Search

An oasis of authorized criticism in the 1960s and the 1970s, and a privileged public arena for `extreme non-conformist' intellectuals in the same period, ecology was also the matrix for [...]

Analysis of the environmental policies of the Soviet Union and the former Soviet Union region indicate an emphasis on preventing pollution from multiple threats, instead of human exposure to individual pollutants. While Soviet bans on lead-based paint and leaded gasoline have been effective, post-Soviet environmental problems involve control of lead-acid batteries.

The 50% agreement between Soviet Union and Finland on sulfur emissions that cause acid rain is analyzed through cost-effective solutions and noncooperative game solutions. Results indicate no incentive for cheating or for pursuing the target. Adding the variable of policy uncertainty, the worst case scenario involves the non-use of Russian resources for abatement thus leading to higher abatement costs. The agreement would then not be cost-effective. This problem is reduced if Estonia enters the picture by posting lower target deposition levels than the Soviet Union.

In the 1980s the Soviet Union, like other coastal states, extended its economic zone and put in place new policies and structures for managing marine resources. These measures followed years of neglect, and resource conservation did not fit well with Marxian doctrine or the centrally planned economic system. Hence, overexploitation and environmental deterioration continued. Democratization, perestroika, and the restructuring of bureaucracies in the late 1980s gave new impetus to resource conservation. But these developments were overtaken by the upheavals of 1991 in which the communist system was repudiated, the economy almost collapsed, and the Soviet Union disintegrated. In the new sovereign states (especially Russia, which inherited most of the Soviet Union's extended economic zones) a more decentralized management regime is emerging. These states have opportunities to significantly improve their production of marine products but face a formidable task in reversing the depletion of resources and the deterioration of marine environments.

The republics of the former Soviet Union undoubtedly face important environmental problems but the use of US-developed technology may not be the most appropriate means of solving them. Furthermore, the limited resources available in the former Soviet republics mean that any solutions should be subjected to careful benefit-cost analysis. For example, acid rain control seems a low priority compared with the republics' numerous other needs. Tall smokestacks could prove an appropriate technological solution in the former USSR, although not regarded as such for the US.

US environmental protection policies cannot be adapted in the USSR because of the absence of the free-market mechanism which makes US policies work. A capitalist system promotes efficient utilization of resources because ownership is broad-based, putting more people and resources at stake and more likely to contribute to environmental protection. Privatization should be an integral part of the USSR's environmental program in order to shift environmental responsibilities to the firms who use up the resources. The integration of economy and ecology will give people the ability to save the environment.

Environmental issues are of increasing political importance in the USSR as public awareness of the scope and effects of the problem is growing under conditions of glasnost'. The author examines the policy response since 1985, with particular emphasis on the implications of economic reform efforts, including discussion of expanded enterprise autonomy, cooperatives, joint ventures, land leasing, regional decentralization, and bureaucratic restructuring. While measures adopted, in theory, provide a framework for effective environmental policy, their realization and implementation face numerous obstacles and depend on continued pressure from the public, local organs, and the Supreme Soviet.