Please do not circulate, cite, or copy this document without the author’s permission Implementing pollution control in federal Russia: How context matters and why multi-level implementation has a long way to go. Paper to be presented at: International Conference on Public Policy Milan, Italy, July 01-04, 2015 Elena Gorianova Department of Politics and Contemporary European Studies School of Law, Politics and Sociology University of Sussex [email protected] Abstract With environmental policy taking the centre stage of this academic investigation, this paper concentrates its analysis on the federal system of Russia. A focused comparative analysis takes up the under-researched field of pollution-control regulation in the Post-Soviet extraction industry and explores it through a case-study of two very different Russian regions – Republic of Tatarstan and Nenets Autonomous Okrug. The analysis reveals a range of problems presented by regional contextual differences and how these can influence the “beyond compliance” efforts in different regions. It is also revealed why certain instruments may work in one region and not in another. The paper concludes that the local level is most suited for analysis if significant advance is to be made with implementation of the environmental policy objectives. Key words: environmental regulation, Russian Federation, beyond compliance, regional context. Introduction The traditional approaches to analysing implementation have overly focused on the assumption of a top-down model of implementation. Using compliance as a measure of implementation has further exacerbated the top-down perception of the process in academic research and in government analysis alike. However, non-compliance does not necessarily imply poor implementation, just as successful implementation cannot always guarantee full compliance. This is especially the case in multi-level implementation, where the policy makers are far removed – physically and structurally as well as potentially ideologically – from the street-level bureaucrats responsible for policy delivery and from the conditions in which the latter group works. In such complex, hierarchical systems of implementation even a well-designed and -written policy cannot always hope to achieve success if the context of various target areas has not been taken into consideration and if the implementation structure is too inflexible. On the other hand, some lower tiers of the implementation hierarchy might find themselves to be more capable - financially, methodologically and ideologically - to strive for higher results than those required in the official policy from the top level. In these cases, these lower tiers might choose to move beyond compliance without superordinate obligations to do so. It is the purpose of this paper to examine a case study of each above-mentioned situation to illustrate why a top-down implementation analysis focusing on compliance cannot always be efficient or even useful in analysing processes and outcomes. Two Russian federal subjects are examined – the Nenets County in the Russian European north, and the southern Republic of Tatarstan. Both territories have their special circumstances, which have impacted very differently on how each approaches implementation and what extra steps each is prepared and is capable of taking. Both have chosen to move beyond compliance. These findings are discussed in the context of a broader academic study seeking to analyse regional variations that assist implementers in regulating local oil industries vis-à-vis the latters’ environmental impact. The countries under examination are transitional states, moving from one economic, political or social regime to another, since a significant portion of the world’s oil is today found in such uncertain circumstances. Russia, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan had been selected for closer examination given the high level of similarity at the national level, yet there is a high degree of differentiation at the local level. Given the sheer physical territory, the three offer impressive variation on socio- economic, climatic, geographical, social, developmental and other characteristics. Given the predominant approaches in academic literature, three explanatory variables were selected – state capacity, foreign presence (oil firms, NGOs and IGOs) and economic diversification. Over a hundred interviews will be conducted with representatives of the various stakeholder groups at the federal and regional levels. These include current and former government officials, implementers, academics, experts, employees of domestic, foreign and joint venture oil firms, their subcontractors, members of the judiciary, activists and members of domestic and international non-governmental organisations, members of international governmental organisations and members of the press. Ninety-nine of these have already been completed across Russia and Kazakhstan. Interview data is supplemented with documentary analysis of governmental, NGO, IGO and media reports and data. This study also aims to go beyond the traditional approaches to analysing the environmental problems of Russia, which too often focus either on the federal level1 or on the impact of federal events on subnational levels23, and which increasingly appears to have given up on the analysis of formal practices altogether4, instead increasingly favouring the arguments for informal practices and the potential power of environmental civil movements 5 6 7 8 and environmental governance910. By focusing on moderate successes rather then big failures through the analysis of two regions and their governmental capacity in relation to their contextual peculiarities, this study offers an in-depth look into how regional variations shape the strengths and opportunities of the local governing structures, and how the latter find ways to take advantage of their contexts. In such a move away from the traditional top-down analysis, the paper hopes to contribute towards the existing literature that dispels the perception that the state capacity has become redundant in the Federal Russia, for the policy and implementation at the central level do not reflect or necessarily cause the minor or the significant achievements of the sub-national levels. In order to illustrate this the next two sections will set the context by providing a brief overview of the Russian federal and regional situations in relation to environmental regulation. The following two sections will examine the Nenets Autonomous Okrug (AO) and the Republic of Tatarstan (RT) respectively in greater detail. The concluding section will summarise the lessons from the case studies as well as compare their achievements and underline the problems with multi-level implementation. 1 Peterson, D.J. and Bielke, E.K., (2001), ‘The reorganization of Russia’s Environmental Bureaucracy: Implications and Prospects’, in Post-Soviet Geography and Economicsm 42(1): 65-76. 2 Crotty, J., and Rodgers, P., (2012), ‘Reorganization of Russian’s Environmental Bureaucracy. Regional Interpretation and the Response of Key Actors’, in Problems of Post-Communism, 59(4): 15-26. 3 Honnerland, G. and Jorgensen, A.K., (2002), ‘Implementing Russia’s International Environmental Commitments: Federal Prerogative or Region Concern?’, in Europe-Asia Studies, 54(8): 1223-1240. 4 Tokunaga, M., (2010), ‘Environmental governance in Russia: the ‘closed’ path to ecological modernization’, Environment and Planning, 42: 1686-1704. 5 Crotty, J., (2009), ‘Making a difference? NGOs and civil society development in Russia’, in Europe-Asia Studies, 61: 85–108. 6 Henry L. A., (2002), ‘Two paths to a greener future: environmentalism and civil society development in Russia’, in Demokratizatsiya, 10: 184–206. 7 Henry, L.A., (2010), ‘Between transnationalism and state power: the development of Russia’s post-Soviet environmental movement’, in Environmental Politics, 19(5): 756-781. 8 Yanitsky, O.N., (2012), ‘From nature protection to politics: the Russian environmental movement 1960- 2010’, in Environmental Politics, 21(6): 922-940. 9 Oldfield, J.O., (2002), ‘Russian environmentalism’, in European Environment, 12(2): 117-129. 10 Wernstedt, K., (2002), ‘Environmental Protection in the Russian Federation: Lessons and Opportunities’, in Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 45(4): 493-516. Multi-level implementation of the environmental law in Federal Russia The first environmental laws in Russia appeared in the 1990s following the collapse of the USSR and the subsequent creation of the Russian Federation. In effect, the environmental legal sphere came to Russia 30 years after the development in this field first started in the United States of America. However, today Russian environmental legislation has become a voluminous, complex body of legal literature, which addresses most of the environmental problems faced by the modern economy11 and in some cases even exceeds internationally recognised and endorsed requirements12. Russia is a signatory to most of the key international environmental protection treaties and conventions. Furthermore, Russia has supposedly opted out of the Kyoto Protocol’s second round on the basis of a criticism that the document does not go far enough13. To be effective, however, a law needs be complied with, and for that an effective administrative structure capable of law enforcement is required. Arguably, the administrative transformation has not been as successful as the developments in the legal sphere. The initial reforms