Environmental Degradation of Russian Coastal Regions: the Case of the Gulf of Finland
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Trumbull.fm Page 1 Friday, September 11, 2009 10:01 AM Environmental Degradation of Russian Coastal Regions: The Case of the Gulf of Finland Nathaniel Trumbull and Oleg Bodrov1 Abstract: An American geographer and Russian ecologist discuss current and prospective environmental hazards precipitated by large-scale infrastructure projects on Russia’s southern coast of the Gulf of Finland. The region, investigated by both authors during the course of regular field research from 1999 to 2009, is one of the best environmentally preserved coast- lines of the Baltic Sea with abundant potential greenfield sites, largely due to its closed-bor- der-zone status during the Soviet period. A favorable location for trade also places the region under intense development pressure. The authors devote particular attention to two major developments, a multifunctional port complex (which inter alia serves as a major pipeline ter- minus and oil export port) and expansion of an existing nuclear power plant. Based on exten- sive personal observations and government documents, they analyze the emerging environmental threat posed by these initiatives as well as the challenging political environ- ment that discourages public participation and local involvement in spatial planning. Journal of Economic Literature, Classification Numbers: O180, O290, Q280, Q530. 7 figures, 35 ref- erences. Key words: Gulf of Finland, Russia, St. Petersburg, Primorsk, Ust’-Luga port, Lenin- grad Nuclear Power Plant, Batareynaya Bay, Baltic Transportation System, oil export ports, gas pipeline terminus, aluminum production, polycrystalline silicon, nuclear waste, nature reserves, wetlands. INTRODUCTION n May 2008, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin paid a helicopter visit to the site of the Ust’- ILuga port complex, currently under construction on the southern coast of the Gulf of Finland (e.g., see Kommersant, May 15, 2008, p. 1). The former President announced that, as part of efforts to diversify Russia’s outlets for energy exports, Ust’-Luga would become the pipeline terminus and oil transfer point of the Baltic [Pipeline] Transport System–2.2 Noting that the new pipeline would strengthen Russia’s energy security and that of its European cus- tomers as well as bolster the country’s economic potential, Putin observed that Ust’-Luga would “. be a very large complex, probably, the largest in the country” (BTS-2, 2008, p. 1). Yet six years earlier, this closed-border-zone territory of Russia3 was an almost totally unde- veloped, largely pristine coastline. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the recent intensive 1Respectively, Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, University of Connecticut/Avery Point, Groton, CT 06340 ([email protected]) and Chairman, NGO Green World, Sosnovy Bor, Leningrad Oblast, Russian Federation ([email protected]). 2The Baltiyskaya truboprovodnaya sistema–2, hereafter abbreviated BTS-2, is a northward spur (from Unecha, Bryansk Oblast) of the Druzhba pipeline. 3The border zone included a ca. 120 km stretch of coastline extending along the southern coast of the Gulf of Finland from Staryy Petergof to the Estonian border (Fig. 1). 1 Eurasian Geography and Economics, 2009, 50, No. 5, pp. 1–15. DOI: 10.2747/1539-7216.50.5.1 Copyright © 2009 by Bellwether Publishing, Ltd. All rights reserved. Trumbull.fm Page 2 Friday, September 11, 2009 10:01 AM TRUMBULL AND BODROV 2 Fig. 1. General map of the Gulf of Finland showing selected locations mentioned in the text. development of the southern coast of the Gulf of Finland (SCGF) within the context of the environmental threats it poses to the region and its inhabitants.4 Oil and natural gas exports in particular have shaped a critical geostrategic role for the construction of new port and pipeline infrastructure on the Baltic and Black seas and in the Far East coastal regions. The new construction of the Primorsk oil port on the Gulf of Finland’s northern shore (Fig. 1), the development of the northeastern coast of Sakhalin Island to support construction of a network of pipelines and offshore oil drilling platforms as part of the Sakhalin-2 project, construction of the Yuzhnaya Ozereyevka oil terminal on the Black Sea for the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, the Blue Stream gas pipeline compressor station and seabed pipeline entry at Arkhipo-Osipovka on the Black Sea, and the Ust’-Luga port on the southern Gulf of Finland5 have in each case occurred on previously undeveloped coastlines, essentially greenfield sites preserved during the Soviet period as closed border territories.6 4Both authors have undertaken research field trips along the SCGF (including the Ust’-Luga site) each summer over the last decade as part of an ongoing coastal monitoring project organized by the environmental non- governmental organization (NGO) Green World, based in Sosnovyy Bor, Leningrad Oblast. 5For background, see Sagers (2006, 2007) and Ericson (2009). An exception is the Black Sea coast, which although constituting a border region of the Soviet Union, was not administered as a closed region with the excep- tion of the naval city of Sevastopol’ on the Crimean Peninsula. The new closed-territory rule for foreigners traveling outside of Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk on Sakhalin was only introduced in March 2008 (Sakhalin Independent, March 27– April 10, 2008). 6Only in the case of the East Siberia–Pacific Ocean (ESPO) pipeline project, the terminus of which originally was planned for a greenfield site in Perevoznaya Bay, was the site of development eventually shifted to the existing port of Kozmino Bay near Nakhodka. The originally planned terminus for the ESPO pipeline at Perevoznaya was quite near to the Kedrovaya Pad’ nature reserve. Only after national and international protest was the terminus changed to Kozmino (e.g., see Kozmino Bay, 2007). Trumbull.fm Page 3 Friday, September 11, 2009 10:01 AM 3 EURASIAN GEOGRAPHY AND ECONOMICS In addition to Ust’-Luga, a second major project currently under way in the SCGF, and also related to energy, is the planned expansion of the Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant (LNPP). The addition of two new reactors (and ultimately as many as six) is planned both to meet the region’s projected burgeoning electricity needs as well as to provide inputs for a number of complementary industrial facilities (see below). These coastal infrastructure projects have been completed within a general environment of partially (or temporarily) loosened restrictions on development in these formerly closed territories since the early 1990s, but with virtually no local input regarding the environmental risks and hazards to those territories posed by the proposed port activities. In the absence of strong local authority, powerful financial interests allied to greater or lesser degree with fed- eral government authorities have stepped into the vacuum, implementing increasingly large- scale development in these quasi–closed border regions. The Ust’-Luga port is located in close proximity to the European Union and is expected to become an important and diversified transportation hub in the region.7 From a Kremlin perspective, the Baltic Sea’s role as a transport corridor for Russia’s natural resource exports and imports is strategically critical. With the completion of the Primorsk port on the northern shore of the Gulf of Finland, the Baltic Sea has already become Russia’s most important transit route for energy, accounting for 40 percent of all exports. Most deci- sions concerning the implementation of large-scale, strategic infrastructure projects (such as at Ust’-Luga and the LNPP expansion designed to support it) are made in Moscow. Conse- quently, the rapid development of the SCGF over a short timeframe might be considered a resounding state success (e.g., see Gustafson, 2000; Hanninen and Rytkonen, 2004; Nicoll and Delaney, 2007; Goldman, 2008). However, an increasing polarization of federal and local interests has emerged over spe- cific plans for the development of the SCGF region, as federal interests are increasingly at odds with those of the local populations and their environment (ZumBrunnen and Trumbull, 2003). While the federally approved commercial investment and infrastructure development has pro- ceeded almost unimpeded along the coast of the SCGF, small-scale, local initiatives (both busi- ness ventures, including tourism, and recreational activities) have been restricted due to the continued semi-closed, border-zone status of the region.8 Because small-business activity has not yet been officially permitted to develop in the border zone, the local residents have had lit- tle choice but to protect their livelihoods by accepting the new large-scale infrastructure projects. Thus, the semi-closed nature of the SCGF provides a skewed investment and social environment affording a development monopoly to the government and to the privileged, allied large quasi-private sector interests. The current Kremlin practice of appointing, rather than electing, governors further reduces state accountability to residents at the local level. Thus, a balance of federal, regional, and local interests has not been achieved in the region. Not surprisingly, public participation in the environmental planning process involving the region is almost non-existent. Only a small number of NGOs and fledgling initiative groups have been able to challenge the exclusion of local residents from the spatial planning process. 7In addition to oil exports, cargo handling facilities for imports are being expanded. Germany has been the largest source of goods imported into Leningrad Oblast since 2000, and German exporters are expected to be among the most important customers of the Ust’-Luga port (Petrostat, 2008, p. 228). 8Local authorities and residents are only notified (rather than consulted) about federal infrastructure develop- ment, and when public hearings do occur, they are strictly pro forma events (e.g., Radioaktivnyy, 2009). And a spe- cial permit continues to be required to access the SCGF, for both Russian and foreign nationals. Trumbull.fm Page 4 Friday, September 11, 2009 10:01 AM TRUMBULL AND BODROV 4 Fig. 2. Construction of the Ust’-Luga port.