Economic and Legal Aspects of Ecological

Problem Resolution in the Russian Federation

Rim Sagitovich Bakiev, Irina Igorevna Volkova, and Irina Petrovna Matkovskaya.

Committee for Ecology, the State Duma of the Russian Federation.

Received 24.07.01; Cited 17.08.01

1.  Introduction

In today’s world, preservation of the environment is of crucial importance for the future of civilization. In the near future the importance of maintaining the environment at a level capable of supporting human life and ensuring the reproduction of renewable natural resources and preservation of non-renewable resources will eclipse all other human achievements to date.

The demographic explosion and scientific and technological revolution of the second half of the twentieth century have led to a sharp increase in the exploitation of natural resources, and thus to their depletion. For example, currently more than 3.5 billion tonnes of oil and about 4.5 billion tonnes of coal and charcoal are taken out of the ground every year. Furthermore, the human race produces a huge quantity of industrial and domestic waste. Between 1970 and 1990, the planet was stripped of almost 200 million hectares of forest; there has been serious degradation and desertification of vast tracts of land; soil pollution by waste, rubbish, slag-heaps, heavy metals, pesticides, toxins, radioactive materials, and abandoned and disused factories. Pollution of the atmosphere is caused mainly by the industrial and transport sectors, which combined emit millions of tonnes of solid and gaseous substances; of these, the major pollutants are: soot, carbon dioxide, sulphurous gases, chlorofluorohydrocarbons, and acids. Also under threat are the planet’s water resources, which are of no less importance for the survival of the human race. The human race mainly uses fresh water from the ground, rivers and lakes; in volume, they make up just over 2% of the earth’s water resources (35 million cubic kilometres), but they are distributed unevenly around the world, and the quality of these resources is deteriorating catastrophically. Water which is used in industry, agriculture, and in the home, returns to reservoirs unfiltered, chemically and biologically polluted. Water resources, therefore, become polluted by oil products and other forms of waste. The enumerated ecological problems, individually and collectively, are leading to the rapid decline in bio-diversity of fauna and flora, both in specific regions and on the planet as a whole.

ІІ.  Ecological Problems of the Russian Federation

The Russian Federation is the largest country in the world with a territory of more than 17 million square kilometres, covers 12.6% of the dry-land surface of the planet, and thus bears responsibility for the protection of a significant share of the world’s natural and biological diversity. Official data shows that currently the ecological situation in Russia is generally poor, and in places catastrophic.[1] 14-15% of Russian territory is classed as ecological ‘problem zones’. In the future, it is expected that the ecological situation will worsen, as projected economic growth is to be achieved principally using out-dated technologies and techniques. Negative ecological and economic factors are one of the causes of the worsening demographic situation in Russia. Life expectancy has reached impermissibly low levels: 57 years for men, and 70 years for women. According to experts’ assessments, ecological factors are to a considerable extent responsible for these depressing demographic indicators. Article 42 of the Russian Constitution states that, “Everyone has the right to a healthy environment, reliable information about its condition, and to compensation for damage to his / her health or property resulting from ecological offences". Unfortunately, empirical evidence demonstrates that there are no reliable levers for the implementation of this constitutional right.

Ecological problems are extremely closely intertwined, and are closely connected to global problems, such as: the greenhouse effect, global warming (causing the sea-level to rise by 1.2 mm per year), ozone layer depletion, destruction of tree cover. Satellite photographs show that forests are being cut down at an alarming rate in Russia. Society has developed a number of methods for minimizing the ecologically damaging consequences of economic activity, amongst which the most effective are:

-          rationalizing the use of natural resources;

-          introducing ecologically clean, and low-waste or waste-free technologies; building purification facilities; and rationally locating production;

-          concluding various international environmental protection agreements;

-          the activities of private, public and state ecological organizations, committees and funds (such as “The Wild Nature Fund”), which promote and sponsor environmental protection activities;

-          improving people’s ecological awareness and through upbringing and education;

-          setting up a system of ‘Red books’ (containing information about rare fauna and flora which are on the verge of extinction) etc.

III. Legal Aspects of Ecological Problem Resolution in the Russian Federation

 At the moment, the most general and effective method for resolution of Russia’s ecological problems consists in the development and thorough application of legislation for conserving the environment.

In the 1990s, Russia set about conducting a number of political and legal reforms. The legal and regulatory base for environmental protection was developed in a short period of time, but nonetheless it ensured the ecologically safe and rational use of the environment. Despite the continual improvement and up-dating of environmental conservation legislation, reforms conducted in the area of environmental protection have come up against serious obstacles. This is first and foremost due to the fact that particularly since 1996, at the federal level conservation of the environment, unfortunately, has not been a priority function of the state. In this situation, legislation to protect the environment is the main means of overcoming the ecological crisis. It is important to remember that, “economic success is of no value if the human race is perishing” and to employ a package of legal, economic and organizational measures in order to achieve the goal of saving the human race and its natural habitat.[2]

Economic and organizational methods for resolving ecological problems tend to lose their effectiveness with time if they are not underpinned by clearly formulated legislation. Therefore, it is important to monitor carefully and analyze adopted laws and regulations in order to ensure that they do not contradict previously adopted legislation.

The law “On protection of the environment”, adopted on 19 December 1991, has been the main law regulating the ecological sphere in Russia for the last nine years. It is important to note that the law contradicts much legislation adopted from 1993 onwards – most importantly, the Russian Constitution, and all subordinate legislation and instructions based thereon. Since 1994 more than 20 draft versions of this law have been introduced to the State Duma, including one by the Russian government. Due to the very difficult economic and political situation in Russia, and as a result of the misguided view that economic problems had to be resolved and the ecological ones, this law still has not been passed. Only on 13 October 2000 was the draft federal law “On the introduction of amendments and additions to the Law on protection of the environment”, which was prepared by members of the State Duma Committee for Ecology, approved by the Duma in its first reading. In the best case scenario, the bill will be passed into law in 2001.

IV. Economic Aspects of Resolving Ecological Problems in Russia

 The economic measures for protecting the environment proposed in the new draft version of the main ecological law involve the introduction of new regulations, such as:

-          the establishment of charges for depletion of natural resources;

-          the creation of a market of environmental protection services;

-          ecological insurance;

-          ecological certification;

-          licensing certain environmental protection activities;

-          development of entrepreneurial activities in the environmental protection sphere;

In addition, the new draft legislation envisages the introduction of measures to ensure that environmental protection regulations, rules and standards are implemented at the expense of the businesses. This requires careful application, as in the absence of clearly defined procedures, there is a danger that an excessive (and even illegal) financial burden could be placed on the business sector. At the same time, methods of encouraging activities to protect the environment have been cut back. In particular, the establishment of increased amortization norms for the main fixed assets has been abandoned. Practice has shown that this norm serves as a direct stimulus to increasing the effectiveness of measures to protect the environment by virtue of shifting the value of fixed assets onto expenses more quickly than is provided for in the norms of amortization payments. In various countries this method is employed not only because it leads to faster renewal of the main fixed assets, but also because it provides a mechanism for reducing inflationary losses. In the Russian Federation, with the introduction of accelerated amortization a uniform method is applied for its calculation, in which the approved norm for annual amortization calculations is increased by an accelerating coefficient no greater than two. If an accelerated amortization mechanism greater than two is needed, it must be agreed with the finance bodies of the regional governments of the Russian Federation. Amongst the advantages of the method of accelerated amortization is the rapid recovery of a large portion of the expenditure. Furthermore, the amortization payments under the accelerated scheme are used for strictly targeted purposes. One serious flaw, however, is the absence of a special tax for ecologically harmful products, as well as products which are manufactured using ecologically harmful technology – such a tax could serve as an important source of budget revenue. The introduction of such taxes should facilitate the production of cheaper and ecologically more friendly products.

Clauses on the use of price and extra charge incentives to stimulate ecologically friendly products have been removed from the draft law. Throughout the nine years that the law “On protection of the environment” has been in force, the measure has not worked effectively. Moreover, it is not clear what is meant by price incentives and how additional charges on products can improve sales. Raising the price on products and services can only lead to a drop in sales and encourage consumers to look for cheaper products, even if they do not come with a certificate of ecological quality.

The measure of offering credits on preferential conditions to companies and persons who are environmentally responsible and undertake measures to look after the natural environment is written into the draft law, drawing on two methods from the existing law for providing economic incentives to protect the environment. In order to exclude opportunities for using these credits for other purposes than those intended, it is very important to concretize the ‘other effective measures’ referred to in the draft law regarding protection of the environment, or to refer to the relevant list approved by the Russian government. Such clarifications are necessary because of the current unstable economic situation, the possibilities that exist for companies and persons to evade taxes, and general imperfections in legislation. Providing credits on preferential terms, which is so important in order to give the business sector a stake in responsible behaviour towards, and protection of, the environment, can only be effective if preferential treatment is used carefully and the authorities monitor implementation closely.

The situation for ecological funds, which under the existing law “On environmental protection” functioned as “a single system of extra-budgetary ecological funds”, is difficult. In conformity with the budget legislation of the Russian Federation, the Federal Ecological Fund of the Russian Federation (FEF RF) has changed status and become a targeted budget fund. Despite this, the majority of regional ecological funds have retained their extra-budgetary status and the previously existing revenue and expenditure schemes. However, some of them have been consolidated into regional government budgets and are treated – at least partially – as normal budget funds, moreover consolidation can take on the most varied of forms.

The difference between the two groups of ecological funds is that money from the targeted ecological budget funds should be spent only on those items connected with protection of the environment. The money held in extra-budgetary ecological funds can be spent on environmental protection and other items, as long as they conform to federal legislation.

Before the adoption of federal budget for 2001, in accordance with which FEF RF was abolished completely, ecological fund money was transferred to special bank accounts and distributed in the following manner: 60% on environmental protection measures of local (city or rayon) importance; 30% for projects of regional importance (republican, kray, or oblast); and 10% for projects of federal importance. Now, 19% of charges levied on activities which have a harmful impact on the environment are transferred to the federal budget.[3]

The lengthy practical experience of ecological funds both in Russia and in other countries has demonstrated the economic desirability of having them, and in particular their heightened importance in conditions of severe shortage of financing for environmental protection.

FEF RF participated in the financing of 13 federal targeted programmes, the most important of which were: “Waste”, “Unified Automated State System for Control of the Radiation Levels on the Territory of the Russian Federation (“EGASKRO” [Russian acronym], “State Support for National Nature Reserves and National Parks for the Period up to 2000”, “Revival of the Volga”, and others.

The abolition of FEF RF and other funds should not be viewed as unambiguously negative move. Currently in Russia a root-and-branch reform of the fiscal sphere is being carried out, in conformity with which the Federal Treasury is now the only body responsible for transferring state funds throughout the whole country. In particular, the Ministry for Natural Resources finances, amongst other things, environmental protection programmes. However, the dissolution of FEF RF in effect has meant the removal of the coordinating body responsible for collecting funds for environmental protection programmes and deciding what the money is spent on. Now it may be the case that some economy has been achieved due to the fact that the staff and activities of FEF RF and other targeted funds no longer have to be financed. In 1999, audits of 33 organizations under the State Ecology Committee were conducted by various state auditing bodies. The violations uncovered concerned the use of money from ecological funds, and money received from conducting ecological expert evaluations, for the purpose of supporting the staff of regional bodies of ecological funds, rather than for financing programmes to protect the environment.

Given the budget support which is decreasing every year and general financial limitations, ecological funds are pivotal in providing economic incentives to protect the environment and are the main source of financing for the most urgent environmental protection programmes.

In September 2000, the president of the Russian Federation signed a decree on the structure of federal bodies in the executive branch, in conformity with which the functions of the State Committee for Protection of the Environment and the Federal Service for the Timber Industry were transferred to the Ministry for Natural Resources.[4] This has resulted in the merging of management and protection functions in one federal executive agency, which contradicts the fundamental principle of environmental protection: that of the separation of management and protection. In the words of A Yablokov, “Ecologists were in many ways unsatisfied with the State Ecological Committee, but the disappearance of a separate government agency dealing with ecological issues reduces Russia’s chances of overcoming the impending threat to nation’s health”.

In many countries the trend has been towards the creation of several bodies for managing the environment. In particular, in Great Britain there are three government agencies responsible for aspects of environmental protection; in Canada, there are two; and in Japan there are two.[5] In these countries, there are numerous inspections, councils, commissions, and groups, both subordinate to the government as well as wholey non-governmental organizations, whose activities are directed towards conserving and protecting the environment from the harmful impact of enterprises and companies. Now the Ministry for Natural Resources, into which has been inserted a department for protection of the environment and ecological security to replace the dissolved State Ecological Committee, is responsible for forming the state’s ecological policy. One can only hope that environmental protection measures will be financed at least at existing levels, and at higher levels if additional revenues permit. Of great importance also is that the distribution of funds be conducted in a transparent fashion.

In 1999, recommendations were prepared by environmental protection agencies for altering the existing indicators for assessing the ecological situation. Work was done to introduce new ecological and economic indicators. The importance of these indicators is that an assessment of the activities of the environmental agencies of the Russian Federation should be possible through studying the economic indicators characterizing the socio-economic development of the country. Moreover, the results of the activities of ecological agencies as reflected in these figures, should provide proof positive of the important role of these bodies in the Russian economy, and also provide the grounds and justification for crucial budget support for environmental protection activities.

For the whole of 1999, actual expenditure on protection of the environment was 15.74 billion rubles (95.2% of planned spending). The main ecological-economic indicator for measuring improvement of the environment is defined as prevented ecological damage, which for 1999 amounted to 16.35 billion rubles, or 175% of the plan. Of all the prevented ecological damage in 1999, measures to protect land and water resources were most successful (32.1% and 20.3% respectively), and followed by the state ecological expertise, which accounted for 18.2% of prevented damage. Currently the issue of including ‘prevented ecological damage’ in the section on “Protection of the Environment” of the prognosis of socio-economic development in the Russian Federation is being worked upon, as well as inclusion in one of the state statistical records.

Up until now, a central element of the economic incentives has been charges for polluting the environment with waste products, discarding of pollutants, and the dumping of various kinds of material which have a negative impact on the environment. This instrument, despite its effectiveness from the moment of introduction, requires improvement and refinement due to the serious changes in the political and economic situation in Russia.

The existing base charges were calculated for the price and cost conditions of the early 1990s, with the introduction of a 5-fold coefficient of indexation at the beginning of 1993. Taking into account annual indexation for 1999, indexation of base charges lags behind industry deflator indexes at least by a factor of 24, and on major pollutant industries by more than a factor of 70.

The current level of base charges for pollution of the environment barely provides incentives for enterprises to be more environmentally responsible and undertake measures to limit environmental damage; and also does not allow for the accumulation of sufficient funds necessary for implementing ecological programmes and measures to protect the environment.

According to the expert evaluations of ecologists, the damage per year inflicted by pollution of the environment, for the whole of Russia is around 230-250 billion rubles, and the payments made by enterprises for pollution of the environment amounts to no more than 2.5 billion rubles. Base norms need to be raised by roughly a factor of 50 in order that the charges reach an adequate level.

In 1999, federal environmental protection agencies developed new base charges, taking into account the need for indexation by a factor of three to ten for waste dumping, up to a factor of 18 for dumping pollutants into water, and up to a factor of 30 for emission of pollutants into the atmosphere. Proposals for introducing these new base charges were sent in 1999 for agreement with the Ministry of Economy and the Ministry of Finance. Taking into consideration the length of time taken for the above-mentioned proposals to be approved by the relevant bodies, in 1999 the federal coefficient for indexation of charges for 2000 has been approved (and passed down to regional governments  and environmental protection agencies) at a level of 80 times above base norms. From 1 January 2001, a federal coefficient of indexing charges for pollution of the environment has been introduced up to a factor of 90. This coefficient has been approved by the Ministry for Natural Resources in agreement with the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Economic Development  and Trade. However, considering that the growth of charge indexation lags behind the growth of inflation by a factor of 22 on average in industry, it is not regarded as expedient to even up these indices. This makes it possible to receive additional revenues for protection of the environment, which should be channelled to ecological problem areas.

With the approval of Part I of the Tax Code in 1998, the concept of the ‘ecological tax’ was introduced, which has been mistakenly used in many publications interchangeably with the concept of ecological charges. A charge[6] is a sum paid in compensation for something, whereas a tax[7] is an obligatory, non-refundable monetary payment, levied on organizations and individuals for the purpose of financially supporting the activities of the state.

In accordance with the environmental protection legislation, charges were made for pollution of the environment, that is for harmful impact on the environment, and were transferred to the accounts of the relevant ecological funds. Taxes are levied on the basis of revenues generated from production and services, i.e. from the positive results of business activity and should be transferred to the relevant government budget(s). In the Tax Code, the tax base is defined as the cost, volume of production, volume of investments etc. The tax base of the ecological tax is defined by the volume of dumped pollutants, the volume of dumped waste, and the actual level of harmful impact on the environment.[8] However, it is very hard to attach a monetary value to any of the enumerated elements. To levy a tax in kind would be absolutely absurd. Thus, one of the tasks of the Tax Code is to define the tax base of the ecological tax. In our opinion, it is desirable to introduce an ecological tax on harmful products, on packaging, and other goods and services, which can have a negative impact on the environment or which are produced using ecologically harmful technology.[9]

Ecological insurance is one of the economic mechanisms for protecting the environment and is a reliable source of compensation for damage. What is meant by ecological insurance is insurance which involves the liability of the insurer for damage incurred by the insurant if a claim is made. Moreover, location of enterprises in dangerous zones becomes unprofitable due to the high insurance premium with the introduction of a system of differentiated insurance tariffs according to level of risk. Furthermore, the insurance policy can provide for the charging of a large premium in the case of non-observance of ecological regulations and the payment of compensation by the insurant in the case of a claim for which the organizations or persons are liable. Insurance cover covers compensation in the case of a claim. Therefore, in the case of an ecological catastrophe, if the guilty party is insured, compensation for all damage caused, or part thereof is automatic. From the insurers perspective it is important to work in a number of regions and with a number of enterprises in order to provide adequate diversification of risk. Economic instability and the absence of a legal underpinning for ecological insurance exacerbates the problems, as sometimes government funds are not sufficient to pay out compensation for even part of the ecological damage. Nonetheless, some progress has been made. At the end of 1998, a government resolution was adopted “On the main directions of development of the national insurance system in the Russian Federation, 1998-2000”, which led to a considerable improvement in the situation. In different regions, within the framework of existing regional legislation on environmental protection, programmes are being prepared for insuring the liability of enterprises for damage caused to the environment. With the adoption of a regional government of the Russia Federation, together with the regional ecological agency of a decision assigning insurance of liability for damage to the environment to environmental protection measures, the size of charges for pollution can be reduced to take into account the sum of the insurance premium or part thereof. In 1999, amendments were introduced into “Methodological instructions for levying charges for pollution of the environment”, in accordance with which enterprises are entitled to insurance themselves against ecological risks while dumping waste in special locations, under a mechanism by which charges for environmental pollution are reduced to take into account the insurance premium. The goal of creating mandatory and non-mandatory ecological insurance of potentially hazardous enterprises is the compensation of losses incurred by third parties and by the insurant as a result of accidental pollution of the environment, and also to provide a stimulus for the prevention of accidents by the insurant, achieved by reducing the costs of conducting prophylactic measures at the expense of the insurer.

Another important element of the economic mechanism is the licensing of various kinds of activity in the sphere of environmental protection, which in accordance with the government resolution on licensing in the following areas:

-          utilization, storage, re-location, disposal , burying, and destruction of industrial and other waste, waste materials and substances (apart from radioactive ones);

-          conducting ecological certification and ecological audits;

-          activities which are connected with services in the environmental protection.

Throughout the period 1996-1999, 2000 licenses have been issued by federal environmental protection agencies in conformity with established procedures and in accordance with a single set of criteria for individual regions of the Russian Federation and about 1700 federal licenses

V. Ecological Audit

In the Russian Federation there is no legal underpinning for ecological audits. The absence of laws establishing a legal underpinning for conducting an ecological audit (rights, obligations, and liability of those participating in the ecological audit, the legal status of the ecological audit report etc.), does not make it possible to apply this procedure widely to enterprises, insurance and investment companies, and to government bodies.

The economic aspects of ecological regulation form a complicated, multi-level system of relations amongst enterprises, and between the enterprise sector and the authorities at different levels. Ecological audits should serve as an instrument for gathering together the organizational and economic aspects of protecting the environment. It enables to select the optimal combination of environmentally friendly technology and facilities, to organize informational and analytical monitoring of the condition and degree of utilization of environmentally friendly technology, to give an ecological / economic evaluation of planned improvements in technology and methods.

Thus, the environmental audit is an independent analysis of all aspects of the economic activities of industrial enterprises, whether state-owned or private, in order to establish the degree of direct and indirect impact on the state of the environment. The aim of the ecological  audit is to bring environmental protection activities into conformity with the demands of laws and regulatory acts, the optimization of natural resource use, the reduction and rationalization of energy use, the reduction of waste products, the prevention of accidents and man-made catastrophes.

The ecological audit is a method of protecting one’s business. Many firms consider that a policy of timely implementation of ecologically grounded approach to business is a kind of investment aimed at increasing market share, amongst other things. Many large companies are coming round to the understanding that they must be environmentally more responsible.

In the course of the ecological audit establishing guilt and punishing the guilty parties is by no means the main goal. Far more important for the top management of companies is the uncovering of weak points in the activities of the enterprise which are having a negative influence on the environment, and the role it plays in reducing this. It is not possible to conduct an objective analysis without the close cooperation of the authorities and the enterprise workers, i.e. without making the employee a fully-fledged partner, whose opinion and arguments are to be taken into account at all stages of the ecological audit.

The ecological audit averts a situation in which ecological problems concern only the top management of the company, which is forced at its own risk to conceal the negative consequences of the production cycle to the extent that concealment is possible, and not dealing with it in time can entail law suits and fines. Therefore, it is expedient to attract environmental protection agencies and financial organizations for the resolution of the ecological problems of a given enterprise in timely fashion.

According to World Bank data, the potential increase in the cost of projects linked with the conducting of evaluations of their impact on the environment and the resulting limitations, is recovered on average in 5 years. Inclusion of ecological factors in the decision-making process at the project-planning stage works out 3-4 times cheaper than installing additional purification facilities later on, and the expenses incurred to deal with the consequences of using ecologically harmful technology and equipment are higher by a factor of 30-35 than the costs incurred for developing ecologically clean technology and the use of ecologically sound equipment. About 30 years ago in economically advanced countries ecological audits were introduced. In international practice, the ecological audit is based on a legislative and methodological basis, has a developed organizational infrastructure and is serviced by a pool of qualified ecological auditors. In the USA, Japan, and countries of the European Union, ecological audits are designed to improve the effectiveness of companies’ and industrial enterprises’ ecological policy.

The main aims of the eco-audit are: the collection of reliable information about the production activities of the company and the formation of conclusions on this basis concerning the real ecological situation in the enterprise.

Ecological audits should receive a status as important as ecological expert evaluations and ecological inspections. Ecological audits make it possible to strengthen measures to protect the environment and raise the effectiveness of eco-management without additional budget expenditures. Therefore, the state should be interested in developing the ecological audit and the establishment of the necessary legal and regulatory basis for its effective functioning.

The number of organizations which have an interest in an independent and complex investigation of the economic activity of industrial enterprises and its influence on the environment is not insignificant.

Ecological problems are also of interest to banking institutions. Financial risk directly linked to ecological risk can arise as a result of major accidents with negative ecological consequences, and also as a result of ecological demands which had not been taken into account previously. For financial institutions, civil and criminal liability of clients, lengthening of term for implementation of a project or its increase in price, or possible enterprise bankruptcy – all these things are extremely undesirable. This can result in non-payment of wages, drop in the share price of the credited company, lengthening the maturity of the loan or increasing the size of the loan for implementation of the project, non-repayment of the loan in the case of bankruptcy, and also devaluation of collateral (the most important element in which is the value of the investor’s land). If it is uncovered that land is polluted, the value falls considerably and the creditor banks can lose the guarantee on their credit. Furthermore, if a bank is involved in financing environmentally dangerous projects its reputation can suffer.

Ecological audits can and must become the basis for the development of ecologically friendly entrepreneurship, by which is understood the following elements: developing and introducing energy-saving and ecologically friendly technologies; the production of environmentally protective technology and instruments for monitoring and improving the quality of the environment; the production of eco-friendly consumer goods; the use of recycled products; and the provision of ecological services (eco-monitoring, auditing, insurance, upbringing, and education).

The results of the complex research are necessary for the purpose of signing agreements concerning ecological risk insurance and liabilities of producers and consumers, and for ascertaining the ecological reliability of an enterprise and the degree to which there is a risk of accidents occurring.

VI. State Ecological Monitoring and Ensuring Observance of Environmental Protection Legislation.

 In general regional ecological monitoring agencies have managed to maintain the level achieved in previous years of uncovering, arresting and elimination of ecological violations. Table 1 contains the main indicators for state ecological control by regional environmental protection agencies for 1999.

As compared with 1998, the number of inspectors staffing the regional environmental protection agencies has fallen by 18%. The special inspection units of the ecological analytical control department remain poorly equipped with measuring devices and computers; 80% of instruments are out-dated. However, even using out-dated equipment for the year 1999 more than 1 million tests of the chemical composition of substances were carried out in monitoring the environment, and this was only in the framework of the state’s ecological monitoring programme. Throughout Russia, the number of violations uncovered by the regional environmental protection agencies grew by 8%; the number of eliminated violations by 7.7%; number of warnings issued by 6.9%; and the number of fines imposed dropped by 9.6%. The greatest number of violations of environmental protection legislation were uncovered in protection of the atmosphere (108.7 thousand). The largest volume of fines imposed were on violators of land protection: more than 16.5 million rubles, or 40% of the total sum of fines imposed; of which about 14.7 million rubles (89%) were on companies.

State ecological control consists of the following component parts: monitoring the use and protection of land, water and water bio-resources in the internal water system of Russia, and the conditions of the sea environment and natural resources of the seas and waters, and the continental shelf; renewal, protection and defence of forests; industrial security, and protection of mineral deposits; transport etc.

Violations of environmental protection were uncovered not only by the ecological monitoring agencies, but also by the prosecutor’s office. Statistics on the work of the prosecutor’s office on issues connected with protection of the environment in 1999 are contained in Table 2:

The Table shows that growth in the number of violations over the year amounts to 27.8% (compared to 1997 by 70%). Analysis of the statistics for 1999, presented by the Main Information Center of the Interior Ministry of Russia, reveals the following. In 1999, the number of registered ecological crimes increased by 43.9% (from 8628 in 1998 to 12413 in 1999). As a percentage of total crimes for 1999 they amounted to 0.41%. For the reporting year (?) 37.6% more companies committing ecological crimes were uncovered (1999 – 12068), 1998 – 8773). In Table 3, some figures for ecological criminality in Russia for 1998-1999 have been adduced.

Investigative bodies continue to regard ecological crimes as being of secondary importance and socially of little import. The number of criminal cases initiated, as in previous years, does not correspond to the real number of ecological crimes being committed. This is above all connected to the article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which defines responsibility for criminal violation of the environment. In implementing the General Prosecutor’s order “On the tasks of the Prosecutor’s Office in Coordination with the mass media, and improving public relations”, the environmental protection prosecutors played an active role in this area. Drawing some general conclusions from the practice of using the mass media, and oral propaganda for ensuring transparency in the work of prosecutors, one can