own nuclear

control programs . But commercial nuclear facilities also exist in Lithuania, Armenia, an d

Kazakhstan (the latter including a breeder reactor) . Both Lithuania and Armenia had earlie r

talked about creating a nuclear-free energy base, but economic realities will probably require bot h

of their nuclear facilities to be operated for some years to come, suggesting a continuation o f

nuclear safety uncertainties (Potter, 1993) . Thus, political decentralization engenders a host o f

questions . Will these reactors be operated by local nationals, or by Russians? What arrangements

will be made for disposing of radioactive wastes? Will waste repositories be required in th e

1 1

republic containing the nuclear facility, or will Russia accept them? Will the smaller states as k

for Russian assistance in dismantling the reactors at the end of their active life? And at that time ,

what form of energy facility will replace them? One question along these lines has already bee n

answered : Russia has virtually ceased providing any cash assistance to Belarus and Ukraine to

aid in correcting the problems resulting from the Chernobyl accident .

The example of nuclear energy outlined above can be transferred to a number of othe r

industries that are inherently 'dirty' : iron and steel, petroleum refining, chemicals, fossil fue l

power plants, etc . Lacking centralized control from Moscow, each republic will need an

effective mechanism to control emissions and toxic wastes from every category of pollutin g

industry. This has major funding implications . Nor will the environmental situation be helped

by the probable necessity of retaining in their jobs many of the middle-management personne l

that were a part of the ineffective regulatory process under the former Soviet governmenta l

system .

Geographic and Political Implications

The environmental implications of independence also have a spatial dimension . As

suggested above, many new trade partnerships will have to be developed . The geographic an d

political implications of this are immense . For example, a great many new bilateral and

multilateral treaties will be required, both among the fifteen new nations themselves, and wit h

outside powers .

As one prime example, consider the water problems of Central Asia . Formerly, a

decision on any Central Asian water issue, wise or unwise, would have been made in Moscow ,

and would have been binding on all Republics concerned . Today, however, five separat e

countries are involved, and the experience in the American West suggests that self-interest coul d

quickly divide these new nations into upstream (supplier) and downstream (consumer) negotiatin g

blocks . A multilateral basin compact is essential, if these water supplies are to be efficientl y

shared in the future . Further, it should be noted that parts of the upper basin lie in China an d

Afghanistan . These Central Asian problems will be examined in more detail in Chapters 1 6

through 20 .

Another important geographic consideration is that many of these new nations ar e

land-locked (Table 1 .5) . When they existed as merely a constituent republic of the USSR, thi s

was not a particularly limiting constraint ; a nationwide system of railroads and waterways existe d

to move goods in and out of these republics . Today, with independence, the right to move good s

12

Table 1 .5 .

Geographic Situation of the Former USSR Republic s

Republic : Area Latitude Access to Ocean? Neighboring Countries :

OtherVia rive r(of Capi -

tal City )(sq. km.) Direct ;

or canal Ex-USS R

Russia (Rus) 17,075,400 55° 45' yes yes (a) (b )Kazakhstan (Kaz) 2,717,300 43° 19' no yes Rus, Tur, Uzb, Kyr ChinaUkraine

(Ukr) 603,700 50° 27' yes yes Rus, Bel, Mol (c)Turkmenistan (Tur) 488,100 39° 45' no yes Kaz, Uzb Iran, Afghanista nUzbekistan (Uzb) 447,400 41° 23' no no Kaz, Tur, Kyr, Tad AfghanistanBelarus

(Bel) 207,600 53° 54' no yes Rus, Ukr, Lit, Lat PolandKyrgyzstan (Kyr) 198,500 42° 49' no no Kaz, Uzb, Tad ChinaTajikistan (Tad) 143,100 38° 41' no no Uzb, Kyr China, Afghanista nAzerbaijan (Azr) 86,000 40° 28' no yes Rus, Arm, Gru Ira nGeorgia (Gru) 69,700 41° 40' yes yes Rus, Azr, Arm TurkeyLithuania

(Lit) 65,200 54° 40' yes yes Bel, Lat, Rus (d) PolandLatvia (Lat) 63,700 56° 551 yes yes Rus, Est, Lit, Bel (none)Estonia (Est) 45,100 59° 261 yes yes Rus, Lat (none)Moldova (Mol) 33,700 47° 02' no yes Ukr RomaniaArmenia (Arm) 29,800 40° 10' no no Gru, Azr Iran, Turkey

(a) Russia borders on Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Gruziya, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhsta n(b) Russia borders on Norway, Finland, China, Mongolia, and North Kore a(c) Ukraine borders on Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romani a(d) Lithuania borders on Kaliningrad Oblast, an exclave of the Russian Republi c

Source : Atlas SSSR , 1983 .

over these transportation life-lines will probably have to be negotiated with adjacent states, and

will also require maintaining good relations with their neighbors . A key portion of this transport

system is the Volga River and associated canal systems, all of which lie in the Russian Republic .

The Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan republics all front on the Caspian Sea, and coul d

benefit from the continued accessibility to this system . It is always at the least an inconvenience

for a country to not have a port city accessible to the world ocean, as many key economic item s

are best shipped by bulk cargo vessels over water . Land-locked republics may also find fis h

products to be more expensive, as the former Soviet fishing fleet was largely in the Russian

republic, and fish catches from the Caspian Sea have declined (and those from the Aral ar e

almost totally extirpated) .

Another important environmental consideration having a strong spatial element is th e

movement of transboundary pollutants . This issue has at least four main components : 1 )

airborne pollutants, including not only smokestack and exhaust emissions but also windblow n

pesticides, salts, and other harmful articulates ; 2) pollutants transmitted by international rive r

systems or across international lakes ; 3) the pollution of seas (Baltic, Black, etc .) whose

coastlines are shared by two or more nations ; and 4) deliberately conveyed pollutants, that is ,

those that are legally contracted for movement, or in some cases illegally smuggled, acros s

international borders . Because many of the countries in eastern Europe are relatively small ,

transboundary pollution has become a significant international issue . Attempts to control thi s

problem are embodied in such accords as the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Ai r

Pollution of 1979. Signing an accord, however, does not mean that effective steps will b e

quickly taken to resolve the problem .

Political problems may also inhibit the pace of economic and environmental improvement .

Not every republic has moved quickly to decentralize and reform the old USSR-era ministeria l

system, the cause of so many environmental problems . In some republics, such as Uzbekistan ,

the "new" system is as yet little changed from the old . Likewise, privatization, which migh t

provide some competitive motivations to clean up old, inefficient industrial and agricultura l

procedures, is lurching along very unevenly among the various republics .

The interests of minority populations also have environmental implications . This i s

particularly true in the Russian Federation, which is itself a patchwork of minority "autonomous "

regions . Here, the largest individual political sub-unit, the Yakut Autonomous Republic (no w

known as Sakha), has asked for greater local control over its vast wealth of natural resources .

14

The Tatar republic (Tatarstan) has voted for political sovereignty, implying that (if other nativ e

areas follow suit) much of the extensive oil deposits within the Russian Federation coul d

eventually be controlled locally, rather than from Moscow . If ethnic regions gain control ove r

their natural resources, various possible subsequent scenarios exist . The local area, feeling that it

was previously exploited, might opt to decrease or halt production from one or more minera l

deposits, creating a demand for increased production elsewhere . Or, needing income, the loca l

area might increase production, with potentially greater environmental damage . The most

favorable outcome, that the local area might force production to take place in a mor e

environmentally benign manner, while possible, is unlikely to be the most widely implemente d

option, mainly for economic reasons .

One manifestation of ethnic identity has been the widespread renaming of cities, especiall y

those that were given new names during the Soviet period to honor revolutionary figures . A short

guide to some of the larger cities that have been renamed since 1991 is given in Appendix 1 .3 .

Mapping the Patterns of Soviet Environmental Deterioration

The former Soviet Union is a land of great ecological diversity . Even a generalized map

of its landscape regions will show at least ten broad natural zones, ranging from Arctic tundra t o

the deserts of Central Asia (Figure 1 .2) . Unfortunately, almost all of these natural zones hav e

undergone severe ecological deterioration .

The causes and specific manifestations of environmental deterioration in the USSR have

been well reported upon and analyzed in the several books mentioned in the second paragraph o f

this chapter: and there is no need to re-examine the Soviet experience here . However, at th e

start of the 1990s, a new way of looking at the severity of the Soviet environmental situation wa s

emerging, that being the preparation of maps of critical ecological zones (Kochurov, 1991) .

The earliest of these maps showed general patterns and locations of environmenta l

problems across the expanse of the USSR at a fairly small scale, as well as noting the location o f

the more critical regional problem areas (Figure 1 .3) . Sixteen highly critical areas were

identified, those being denoted on Figure 1 .3 as : 1 . the Aral Sea, 2 . the Chernobyl fall-ou t

region, 3 . the Sea of Azov, 4 . the Donbass region of Ukraine, 5 . Moldavia, 6 . the Black Sea

coast, 7 . the Caspian Sea, 8 . the Kalmyk republic, 9 . the Volga River, 10. the Kola Peninsula ,

11 . the Ural Mountains industrial region, 12 . the Kuzbass coal mining region, 13 . Lake Baikal ,

the Moscow region, 15 . the Fergana Valley, and 16 . the Semipalatinsk region o f

1 5

Figure 1 .2 .

NATURAL ZONES OF THE U .S.S.R. (after MiI'kov )

Tundra and woodedtundra

Taig aEuropean mixe d

f0restWooded stepp eSteppe and deser t

steppe

Caucasus and Crimean mountain sand l0wlands

Deser tCentral Asia n

mountain sSiberian and Fa r

East mountainsFar East mixed forests

Figure 1 .3 . Critical environmental regions of the former USSR .(Reproduced with permission of V .H.Winston & Son, Inc .)

Legend for Figure 1 .3 .

Areas of critical ecological situation s

Deterioration of natural pastures

Sensitive Arctic forests

Southern limit of permafros t

Northern limit of dust storms

Key to numbers :1

- Aral Sea 9 - Volga-Kam a2

- Chernobyl 10 -

Murmansk-Kol a3

- Sea of Azov 11 -

Central

Ura l4

- Dnepropetrovsk 12 -

Kuznets Basi n5

- Moldova 13 -

Lake Baika l6

- Black Sea 14 -

Moscow regio n7

- Caspian Sea 15 -

Fergana Valley8

- Kalmykia 16 -

East Kazakhstan

Source : Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow .

Symbols :

A

18

Kazakhstan .

Later refinements produced much more precise and detailed regional environmental map s

at a much larger scale (Kotlyakov et al . , 1991), as well as maps of particular republics, such a s

Ukraine, and specific oblasts (provinces), such as Moscow and St. Petersburg . An example o f

the larger-scale mapping, focusing on the Volga-Ural region, is shown in Figure 1 .4 . The

severity of regional environmental disruption is often described as falling into one of fiv e

categories : provisionally favorable, satisfactory, stressed, critical (crisis), and catastrophic . In

the USSR at the turn of the 1990s, two areas were generally considered to fall into th e

catastrophic category : the Chernobyl region, and the Aral Sea region (though many might plac e

the area of the Kyshtym disaster, near the Urals city of Chelyabinsk, into this category as well ;

see Chapter 4) . Recent information suggests that perhaps Novaya Zemlya and the Kara Se a

should also be accorded this dubious distinction (Broad, 1993) .

More recent efforts (1993) have produced a larger scale map, in color, of the entire

former USSR, showing over 100 critical environmental regions . These maps are an instructive ,

visually compelling, way of summarizing regional environmental situations for public educatio n

purposes . Today they are being prepared in many other portions of the world besides the forme r

Soviet Union, with the effort being coordinated by the International Geographical Union .

Military Conflict and the Environmen t

It has been frequently observed that the greatest of environmental disasters is war, a poin t

that was vividly driven home during, and after, the 1991 Gulf War in Kuwait and Iraq .

Unfortunately, at the time of this writing, at least four armed conflicts were taking place i n

various parts of the former Soviet Union, specifically, in Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding

portions of Azerbaijan, in the South Ossetian and Abkhazia regions of Georgia, in Tajikistan,

and in the Transdnestr region of Moldova . Not only is the environment in these areas directl y

harmed by the destructive activities of the conflict, but the economic cost of the military activitie s

often hampers effective environmental clean-up once the hostilities cease . Substantial levels o f

foreign capital are often necessary for environmental restoration in such situations (as in the cas e

of Kuwait), which may not be readily available, especially if there are several claimants for thi s

aid .

In the former Soviet Union, normal military manufacturing, training, and testin g

programs were routinely conducted in such a way that frequently imperiled both civilia n

1.9

Figure 1 .4 . Portion of larger-scale environmental map of th e

Volga-Urals region . Reproduced with permissio n

of V.H .Winston & Son, Inc .

20

Figure 1 .4 . Portion of larger-scale environmental map of theVolga-Urals region . Reproduced with permissionof V.H .Winston & Son, Inc .

Legend : 1—areas of most severe ecological situation s

2—areas with most develo ped soil erosion3—areas with greatest depletion of water resources in small river s

4—areas with acid precipitation (according to snow cover in 1988 )5—cities with most polluted ai r

6—nuclear power plant s7—large livestock raising complexes with high level of pollutio n

8—nature reserves and preserves

9—northern boundary of the highest frequency of dust storms10—index (composite) of the ecological situation :

A—atmospheric pollutionW—depletion of water resources and water pollutio n

F d—degradation of forest sF—overcutting of forest s

Sesoil erosion by wate r

Sd—deflation of soil s

S p—soil pollution (chemical )

G—intensive gully formatio n

L d—land disturbanc eL—loss of productive lan d

D—disturbance of protection regime for nature reserves, nature pre -serves, and unique natural features .

2 1

populations and the natural environment . Will the demise of the USSR necessarily change thes e

military practices, either in the Russian Federation or in the minority republics ?

An even more critical example involves nuclear weapons, a continuing legacy of the col d

war. For decades, the United States and the USSR were able to negotiate between themselve s

concerning the possibility of nuclear arms reduction . Suddenly, in 1991, the number of nation s

possessing strategic nuclear weapons and delivery systems increased by three, as Belarus ,

Ukraine, and Kazakhstan, all containing former Soviet missile sites, became independent nations .

Thus, in 1992, the United States had to expand the scope of its START (Strategic Arms

Reduction Treaty) negotiations to deal with four countries, rather than one . The fact that the

some of these new nations may view the temporary retention of these weapons as a ver y

important political bargaining chip does not help the cause of nuclear non-proliferation .

This leads immediately to another military-related environmental legacy of the cold war .

Although the vast improvements in U .S . - U.S .S .R ./Russian relations over the past few years has

led to a significant level of mutual disarmament, even this comes at an environmental price . The

frequently cited adage of ecologists that "everything has to go somewhere" takes on appreciable

significance here . How will both sides dispose of the conventional explosives, bomb-grad e

nuclear materials, rocket propellants, nuclear submarine reactors, chemical weapons, biologica l

agents, etc ., that will still exist even after their conveyance systems are dismantled? Has eithe r

side even provided a complete list of what it possesses? These wastes are now known to b e

causing widespread environmental harm over vast areas of the former USSR (Bradley 1992 :

Feshbach and Friendly, 1992) . This may be become one of the major environmental challenge s

of the 1990s .

Inter-Republic Environmental Coordinatio n

A high level of inter-republic cooperation will be essential if environmental concerns are

to be adequately addressed in the post-Soviet period . This cooperation will hopefully occur

within two spheres of contact, at the official governmental level, and at the NG O

(non-governmental environmental organization) level .

At the governmental level, coordination could be effected by umbrella organization s

established under the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) . However, as of 1993 the CI S

was not showing much evidence of being a strong coordinating body . It had put together an

agreement entitled "Interaction in the field of ecology and environmental protection" among it s

member states, but this document is more in the nature of a goals statement than a list of specifi c

22

actions to be undertaken . Further, it embraced only 11 of the 15 former USSR republics (no t

included are Georgia and the Baltic republics) . In the absence of the CIS as a strong unifying

body, this coordination could be accomplished by bilateral and multilateral agreements, the nee d

for which has already been noted .

The most obviously needed compact, noted earlier in this chapter, would be one t o

manage the water resources of Central Asia . The Colorado River Compact among th e

southwestern states of the USA could in some ways serve as a model (although admittedly a les s

than perfect one) . The most preferable form of such a compact would be a five-republic accor d

encompassing the entire Aral Sea basin, which ideally might be expanded to also includ e

Afghanistan and its portion of the upper Amu-Darya (Pyandzh) basin . Less ideal would be

separate compacts for the Amu-Darya and Syr-Darya basins . The latter approach might prove

faster to achieve, but would respond poorly to the problem of resolving the Aral Sea desiccation

crisis . A start in this direction occurred when the five Aral Basin republics signed an agreemen t

on the joint management and protection of the basin's water supplies in February of 1992 . It

creates a joint commission to regulate and conserve inter-republic rivers and lakes, and is made

up of the head of the water resources agency in each republic (Micklin, persona l

communication) .

A number of other bi-lateral or multi-lateral water compacts might be useful . Among

them would be agreements between Russia, Belarus and Ukraine concerning the Dnepr River an d

its tributaries, between Ukraine and Moldova concerning the Dnestr, between Russia, Belarus ,

and Latvia concerning the Western Dvina (Daugava), between Russia and Ukraine concernin g

the Donets, between Russia and Kazakhstan concerning the Irtysh (and Tobol and Ishim) ,

between Georgia and Azerbaijan concerning the Kura, and between Russia and Estoni a

concerning Lake Peipsi (Peipus) and related drainages . In a more peaceful world, an agreement

concerning the Araks River among Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey and Iran might even b e

envisioned .

Unfortunately, several early attempts at multi-lateral cooperation between the republic s

were not successful . A proposal for an agreement among the republics bordering the Caspia n

Sea to protect that water body was unsuccessful, and the Baltic republics are reluctant to ente r

into any unnecessary agreements with the Russian republic, or any that suggest that the ol d

Moscow-dominated Soviet Union structure still exists . Also, the local Krasnoyarsk governmen t

has indicated a reluctance to accept more radioactive wastes from Ukrainian nuclear powe r

2 3

stations. The maintenance of long-distance gas and oil pipelines, many of which are known to b e

in poor condition, will likewise require inter-republic accords in many instances .

With regard to non-governmental organizations (NGOs), as of 1993 they might be eve n

better organized than their official counterparts . The most impressive organization at present i s

the Socio-Ecological Union (SEU), headquartered in Moscow . It was founded prior to the

break-up of the Soviet Union, and hence retains good ties to environmental groups in almost al l

of the former USSR republics, and is one of the most reliable source of information about them .

In the spring of 1991 the SEU and the Institute for Soviet-American Relations (ISAR) hosted th e

first USSR-US conference of non-governmental environmental organizations in Moscow, at whic h

dozens of such groups from both countries were represented by delegates (Klose et al ., 1991) .

Other similar organizations exist, such as "Ekologiya i mir", but none appear to be as extensiv e

in their operations as the SEU . An interesting development in 1993 was a report that former

USSR president Mikhail Gorbachev was the founding head of a new environmental NGO calle d

the International Green Cross (Los Angeles Times , April 27, p . H2) .

Other Consideration s

The fifteen new countries will be facing other new problems and challenges related t o

environmental management, as well . One group of such problems relates to demographi c

factors .

One of the most pressing of these concerns is birth rates . Among the former Sovie t

republics, birth rates tend to be lowest in the Slavic and Baltic regions, and highest in the Islamic

republics . Birth rates in Georgia and Armenia, formerly high, dropped off somewhat during the

1980s . In Central Asia and Azerbaijan, the unfortunate combination of high birth rates an d

limited employment opportunities could lead to a philosophy of subordinating environmenta l

concerns to an overriding effort to create jobs . This would be particularly unfortunate sinc e

these are portions of the former Soviet Union already known to have severe problems of air an d

water pollution and toxic pesticide contamination (Pryde, 1991 ; Feshbach and Friendly, 1992 ;

Nats. Doklad , 1991) . On the other hand, in the Russian republic, for the first time since Worl d

War II, the birth rate lagged behind the death rate in 1991 .

A related consideration is the large number of ethnic Russians in many of the forme r

Union republics (see Table 1 .1) . They vary in numbers from 52,000 in Armenia to over 1 1

million in Ukraine (Harris, 1993, p . 5) . Some republics (such as Estonia) wish to see thes e

Russians residents return to the Russian Federation, a stance that is creating considerable friction .

24

With time, many of the more recent of these transplanted Russians may opt to return to the mor e

familiar countryside of their forebears, though those who have lived in the host republic all thei r

lives may wish to stay . Of those Russians who return, some will be professional people ,

including environmental professionals, and in the short run their expertise may be greatly missed .

A large scale movement of this nature has apparently already begun in Uzbekistan (Feshbach an d

Friendly, 1992, p . 87) .

The factor of financial resources can hardly be overemphasized . Environmental clean-u p

requires capital, huge amounts of it, and none of the republics have such a luxury . In 1993 ,

Russia and other new nations were eagerly seeking foreign financial aid to assist their struggling

economies, and environmental clean-up was not at the top of the needs list . Perhaps the most

optimistic scenario is that the new nations will simply shut down the worst polluting industries ,

and the foreign aid can help to build newer factories that use inherently cleaner technologies . In

the short run, however, there is little question that much pollution will simply continue to flow .

Another factor relating to foreign countries involves natural resource exploitation . In

their quest for economic development, will the former Soviet republics will exercise sufficien t

control over the development of their natural resources by foreign companies? The Unite d

States, for example, doesn't presently have to prepare environmental impact analyses for projects

in foreign countries . Will each of the fifteen former USSR republics have the interna l

organization (and political will) to adequately supervise this outside development of their natural

resources? Chapter 5 will note that at least in the area of timber resources, the early answer to

this question was "no" .

Within the territory of the former Soviet Union, these are both exciting and troublesom e

times . While some might wish to argue that most of these new nations have more urgen t

problems than environmental improvement, this would be an unfortunate and misleadin g

conclusion . In many of these new countries (especially in Central Asia) the state of th e

environment is so deteriorated that other problems, such as public health, agriculture, and eve n

the ability to site new industry, are being severely impacted by the ecological crisis itself (se e

Table 1 .4). Thus, the proper way to view the situation is not that environmental improvement i s

in fourth or sixth place on a shopping list of national priorities and capital needs, but rather tha t

it is an essential component of all items on that shopping list . It must be understood that there i s

no such thing as a healthy economy built on top of a polluted environment, and tha t

25

environmental degradation is merely the postponement of necessary costs of production, often at

the cost of public health . Future generations thus must pay twice, once to cover the (inflated)

cost of the clean-up, and a second time to cure health problems . This neglect constitutes politica l

irresponsibility, and should be rejected by the citizenry, and political leaders, of all countries .

The only responsible approach is to internalize the costs of a healthy environment into th e

production and pricing procedures of today . Only in this way can the countries of the forme r

Soviet Union, and all other nations of the world, avoid inflicting the environmenta l

misjudgments of the present onto their own future generations .

2 6

Bibliograph y

Batalden, S . K . and Batalden, S . L. (1993)" The Newly Independent States of Eurasia", Phoenix :The Oryx Press .

Braden. K . E . (1987), "The function of nature reserves in the Soviet Union", chapter 4 in F .Singleton . (ed .), Environmental Problems in the Soyiet Union and Eastern Europe, Boulder, CO :Lynne Rienner .

Bradley, D. J . (1992) "Radioactive Waste Management in the Former USSR" (in 3 vols .) .Richland, WA : Pacific Northwest Laboratories (for the U .S . Dept. of Energy), June 1992 .

Broad, W . J . (1993) . "Radioactive Wastes Dumped by Soviets", New York Times , April 27 .

Cole, J . (1991), "Republics of the former USSR in the context of a united Europe and new worldorder", Soviet Geography , vol . 32, no . 9 (Nov . 1991), pp . 587--603 .

DeBardeleben, J . (1985), "The Environment and Marxism-Leninism", Boulder : Westview Press .

Feshbach, M. and Friendly, A . (1992) ." Ecocide in the USSR", New York: BasicBooks .

Goldman, M . (1972) . "Spoils of Progress", Cambridge, MA : MIT Press .

Harris, C. D. (1993) . "The New Russian Minorities : A Statistical Overview", Post-SovietGeography, Vol. 34, no. 1, pp . 1-27 .

IUCN East European Programme (1991), Environmental Status Reports: 1990, Vol. 3, USSR,Norwich, UK : Page Brothers ,

Jancar, B . (1987) . "Environmental Management in the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia", Durham :Duke University Press .

Jensen, R., Shabad, T ., and Wright, A., "Soviet Natural Resources in the World Economy" ,Chicago : University of Chicago Press .

Klose, E ., Lubin, N., Rubin, A ., and Cook, J . (eds .)(1991) . Joint US-USSR NGO Conferenceon the Environment, Washington, DC : ISAR, .

Kochurov, B . (1991) . "Methodological Approaches to the Creation of a Map of Critica lEnvironmental Situations", in Meredith, T . C . et al ., eds ., Defining and Mapping CriticalEnvironmental Zones for Policy Formulation and Public Awareness, Montreal : McGil lUniversity .

Komarov, B. (1980), "The Destruction of the Soviet Union", New York : M. E. Sharpe .

Kotlyakov, V . M ., et al . (1991) . "An Approach to Compiling Ecological Maps of the USSR" ,Mapping Sciences and Remote Sensing, Vol . 28, No . 1, pp .3--14 .

27

Massey Stewart, J . (1992), "The Soviet Environment : Problems, Policies, and Politics" ,Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .

McAuley, A., (1991) . "The economic consquences of Soviet disintegration", Soviet Economy ,vol . 7, no. 3, pp . 189--214 .

Mnatsakanian, R . A. (1992) . "Environmental Legacy of the Former Soviet Republics" ,Edinburgh: Centre for Human Ecology, Univ . of Edinburgh .

"Natsional'nyy doklad SSSR k konferentsii OON 1992 goda po okruzhayushchey srede irazvitiyu", Moscow : MinPriroda, 1991 .

Peterson, D. J . (1993) . "Troubled Lands : The Legacy of Soviet Environmental Destruction" ,Boulder : Westview Press .

Potter, W . C. (1993) . "The Future of Nuclear Power and Nuclear Safety in the Former Sovie tUnion", Nuclear News, March, pp . 61-67 .

Pryde, P. R . (1972) . "Conservation in the Soviet Union", Cambridge : Cambridge Univ . Press .

Pryde, P. R . (1991) . "Environmental Management in the Soviet Union", Cambridge : CambridgeUniv. Press .

Sagers, M. J., (1992) . "Regional industrial structures and economic prospects in the formerUSSR", Post-Soviet Geography, vol . 33, no . 8, pp. 487--515 .

Sagers, M . J., (1992) . "Review of the energy industries in the former USSR in 1991" ,Post-Soviet Geography, Vol . 33, No. 4, pp. 237--268 .

Schwartz, L., (1991) . "USSR nationality redistribution by republic, 1979--89", Post-SovietGeography, Vol . 32, No . 4, pp .209--248 .

Shabad, T . (1969) . "Basic Industrial Resources of the USSR", New York : Columbia Univ .Press .

Singleton, F ., ed . (1987), "Environmental Problems in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe "Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers .

"The FirstBook of Demographics for the Republics of the Former Soviet Union" (1992), Shad ySide, MD : New World Demographics .

Young, S . W ., Bee, R . J ., and Seymore, B . (1992), "One Nation Becomes Many", Washington ,DC : ACCESS .

Ziegler, C .E. (1987), "Environmental Policy in the USSR", Amherst : Univ. of Massachusett sPress .

2 8

Appendlx 1 .1 . Preserved Land in the Former Sovlet Republic s

RepublicSq. kilometers

% of Republic

Preserved

Preserved

Armenia 3070 10 .3 0

Estonia 3311 7 .3 4

Tajikistan 8862 6 .1 9

Lithuania 3391 5 .2 0

Azerbaijan 4407 5 .0 9

Belarus 8436 4 .06

Russia 656557 3 .8 5

Latvia 2274 3 .5 7

Turkmenistan 17184 3 .5 2

Georgia 1987 2 .8 5

Kyrgyzstan 5600 2 .8 2

Ukraine 8111 1 .3 4

Uzbekistan 3 264 0 .7 3

Kazakhstan 12648 0 .4 7

Moldova 149 0 .4 4

Former USSR : 739251 3 .3 0

Source :

Pryde, 1991, pp. 153-8 and 210 (data as of mid-to-late 1980s) .

29

Appendix 1 .2 :

Types of preserved lands in the republics of the formerSoviet Unlo n

1. Zapovednik (nature reserve) .

These are the primary type of nature conservatio nterritories in all of the former Soviet republics .

They are primarily scientific stud yareas; most have very restricted public access (usually only for educational purposes) ,and very few serve a recreation function . Most are comprised of undisturbedlandscapes, but portions of them can be used for active (that is, ecosystem altering )scientific research . In most, biotic preservation is a major goal, and some are quit eactive in managing endangered species . There are about160 zapovedniki altogether i nthe fifteen republics . About twenty of them are also designated as biosphere reserve sunder the United Nations' "Man and the Biosphere Program" .

2. National parks .

National parks are a relatively new feature in the fifteen forme rrepublics, the first one having been created only in 1971 .

Like national parkselsewhere, they are intended to serve a major tourism and recreation function, bu tportions of them are usually set aside as strictly preserved areas, as well . They aremodelled after the English concept of a national park (that is, the preservation o ftraditional and typical landscapes, including villages and traditional economic activities ,and historic sites), rather than the American model (spectacular natural features) .

I n1992 there were 27 national parks in the 15 republics .

3. Zakazniki (natural preserves) . These are a type of semi-preserved area in whic heither temporary or permanent restrictions are placed on all or some economi cactivities, so as to assist the preservation of local flora or fauna .

Different categories ofzakazniki exist, including botanical, zoological (the most common), landscape ,hydrological, geological, etc .

A typical function that they might perform is to protec tthe breeding grounds of a particular species of wildlife .

In the mid-1980s, there werealmost 3000 of these preserves distributed across the Soviet Union .

4. Hunting preserves (zapovedno-okhotnich'ye khozyaystvo) .

These are wildlif eprotection areas on which hunting is allowed . They bear some similarity to thos enational wildlife refuges in the United States on which hunting is a major function .They are not widely used, however, as in 1992 there were only 7 of them and they wer efound in only three of the republics .

5. Monuments of nature (pamyatniki prirody) . This category of preserve is used inmany republics to give protection to unusual, rare, or scientifically valuable geological ,paleological, or botanical features of the landscape .

They are generally small in area ,and usually do not protect more than the immediate area around the particular feature o finterest .

6. Forest parks, protected riparian woodlands, shelterbelts, and urban green belts .These and similar categories of protected vegetation (which may be secondary growth )serve primarily to protect other natural resources (watersheds, erodable soils, etc . )and to provide for human amenities and enjoyment .

Sources :

Pryde, 1991 ;

Braden, 1987;

and Isakov, Yu . and Krinitskiy, V ., Thesystem of protected natural areas in the USSR and prospects for its development", Sovie tGeography , vol . 27, no. 2 (Feb . 1986), pp . 102-114 .

30

Appendix 1 .3 .

Major cities that have been re-named or significantly re-spelled (a) .

Soviet name New Name New name Soviet nam e

Aktyubinsk Aqtobe Almaty Alma-At aAlma-Ata Almaty Aqmola Tselinograd

Ashkhabad Ashgabaf Aqtobe Aktyubins k

Bendery Tighina Ashgabat Ashkhabad

Frunze Bishkek Atyrau Guryev

Gorkiy Nizhny Novgorod Bishkek FrunzeGuryev Atyrau Chisinau KishinevKalinin Tver Ganca KirovabadKaraganda Qaraghandy Gyumri Leninaka nKiev Kyyiv Khudzhand Leninaba dKirovabad Ganca Kryvyy Rih Krivoy Ro gKirovakan Vanadzor Kyyiv Kie v

Kishinev Chisinau Mykolayiv Nikolaye vKokand Quqon Nizhniy Novgorod GorkiyKrivoy Rog Kryvyy Rih Oral UralskKustanay Qostanay Oskemen Ust-Kamenogors kKuybyshev Samara Petropavl Petropavlovsk

Leninabad Khudzhand Qaraghandy Karagand aLeninakan Gyumn Qostanay KustanayLeningrad St. Petersburg Quqon KokandNikolayev Mykolayiv Samara KuybyshevPetropavlovsk Petropavl Semey Semipalatins kSemipalatinsk Semey St. Petersburg LeningradSverdlovsk Yekaterinburg Tighina BenderyTselinograd Aqmola Tver Kalini n

Uralsk Oral Vanadzor KirovakanUst-Kamenogosk Oskemen Yekaterinburg Sverdlovsk

(a) Those cities whose new spelling differs by only a letter or two (e .g ., Odessa, Odesa; Dzhambul ,Zhambyl ; Samarkand, Samarqand) are not included in the above list . Refer to the maps tha taccompany each chapter, as well as Appendix 16 .2 .

31