Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
To cite this article: Aleg Cherp & Svetlana Golubeva (2004) Environmental assessment in
the Russian Federation: evolution through capacity building, Impact Assessment and Project
Appraisal, 22:2, 121-130, DOI: 10.3152/147154604781766030
Russian Federation
T
The Russian Federation environmental assess- HE RUSSIAN FEDERATION (RF) is one of
ment (EA) system comprises state environmental the largest emerging democracies. For centu-
review (SER) undertaken by state authorities and ries, it has exercised a profound cultural, po-
assessment of environmental impacts (OVOS) litical and economic influence on both immediate
undertaken by the developers. Despite significant and more distant neighbours. The newly independent
states (NIS) of the former USSR still look up to
progress in the 1990s, integration between SER
Russia in many matters of environmental policy,
and OVOS, screening and scoping provisions including environmental assessment (EA).1 That is
and alignment with international approaches why understanding the Russian EA system is espe-
were often seen as problematic. These issues cially important.
were addressed in the EIA Regulations issued in Several internationally published studies of EA in
2000. However, the system immediately came RF and its context (for instance, Cherp and Lee,
under a major threat resulting from the closure 1997; Govorushko, 1991; Khotulyova et al, 1998)
of the Ministry of Environment. Supported by identified and explored specific challenges facing
capacity-building efforts and strong networking, the Russian EA system in the 1990s. However, it
the Russian EA community has largely deflected had always been obvious that both the system and its
this threat and enrolled various stakeholders into political and economic context were undergoing a
supporting EA, which now encompasses SER rapid transition, while the knowledge about its func-
tioning was accumulating. The authors thus felt it
and OVOS components. Activities at regional
necessary both to update the reader on the most re-
level and critical evaluation of the existing sys- cent changes in the Russian EA system and to show
tem were key elements in these efforts. it from an angle that should help to understand its
‘dynamic’ as well as its ‘static’ features.
Keywords: environmental assessment; Russia; state The observations and analysis reported in this ar-
environmental review; capacity building
ticle have been accumulated in the course of several
EA studies and capacity-building projects under-
Aleg Cherp (corresponding author) is at the Department of Envi- taken over the last five years. The most important
ronmental Sciences and Policy, Central European University,
Nádor u. 9, 1051, Budapest, Hungary, E-mail: cherpa@ceu.hu;
have been the World Bank study on the effective-
Website: www.ceu.hu/envsci/. Svetlana Golubeva is Business ness of the EA system in Russia (von Ritter and
Development Manager, ICF/EKO, Tverskaya zastava, 3, off. Tsirkunov, 2002), the project on strengthening EIA
240, Moscow, Russia; E-mail: sgolubeva@icfeko.ru; Website: in Russia conducted by the University of Manchester
www.icfeko.ru. and Ecoline (EIA Centre, 2001), as well as research
The authors are grateful to numerous Russian EA practitio- by Volostnov (1999), Prokopets (2001), Verzhbit-
ners for discussing ideas presented in this paper and to the
World Bank and Ecoline in Russia for providing forums for
skaya (2001) and additional information gathered for
such discussions. All the opinions expressed are the authors’ the national State of the Environment Reports 1997–
who bear full responsibility for possible errors and omissions. 2002.
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2004 1461-5517/04/020121-10 US$08.00 IAIA 2004 121
EA in the Russian Federation
The authors sought to analyse the Russian EA Table 1. Number of SERs conducted at the federal and
regional level in Russia, 1991–1994 and 1997–2003
system as a “dynamic policy system” as suggested
by Cherp and Antypas (2003). This means exploring
the ways in which EA policies are formulated, im- Year Number of SERs
plemented and adjusted, including through ‘policy
networks’ that are able to bring together diverse Federal level Regional level
forms of knowledge, perspectives and experiences.
1991a 50,000
To achieve this objective, instead of giving a snap- 1992a 56,000
shot of the Russian EA system, we first discuss its 1993a 78,200
context and the main driving forces and challenges 1994a 80,800
as they existed at the end of the 1990s. We then ex- 1997b 402 57,600
amine the evolution of the system paying special at- 1998b 873 60,700
1999b 568 75,000
tention to the capacity of networks of EA actors to 2000b 430 61,000
deal with the most pressing issues. Finally, we out- 2001b 165 53,000
line the future challenges facing EA in Russia and 2002b 173 36,000
2003c 250 48,000
the most promising ways of dealing with these.
a
Sources: Lopatin (1995)
b
von Ritter and Tsirkunov (2002) and State of the
Environment Reports (1998–-2003)
EA in Russia and context at turn of century c
Ministry of Natural Resources (2003)
Although, certain elements of EA have existed in the tioners familiar with international EA experience
USSR since the 1960s, a coherent EA system pointed out that the procedure of environmental
emerged only in the late 1980s in response to the ris- impact assessments by which developers prepare
ing awareness of environmental problems, the in- part of the documentation to be reviewed by SER,
creasing interest in international approaches to called OVOS,3 is, in fact, more similar to the west-
environmental regulation, and the emerging policy ern EIA than SER. Unfortunately, the concept of
of glasnost (openness and transparency). The Soviet OVOS, a ‘soft’ environmental policy tool, was much
Government of that time was especially attracted by harder to sell to politicians, officials and the public.
the possibility of incorporating the US National En- Therefore, it was hardly mentioned in the legal acts of
vironmental Policy Act and other western experi- the 1990s, except the OVOS Regulations (1994)
ence in the existing system of socialist expertizas which were largely ignored by both developers and
(expert reviews of planned economic activities). Es- officials.
sentially, this was an attempt to achieve ‘western’ In the mid-1990s, progress was slower than it
results by socialist means, typical for many envi- could have been, partially because of somewhat
ronmental policies of the perestroika (see Larin et different views within the Russian EA community
al, 2003). Thus, the system of ‘ecological experti- regarding the best approach for strengthening the
zas’ was rapidly institutionalised and became the system. There was the SER group of experts in key
central pillar of the Soviet and then Russian envi- positions in the Ministry, who relied on well-
ronmental protection system (Cherp and Lee, 1997). established institutions, laws and practices, and ex-
The concept of ecological expertizas, deeply tensive bureaucracy. They maintained that SER is
rooted in the hierarchical and technocratic manage- the most appropriate preventive environmental pol-
ment of the centrally planned economy, was initially icy tool for Russia. In their view, improvements
translated as EIA (see, for instance, Govorushko, could only be achieved through gradually strength-
1991). However, its fundamental differences from ening SER provisions and institutions.
western EA were soon realised, so the term state Many such developments in regulations, guide-
environmental review (SER) was coined in inter- lines, technical capacities and institutions have been
national publications.2 made over more than a decade of a functioning SER
The formal SER procedure, stipulated by key en- system resulting in conceptual and procedural de-
vironmental laws (Federal Law on Environmental velopments of EA. However, these improvements
Protection (1991; 2002), Federal Environmental Re- arguably came at a slow pace, partially because there
view Law (1995)) has not changed much over the last were no obvious ‘benchmarks’ (either domestically
eight years. It has been centred on the review of the or internationally) for ‘best practice’ of SER, and
design or planning documentation for proposed pro- innovations were difficult to introduce and dissemi-
jects (or other planned activities) by state-appointed nate, given the scale of the country and the constant
special expert committees, and issuing a mandatory administrative reform.
‘resolution’ on whether, and under what conditions, Another factor slowing the development of the
the proposed development can go ahead. Hundreds SER approach was that it was not obviously com-
of thousands of SERs have been conducted in Russia patible with western EA, so that lessons from inter-
since 1989 (see, for instance, Table 1). national EA experience could not directly be
tive of the clear-cut and strict nature of SER resolu- the core environmental issues, did not meet the
tions, often demanded a degree of access to expectations of the SER, and did not influence deci-
information, transparency and participation, which sion-making on proposed activities (Cherp and Lee,
was difficult for the technocratic and bureaucratised 1997; von Ritter and Tsirkunov, 2002).
SER system to grant. As already mentioned, very large numbers of
Finally (and, perhaps, most importantly), the SERs have been conducted in Russia (see Table 1).
growing business community was increasingly irri- The overwhelming majority of them have focused
tated by SER provisions (particularly by their indis- on project-level activities, with only 1% or 2% ad-
criminate application to almost all types of activity), dressing regional plans or development schemes.
which they considered as yet another bureaucratic Moreover, according to Volostnov (1999), up to
obstacle to investment. In times of declining econ- three-quarters of developments reviewed by SER
omy, low investment and populist governmental have not been environmentally significant.
policies, this was not such a significant factor; According to von Ritter and Tsirkunov (2002), the
however, it proved to be decisive when the economy decline in the number of SERs between 1999 and
turned around at the end of the 1990s. 2001 reflected a worrying combination of two nega-
The second, OVOS, group of Russian EA practi- tive trends: declining capacity within the SER
tioners held the view that the SER system had to be institutions and increased focus on cases with low
radically reformed, if not dismantled, to give way to environmental impact at the expense of coverage of
EA provisions modelled after best international cases with significant impact. Moreover, a sample re-
practice and centred on the OVOS procedure. The view of SER cases reported by these authors shows
investor/developer and the public should be the main that SER resolutions were becoming shorter and in-
actors in this process, with state authorities playing creasingly focused on procedural issues rather than on
an auxiliary role. Not surprisingly, this position was substantive recommendations of mitigation measures.
not enthusiastically supported by SER bureaucrats. Nevertheless, those cases submitted to SER typi-
Moreover, many environmental non-governmental cally complied, at least formally, with the SER
organisations (NGOs) were also extremely suspi- requirements. On the other hand, compliance with
cious about any proposals to reform the SER system, OVOS Regulations (1994) and the EIA Regulations
which they viewed as the only real safeguard (2000), has been very low particularly with regard to
whereby environmentally dangerous developments public participation and preparation of terms of
could be stopped. reference.5 Thus, meaningful OVOS practice was
Nevertheless, the proponents of OVOS managed mainly limited to large projects with foreign partici-
to develop its discourse and practice, the latter in pation and much of it occurred within the framework
connection with the activities of international lend- of the Russian pollution abatement facility (Maxi-
ing institutions, especially as facilitated by the Cen- menko and Gorkina, 1999).
tre for Project Preparation linked to the Russian Thus, the broad critical issues facing the Russian
Pollution Abatement Facility operated by the World EA system at the end of the 1990s included:
Bank, EBRD and other international funding institu-
tions (Maximenko and Gorkina, 1999). Within this • finding the way to incorporate international best-
context, EIAs were prepared with regard to the 1994 practice experience of integrating the environment
into decision-making into the Russian system vanishing from the political agenda. However,
without compromising its capacity and ability to where such interest has remained (for instance, in
integrate with existing institutions; environmental health in some local groups or in bio-
• ensuring the effectiveness of the system in the diversity in nation-wide NGOs), the opportunities,
face of the rapidly changing political and eco- the mechanisms and the skills for translating it into
nomic context of its application; specific policy action have arguably increased.
• ensuring constructive co-operation and dialogue An important contextual factor has been the change
between OVOS and SER professionals that could in the foreign policies of the Russian Federation. This
lead to integration and mutual enhancement of can be best summarised as doing away with the ‘new
both instruments; thinking’ of the Yeltsin and Gorbachev eras and
• ensuring consistent implementation of EA provi- replacing it by ‘real politik’ where Russian national
sions by all relevant actors. This could only be interests take the highest priority. While discussing
achieved through gaining support from the public, rapprochement with the European Union (EU), even
the business community, various government to the point of harmonising Russian and EU legisla-
agencies and international organisations. tion and access to the World Trade Organisation, Rus-
sia has grown increasingly critical of foreign aid and
All these issues largely related to individual and sys- meddling in its internal affairs by western powers.
temic capacities of various actors and institutions in- All these factors heavily reflected on both exter-
volved in the development and implementation of EA nal and internal environmental policy. Externally,
policies. Some capacity-building projects were initi- the most noticeable phenomenon was the recent
ated throughout the 1990s (for example, the operation Russian scepticism towards the Kyoto treaty, which,
of the Public Environmental Review Centre from as high officials emphasise, would only be signed if
Downloaded by [95.79.122.60] at 00:38 11 February 2016
1995 to 1998 (Ecoline, 2001)), and their collective ef- it corresponded to “Russian national interests”. Sur-
fects were becoming evident by the end of the decade. prising to many, such an approach has long been
However, the unexpected changes in the political and evident in Russia’s dealing with other environmental
economic context at the end of the last decade treaties. For example, although a signatory to the
suddenly, and profoundly, affected these priorities. Espoo Convention, Russia has still not ratified it,
apparently because of foreign policy considerations.
Economic, political, environmental policy context The Aarhus Convention, signed and ratified by most
of its neighbours, also lacks the Russian signature.
If the development of the EA system in the 1990s The new political and economic situation has had
was taking place in a declining or stagnating econ- even more profound impact on Russian domestic
omy, the situation of the last five years has been environmental policy. The Russian EA system be-
dramatically different. Following the financial crisis came the focus of international attention when in
of 1998, the Russian economy has been rapidly re- May 2000 the Government abolished the State
covering, bringing about an increase in investment Committee for Environmental Protection (SCEP)
and a rise of industrial production. Most of the in- and merged environmental management, including
crease has occurred in the raw materials and energy the EA function, into the Ministry of Natural Re-
sector associated with significant environmental sources (MNR). Many environmentalists have con-
impacts (see for instance, Cherp et al, 2003). This sidered this the most significant setback to
recovery resulted, inter alia, in increasing foreign environmental policy in the last 15 years (see for in-
business presence, strengthened business lobbies stance, Larin et al, 2003).
and, at the same time, increasing attention of busi- Von Ritter and Tsirkunov (2002) refer to two
nesses (especially foreign-owned) to environmental main explanations of this event, one is that it was
risks and liabilities and the rise of Russian domestic part of a broader Government effort to reduce the
environmental services (consultants). number of ministries and independent authorities,
The political situation in Russia has also changed another that environmental protection policies (first
in connection with Vladimir Putin becoming the of all SER) were perceived as an obstacle to eco-
President in 2000. Many administrative structures nomic growth. Whatever the rationale, the Russian
and laws were consolidated and the political and EA system was dealt a major blow. The next section
economic instability of the 1990s has all but gone. describes how and why the EA community was able
Moscow has sought to concentrate power through to organise and ensure the survival of the system.
extensive administrative reform and cutting down on
non-essential bureaucracy. At the same time, the
Putin Government has shown signs of intolerance Recent evolution of the EA system
towards political, including environmental, dissent.
This all took place in the context of a continued tug- Evolution of EA capacity
of-war between the federal centre and the regions.
Public interest in environmental matters has sub- Since the formal introduction of the main elements of
stantially declined from its high point in the early the SER/OVOS system in the late 1980s, the capacity
1990s; this has resulted in the environment all but of the Russian EA community has developed
debate proved to be very important for finding the sity and Ecoline (supported by the British Govern-
right balance between institutional reality and ideal ment) included training and creation of EA centres
expectations. in the Tomsk, Chita and Irkutsk oblast (EIA Centre,
In particular, the EIA Regulations formally coined 2001). These and other regional capacity-building
the notion of the “Russian EA system” as including efforts were associated with the increasing number
both SER and OVOS. This development has proved of regional EA regulations further described below.
to be critical in bridging, in legal terms, the two pre- Disbanding the SCEP came literally the day after
viously disparate approaches to EA in Russia. On a the new EIA (OVOS) Regulations were issued in
conceptual level, this bridge was justified in a book 2000. In response to local and international protests
entitled Environmental Assessment and Environ- (Larin et al, 2003), the MNR invoked a working
mental Review (Cherp et al, 2000), several editions group, which comprised academics, experts and the
of which were published and widely disseminated by public, to elaborate a new concept of the EA system,
the NGO Ecoline approximately at the same time as but soon discontinued it because it failed to arrive at
the EIA Regulations were formulated and issued. a common vision regarding the future of SER,
It was both a textbook on the common elements though all participants agreed that it had to be pre-
of EA international practice, and a detailed analysis served (see Golubeva, 2001).
of the Russian EA system, including the interpreta- In 2001, the SER staff at the federal headquarters
tion of the emerging EIA Regulations (2000). The of MNR was reduced from 33 to 15, while the total
authors sought to interpret the features of the spe- number of SER officials in Russia declined from
cific Russian EIA system in western terms, thus both about 700 in early 2000 to about 400 in 2001 result-
making its experience available to the international ing in sharply rising case-loads despite the reduction
EA community and increasing the availability of in the overall number of SERs (von Ritter and
international experience to the Russian EA commu- Tsirkunov, 2002). However, the Russian EA com-
nity. The book played an important role in establish- munity was able to organise itself even under these
ing a common language among EA professionals, circumstances.
thus contributing to the cohesiveness of the Russian
EA community, which would play a key role during World Bank study of the effectiveness of Russian EA
the crisis of 2000.
Other capacity-development efforts recently car- The main ally in protecting the Russian EA system
ried out in Russia include the development of Guide- from complete destruction turned out to be the
lines on EIA for the NIS by the Centre for World Bank, which expressed its concerns about the
International Projects (supported by UNEP). This viability of the reorganised Russian system soon af-
facilitated unification of Russian-language EA ter- ter the disbanding of the SCEP. The World Bank de-
minology in the NIS and is likely to further increase cided to hold off on the signing of two operations
the influence of the Russian experience on the EA until it received assurance from the Government that
systems of neighbouring countries. The international it had restored a working EA system that could en-
EA experience was made more widely available to sure the environmental safety of new investments.
the Russian EA community as a result of translating Under the threat of lending to Russia being
to Russian the UNEP’s EIA Training Resource suspended, the SER Department was reinstalled in
Sverdlovsk, Tomsk, Vologda and other Russian re- with regional screening regulations (for instance, in
gions (Ecoline, 2003)). Arkhangelsk (Box 2), Moscow, Tomsk and Vologda
Of all the federal documents, the 2000 EIA Regu- oblast), which in a number of cases has been success-
lations are undoubtedly the most important. They ful. However, taking into account the insufficient ca-
define, for the first time, in legal terms the steps of pacity in many Russian regions, the most realistic
the project-level EA procedure in Russia and its re- approach to establishing screening provisions is to is-
lationship to the traditional instrument of SER. sue framework federal guidance and enforce its trans-
These regulations are in line with international prac- lation into regional regulations, at the same time,
tice, including most requirements of the Espoo Con- building the awareness and skills of regional officials.
vention, Aarhus Convention and the EU EIA Such guidelines will be drafted in the near future with
Directives.7 The following are the most important the participation of regional representatives (Vologda
elements introduced by the regulations: Environmental Protection Committee, 2003).
advocates of SER and OVOS. The poor ability of Moscow and the regions is adequately resolved.
the two groups to co-operate had slowed the devel- During the debates on the World Bank study, this
opment of the system in the mid-1990s. However, was flagged as a contentious issue, which attracted
when the SCEP was abolished in 2000, both camps significant controversy.
felt sufficiently threatened to initiate meaningful co- Many observers maintain that, in view of dramatic
operation. They tacitly agreed on a concept of the cuts of federal bureaucracy planned by Putin, it
“Russian EA system” that included both SER and would be sensible to delegate some EA responsibili-
OVOS and needed strengthening in its entirety. ties to the regions, which have significant legal and
Moreover, the Russian EA community success- executive autonomy. Opponents point out that any
fully enrolled the World Bank, some large indus- such dramatic changes in administration are likely to
tries, environmental consultancies and NGOs, as result in collapse of the vulnerable SER institutions,
well as regional environmental bureaucracies, that regions do not have adequate capacity for im-
willing to experiment with pilot approaches, into this plementing EIA provisions and that, last but not
project of strengthening the Russian EA system. least, the present politics at the regional level is
Much of this ‘translation’ and ‘enrolment’ occurred unlikely to favour national and global environmental
in the course of the World Bank’s study of the effec- goals.
tiveness of EA in Russia. The World Bank recommendations envision a
For example, during the World Bank’s study, the gradual process for developing a vision and studying
traditional barrier between the officials and the options for the division of responsibilities between
NGOs was lowered, because the former clearly the centre and the regions, taking the experience of
needed public support for the EA system. The indus- other federal states (Canada, Germany and the USA)
try and the regulators could both argue for a trans- into account.
Downloaded by [95.79.122.60] at 00:38 11 February 2016
parent rule-based internationally benchmarked Finally, the issue of the integration of OVOS and
approach that would stimulate, rather than hinder, SER, haunting the Russian EA system for more than
investment. The regions and the centre could also a decade, should be resolved. This is one of the three
co-operate in piloting regionally specific solutions principal recommendations of the World Bank study
and in mobilising both bottom-up and top-down (the other two are improving screening and scoping,
support for the system. Facing the destruction of the and strengthening SER institutional capacity). For
Russian EA system, the international community be- example, involvement of SER in approving terms of
came keen to learn how it functions and how it can reference for OVOS is a logical step to facilitate
be protected, whereas Russian EA professionals be- such integration. Tighter integration of OVOS, SER
came very interested in collecting evidence on the and environmental permission can also be achieved
value of EA systems internationally. relatively easily by strengthening the integration of
The paper highlights an important lesson from ‘new’ and ‘traditional’ environmental policy tools
Russia, potentially relevant to larger countries with (see OECD, 2003).
semi-autonomous regional administrations. Many A number of other issues are widely discussed
regulatory and practical developments have proven within the Russian EA community. The most promi-
to be easier to implement at the regional level than nent one is probably strategic environmental as-
national level, because political commitment can, in sessment (SEA). The existing SER and OVOS
many cases, be easier to secure and the institutional regulations do not have any specific requirements
structures are more flexible. “The diversity of Rus- for strategic-level activities, which are presumed to
sia’s eighty-nine regions is a fertile ground for pilot be assessed in the same way as project-level devel-
testing new approaches” conclude von Ritter and opments. In practice, the number of SEAs is very
Tsirkunov (2002). Regional-level policies are also small and they are almost entirely limited to plans
easier to implement since they are often formulated and programmes rather than policies (see the section
by those directly involved in implementation. “Overview of the EA system in the 1990s”). At the
However, a bottom-up approach, where pilot EA same time, there are several mechanisms, beyond the
policies are formulated and tested at the regional SER system, for incorporating environmental con-
level can be successful only if there is a vigorous siderations into strategic documents such as urban
‘horizontal’ dialogue between the regions supple- and territorial development plans.
mented by a ‘vertical’ dialogue with the central How effective these mechanisms are and how
government. they might be linked with the SER and OVOS re-
The Russian EA community shares the opinion quirements is not very well understood. SEA was
that the overarching goal, at present, is to have the explicitly excluded from the World Bank study and
EIA Regulations (2000) consistently and effectively the awareness of this issue is only just starting to
implemented, while retaining the capacity and emerge (Vologda Environmental Protection Com-
increasing efficiency of the SER institutions. Estab- mittee, 2003). The first steps in strengthening the
lishing a coherent screening system is a pre- Russian SEA systems are currently underway within
condition for attaining this goal. Retaining the the joint project between Ecoline EA Centre and the
capacity of the SER institutions, can be achieved if Regional Environmental Centre (REC) for Central
the division of responsibilities in this sphere between and Eastern Europe funded by the EU. This project
will involve, not only the existing networks of EA activities. A similar situation was earlier observed in relation to
the OVOS Regulations 1994.
professionals, but also economic planners and re- 6. The full updated list of Russian EA regulations can be found at
gional-level politicians to explore and pilot various the Internet site of the Network for Environmental Assessment
options for implementing SEA (Ecoline EA Centre, in Countries in Transition (see CEU, 2004).
7. With the notable exception of screening — see below.
2004). 8. The terms ‘translation’ and ‘enrolment’ are used in the author-
Thus, the Russian EA system still faces many network theory to describe “interaction within networks … as a
challenges related to both regulation and practice. continuous process of ‘translation’ and ‘enrolment’ in which ac-
tors negotiate the definition of each others’ interests, and try to
Some of these are fairly trivial (such as screening), link the interests of others to projects they themselves want to
while others are difficult even for more mature EA carry out” (Latour, 1987 and Callon, 1986 quoted in Cherp and
systems (such as SEA). The risk of the collapse of Antypas, 2003)
the system is still a real threat, though less so than
three or four years ago. The World Bank proposes
four sensible “guiding principles” for dealing with References
these challenges (von Ritter and Tsirkunov, 2002): Bektashi, Leyli, and Aleg Cherp (2002), “Evolution and current
state of environmental assessment in Azerbaijan”, Impact As-
• assured basic implementation capacity; sessment and Project Appraisal, 20(4), pages 253–263.
• efficiency and business friendliness; Callon, Michel (1986), Some Elements of a Sociology of Transla-
tion: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen. Power,
• effectiveness, by focusing limited institutional, Action and Belief: a New Sociology of Knowledge? (Routledge
analytical and financial resources on the most sig- and Kegan Paul, London).
nificant environmental impacts; CEU, Central European University (2004), Legal Acts on Envi-
ronmental Assessment in Countries in Transition (CEU
• long-term impact by evolving the EA system from Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy, Budapest)
a ‘do-no-harm’ tool to an instrument supporting available at <http://www.ceu.hu/envsci/eianetwork/legislation.
Downloaded by [95.79.122.60] at 00:38 11 February 2016
Policy, Central European University, Budapest. policy reform in EECCA countries, Report no CCNM/ENV/
Golubeva, Svetlana (2001), “State environmental review in Rus- EAP/2003/26 (OECD, Centre for Co-operation with Non-
sia: results and perspectives”, Environmental Review and Members, Environment Directorate, EAP Task Force, Paris).
Assessment of Environmental Impacts, 30(2), pages 9–24 (in OVOS Regulations (1994), Decree on Adopting the Regulations
Russian). on Assessment of Environmental Impacts (Ministry of Envi-
Govorushko, Sergey (1991), “Environmental impact assessment ronmental Protection of the Russian Federation, Decree no
in the USSR: current situation”, Impact Assessment Bulletin, 222, 18.7.1994).
9(3), pages 83–87. Prokopets, Marina (2001), “Environmental assessment in mining
Khotulyova, Marina (editor) (2002), Investment Projects and Local industry in Russia”, MSc thesis, Department of Environmental
Communities (Socio-Ecological Union, Moscow, in Russian). Sciences and Policy, Central European University, Budapest.
Khotulyova, Marina, Vadim Vinichenko and Alexander Karpov State of the Environment Reports 1998–2003, State Reports En-
(1998), “Environmental assessment of Cherepovets Rehabili- vironmental Protection in the Russian Federation in 1997–
tation and Public Health Program”, in N Mikulic, J Dusik, B 2002 (Ministry of Natural Resources, Moscow, in Russian).
Sadler and S Casey-Lefkowitz (editors), Strategic Environ- UNEP, United Nations Environmental Programme (2000), EIA
mental Assessment in Transitional Countries: Emerging Prac- Training Resource Manual (Ecoline, Moscow, in Russian,
tices (Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern translated by Ecoline and the Centre for Project Preparation)
Europe, Budapest). available at <http://www.ecoline.ru/mc/books/eiamanual/>, last
Larin, Vladislav, Ruben Mnatsakanian, Igor Chestin and Evgenij accessed 12 May 2004.
Schvartz (2003), Nature Protection in Russia: from Gorbachev Verzhbitskaya, Alena (2001), “Incorporation of biodiversity into
to Putin (Scientific Press Ltd, Moscow, in Russian). environmental impact assessment in the Russian Federation”,
Latour, B (1987), Science in Action (Harvard University Press, MSc thesis, Department of Environmental Sciences and Pol-
Cambridge MA). icy, Central European University, Budapest.
Lopatin, V N (1995), “State environmental expert review in Rus- Vologda Environmental Protection Committee, Committee for
sia”, Ekologicheskaya Ekspertiza, 1, pages 2–15. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of the Vo-
Maximenko, Yuri, and Irina Gorkina (1999), Assessment of logda Region (2003), Final Document of the International
Impacts on the Environment (OVOS) (Russian Federal Inform- Workshop on Environmental Assessment in the Russian
ation Agency, Moscow). Federation (Cherepovets, Russia).
Ministry of Natural Resources (2003), “Summary account of SER Volostnov, Dmitry (1999), “Experience of SER and OVOS in
practice in 2003”, unpublished (Ministry of Natural Resources, Tomsk oblast”, Practical Implementation of EIA in Russia, De-
Downloaded by [95.79.122.60] at 00:38 11 February 2016