Scientists Examine Russia's Economy and
Environment, 1991-1993
About the Document
When the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, Russian and outside observers could, for
the first time, openly analyze and discuss the consequences of the country’s
industrialization. Only then did the other side of Russia’s frenetic transformation in the
twentieth century begin to become clear.
In 1995, the first surveys of Russian scientific analysis of the state of the Russian
environment were published in Moscow. This document includes excerpts from the
introduction to an atlas of over 300 maps designed to graphically portray
environmental and demographic problems directly related to the industrialization drive.
It discusses the country’s economic situation in 1993, and summarizes problems with
radioactivity and air and water pollution throughout the Russian Federation.
Background and Context
The Document
2.2.2. THE CURRENT ECONOMIC SITUATION
A. S. Martynov, V. G. Vinogradov, A. V. Denisov, A. N. Yelokhin and A. A. Sorogin
The economic situation in Russia in 1991-1993 can be simply characterized as a crisis.
In this part of the Atlas, indicators are shown which illustrate mostly the process of the
disintegration of the economic system while touching upon the standard of living and
social mood of the population.
The fall of output from the beginning of reforms enables us to identify the regions in
which the highest intensity of socially significant changes occurred. It is completely
unimportant whether these changes are linked only to the disintegration of the old
structures, or if they occurred simultaneously with the growth of new economic
relations. Both translated at social and household levels into an uncomfortable feeling
among the people (loss of jobs, changes of jobs, learning new specialties at a mature
age, erratic work schedules, etc.). On a mass scale, all these processes led to an
accumulation of social stress, losses in the material guarantees of the standard of
living, and reductions in expenditures for health care. At the regional level, the
situation was aggravated by reductions in expenditures for municipal health care
systems (when output drops, tax receipts decrease); for the individual, medicines
become inaccessible, the system of preventive measures disintegrated, and chronic
diseases were neglected. On the other hand, the decline in production in most cases
almost meant an overall reduction of emissions into the air and of discharges of
contaminated water.
Purely economic factors such as the level of debts of enterprises to banks, suppliers
and consumers relative to the financial assets of enterprises have serious ecological and
social consequences. The regions having the greatest financial difficulties are those in
which industries do not occupy a monopolistic position in the markets of Russia
(mostly agricultural). The same reason explains the relatively [sic] well-being of some
Siberian regions which produce raw materials, while Kamchatka oblast, which does
not have any significant raw materials, is experiencing full financial collapse.
Financial difficulties cause problems of supplying industry with necessary spare parts,
resources and maintenance. Enterprise indebtedness leads to unstable salary payments
to their workforce, which consequently leads to social instability and stress. In
particular, there is a correlation between those areas where enterprises are experiencing
financial problems and areas where results from the referendum of April 25, 1993 and
the elections of December 12, 1993 were unfavorable to the authorities.
But the greatest danger for the people working at enterprises in economic disarray, as
well as for the environment, arises when enterprises continue to work using worn-out
equipment, do not perform preventive maintenance, violating work regimes and
regulations, and use of inappropriate raw materials due to breakdowns in supply.
Less obvious, but no less important for the health of the population is the overall
breakdown of social services, including medicines, which is a consequence of the
financial difficulties of enterprises. This process will have the most serious
consequences in Siberia and the Far East, where due to the uncompleted developmental
processes in these regions, the infrastructure of the cities and especially of the workers'
settlements, depends on the industrial enterprises.
The maps showing the rate of industrial accidents in the regions of Russia shows the
relationship of its growth to the simultaneous reduction in the volume of output. The
level of danger of accidents and losses connected with them are growing. The very
"age" of these industrial centers represents a set of factors which lead to a high
accident rate. Those "centers" which were created and intensively developed in the
years before and during the war, such as the Urals, the Kuzbass, and Tula have reached
the period of extreme aging of their capital stock. Similarly, work on very worn-out
equipment, explains the high accident rates in such poorly developed regions as
Kalmykiya and Tuva. The grave financial situation of enterprises, among a number of
factors, determines the level of accidents in the North Caucasus.
The greatest accident rate increase in 1992-1993 occurred in those regions which have
highly developed metallurgical and chemical industries, while in the northern and
Siberian mining regions it was decreasing or at best increasing at a lower rate. Due to
economic disarray, the number of skilled personnel in large industry has declined as
competent cadres departed. . . .
The significance of a poorly developed infrastructure is much clearer in the materials
on Emergency Situations (ES). . . Given equal industrial activity, ecological and
ecologically-significant emergency situations occur less often in industrially developed
centers, than in less developed regions. Given the weakness of the systems for
prevention and clean-up of accidents, even a small accident may develop ecological
consequences, and threaten to become an Emergency Situation.
This situation reflects a mutual compensation in the increased frequency of Emergency
Situations and in reduced production activity. Murmansk and Astrakhan oblasts can be
pointed to as dangerous places. Nonetheless, one also should note the steadily
increasing, but not yet maximal level frequency of Emergency Situations in the entire
Lower Volga region. This region has ecologically dangerous industries but a
considerable potential for further development during the post-crisis period. This
potential is based on a combination of freed-up reserves from military sites and plants,
a good transportation infrastructure, the lack of acute ethnic conflicts, successful
implementation of agricultural reforms ("setting up new farmers"), an intensive
concentration of migrants from Central Asia, and a returning German population which
has a strong work ethic along with a very probable investment support from Germany.
In the aggregate, these factors can provide a steady increase in industrial activity in this
region which, taking into account the frequency of Emergency Situations, may create
serious ecological safety problems.
2.2.3. RADIATION DANGER
V. A. Rikunov
2.2.3.1. RADIOACTIVELY DANGEROUS PLACES
The radiation danger in individual regions of Russia is determined by the activity of a
large number of enterprises involved in mining, processing and storing of radioactive
materials, nuclear fuel production, and nuclear power plants operation. . . .
. . . on the Nuclear Submarines withdrawn from operation ("retired" nuclear
submarines), the fixed length of reactor service time running out, the established
periods of active zones operation were exceeded, equipment inspection not carried out,
periodic radiochemical analysis of the heat-transfer device not scheduled, and the state
of individual zones at the time of withdrawal from operation of the nuclear submarines
was characterized as "inadmissible". The submarines have actually been converted into
floating spent nuclear fuel repositories. Their technical condition is unsatisfactory and
they may sink.
By December 31, 1993, 96 nuclear submarines were retired from operation, of which,
54 from the Northern Fleet, and 42 from the Pacific Fleet, the "active zones" (nuclear
engine compartments) were unloaded from 36 nuclear submarines (Northern Fleet - 17,
Pacific Fleet - 19). Sixty nuclear submarines loaded with nuclear fuel remain afloat (9
of which are located in the territory of Severodvinsk city). When the decision was
made to remove nuclear submarines from operation, the basic requirement aimed at
assuring nuclear safety is the obligatory unloading of the "active zones" or their further
utilization. This requirement is not being carried out. Reserve capacity for storing spent
nuclear fuel from the Navy is almost exhausted and their technical condition does not
correspond to modern normative requirements. Moreover, their radiation situation is
unsatisfactory.
2.2.3.2. RADIOACTIVE WASTES
The storage and disposal of radioactive waste products is one of the most serious
problems in nuclear power plant operation and of using radiation sources. Map 2.47
shows how full are the radioactive waste depositories belonging to the nuclear power
stations, nuclear research installations and in some "Radon" Special Combines
repositories. The burying of radioactive waste products in the seas adjacent to the
territory of Russia is an extremely acute problem. . . .
In reality, the Navy does not have any technical means for reprocessing liquid and
solid radioactive waste products. . . . The practice of discharging liquid radioactive
waste into the sea continues; for example, in 1993, discharge of liquid radioactive
waste took place in the Sea of Japan. The greatest potential radio-ecological danger
comes from the nuclear submarine reactors and the "screen assembly" of the Lenin
nuclear ice-breaker with its nuclear fuel still not unloaded thrown into the shallow
waters of the Novaya Zemlya archipelago in the Karsk Sea.
2.2.3.3. ACCIDENTS AND OPERATIONAL INCIDENTS
. . . The aggravation of the criminal situation, emergence of a "black" market for
ionized radiation sources and marketable radionucleides increases the possibility for
theft, and unauthorized dismantling of [radioactively] dangerous equipment.
2.2.3.4. RADIOACTIVE POLLUTION
The most noticeable threats for radiation safety still arise from the pollution caused as a
result of the accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant and the explosion at the
"Mayak" radio-chemistry plant. . . .
2.2.4. AIR POLLUTION
2.2.4.1. EMISSION OF POLLUTANTS
A. S. Martynov and V. G. Vinogradov
Statistics on the emissions of the pollutants into the air reflect mainly the ecological
inefficiency of rather large enterprises . . .
The trends in the level of industrial emissions during the period from 1991 to 1993 are
linked to the development pattern of the crisis in the economy of the country.
Preservation of output levels and the concomitant air pollution is a specific feature of
the highly monopolized heavy industry enterprises. In 1993, the index of the specific
pollutants of a plant was decisively determined by the placement of the large heavy
industry centers. But it has been the less developed and technologically backward
industries which first cut down their production, while the giants have preserved their
output levels. . . .
The situation is most dangerous (in descending order) in Tomsk, Komi, Chelyabinsk,
Orenburg, Vologodsk, Murmansk and Sverdlovsk oblasts.
Comparison of the lists of these potentially dangerous regions due to specific emissions
into the air and water discharges into reservoirs indicates the following pattern: Eight
regions which are actively transforming the structure of output are on the list of
dangerous water pollution. Irkutsk oblast is the only one among these regions which
has preserved their product mix, but only at its very end. As regards air pollution,
regions with different strategies of development are proportionally represented in the
list of dangerous regions. This feature is linked to the process of de-industrialization.
Large discharges into the general purpose sewage system are a specific feature of
medium-sized and small enterprises, while it is precisely the big enterprises which
have traditionally been the major air polluters. This leads to a relative undercounting of
emissions into the air in those regions where deindustrialization and splitting up of
enterprises occurs.
The strategy of preserving current industrial production in large industrial centers is
highly dangerous for air pollution. According to official statistics, the total level of air
pollution and its tendency to grow are understated (compared with water pollution),
especially in regions suffering from the recession and changes in its output structure.
2.2.4.2. AIR POLLUTION IN CITIES
E. Yu. Bezuglaya
. . . At present, regular observations are undertaken in 292 cities at 760 stations of the
concentrations of the suspended particles (dust), sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and
dioxide, carbon monoxide, benzo(a)pyrene and many other substances.
The results of these observations which have been carried out during the past four
years (1989-1992) show that since 1991 the worsening economic situation and the
general decline of production, the closure of enterprises, has led to decreasing
emissions of pollutants into the air of the cities and some decrease in their admixture.
But still the level of air pollution remains high. The annual average concentrations of
suspended particles, nitrogen dioxide, formaldehyde and benzo(a)pyrene in many cities
exceed the Maximum Allowable Concentrations (MAC) established for populated
places in Russia, as well as World Health Organization (WHO) standards in 230 cities.
...
The maximal concentrations of many substances exceed MAC by 5 times in more than
150 cities and 10 times in 86 cities. The number of people experiencing the influence
of 5 times the MAC value, is 54.9 million persons and 10 times the MAC value, 40.1
million persons. More than 66 million persons live in places where the average level of
pollution is higher than the MAC value.
2.2.5. THE USE AND CONTAMINATION OF WATER
Yu. A. Bobrov
In 1993, the largest amount of water drawn from natural sources was in Moscow,
Leningrad and Rostov oblasts, in Dagestan and in Krasnodarsk and Stavropol krays.
The total collection of water from natural sources decreased in 1993 compared with
1991 and 1992, which may be connected to the fall in output and the decrease of
electric power generation. . . .
For some regions, as compared to 1992, the total discharge of contaminated waste
water into the natural water sites supply decreased. Nevertheless, the analysis of the
current situation of supplying water to the population, including drinkable water,
shows that this situation is unfavorable in practically all regions of the country. . . .
Compared to 1992, the discharge of contaminated waste water into natural water sites
decreased in 1993 by an average of 17%. . . .
The amount of discharged waste water in 1993 exceeded the 1992 level by more than
140%. Such trends were visible in Voronezh and Tyumen oblasts and in Buryatiya. In
Dagestan, the increase in waste water discharge exceeded 1200%. In Sverdlovsk,
Chelyabinsk, Yaroslavl, Smolensk, Tula, Tambov, Ulyanovsk, Amur and Chita
oblasts, as well as in Primorskiy kray, the waste water discharge level was no more
than 140% of the 1992 level. On the whole, the situation has improved, compared to
1991.
When analyzing the discharge of waste water per unit of output (per 1000 rubles), one
can easily see that more than 50% of water collected for production needs returns as
dirty drainage. The ratio of contaminated waste water discharge in 1992 and 1993 did
not differ by much. . . .
The collection of water per capita for industrial and drinking needs in 1993 compared
to that in 1992 practically did not change. It should be noted, that for urban dwellers,
the minimum value of this index was three times higher than for the whole population,
including the rural population.
Supplying the population with high quality drinking water in conditions of the
deterioration of the general ecological situation is one of the most critical issues. Even
without a profound analysis of the current state of water supply for the population, it is
clear that the situation is not very good.
A significant amount of drinking water (more than 20% of the total volume, according
to data for 1992) is not used for its designated purpose, but for different production
needs (industry, municipal economy, etc.). . . . In 1993, the quality of drinking water
supplied to the population practically remained at the 1991 level, although in many
regions it worsened due to real economic difficulties and the worsening of the
ecological situation.
In all, about 50% of the population of Russia continues drinking water which does not
correspond to hygienic requirements according to a wide spectrum of water quality
indicators. . . .
About one-third of the whole amount of pollutants carried into water sources by
surface and storm sewers from regions containing unsanitary populated places,
agricultural sites, and arable lands that influence the seasonal worsening of the quality
of drinking water, especially noticeable during the period of spring floods, and
noticeable annually in major cities, including Moscow.
The situation of drinking water quality is also unsatisfactory, especially in the
countryside. Sixty-eight percent of the population (47% of populated places), use
centralized water supplies. Fifty-nine percent of the rural population uses water from
common wells. . . .
In some regions, people have to use imported water due to insufficient amounts
available from their own water sources. The highest consumption of imported water
takes place in Sakha (Yakutiya (97%), Kalmykiya (30%), Kamchatka (19%), and
Magadan (6%) oblasts and in Stavropol kray (10%).
The main locations in southern Russia are the Kuban river and its tributaries Laba,
Belaya, and Urupa. In a number of sections, the quality of water is not up to hygienic
standards. The leading indicators of contamination of the waters of the Kuban river
basin are organic substances, oil products, phenols and the level of bacterial pollution.
The specific indicators of contamination of this region are heavy metals, toxic
chemicals, and the nitrogen-containing compounds.
The rivers of the Arctic basin of Siberia also experience a considerable anthropogenic
burden. . . . The Tom' river basin serves as a gigantic collector of the waste waters of
most cities, settlements and industrial enterprises of Kemerovo oblast. The scale of
contamination of the Tom' river is so high, that any expected self-cleaning does not
occur even 300 kilometers downstream from the city of Kemerovo.
Source: Murray Feshbach, ed., Environmental and Health Atlas of Russia (Moscow:
PAIMS Publishing House, 1995), pp. 2-11 through 2-20.
Analysis Questions
1. How do the scientists view the relationship between central and regional authorities in
Russia
2. What factors are cited as causing the improvement of environmental conditions in
some regions?
3. What principal causes of Russian water pollution are discussed?
4. What relationship is noted between the economic crisis and the public health crisis?
5. Why were extant Russian laws on environmental protection not being implemented?