The Government's Bias Towards Industry Over The Environment

A key reason for the flawed Russian environmental policy process is the government’s bias towards industry over the environment. In the decision making process surrounding Lake Baikal and the Russian environment as a whole, “powerful industrial interests play a role” (Martus 140). A primary example of governmental bias towards industry is in the organization of Russian federal departments. The Ministry of Natural Resources, which is tasked with utilizing natural resources for economic growth, is in charge of protecting the environment (Newell and Henry 5). This Ministry frequently prioritizes economic growth over environmental protection. Igor Chestin of World Wildlife Fund- Russia argues that this leadership is “like putting a goat in charge

It plans to spend a significant amount of money boosting this industry, as “Russian and Chinese tourism firms have announced intentions to invest eleven billion dollars in developing new hotels, attractions, and infrastructure around the lake” (Nuwer 4). The government seems to not value the protection of the lake because “on paper, Baikal’s entire shoreline is protected. But laws often mean little in today’s Russia, and the lake—until recently almost untouched by tourism—is feeling the impact of this growing human wave” (Thomson 3). If environmental protection was high on the agenda, the Russian government would enforce their regulations and prohibit the growing tourism surrounding the

Since Russia does not have the equivalent of America’s Environmental Protection Agency, environmental concerns are often overlooked or meddled with from higher powers. Effective environmental policy is impeded as “combining the conflicting objectives of natural resource exploitation and protection within the one agency is often regarded as a fundamental weakness” (Martus 141). Since Lake Baikal is a high-level political concern, Putin has intervened in the policy process as evidenced through his siding with industry in the 2010 reopening of the Baikalsk plant (Martus 142). The veto and revision of the 1999 Law on Baikal also provides an example of high-level government intervention of environmental policy. Government intervention stems from “the Medvedev-Putin administration’s vision of the Russian government as the sole ‘keeper’ of Russian lands and people, coupled with the vision of Russia as a natural resource power” (Hooff 7). In between 2001 and 2007, the federal budget dedicated to the environment decreased from 0.4% to 0.1% (Newell and Henry 5). This is an example of government intervention as they proactively stated that the environment is of little importance. Vladimir Kotov and Elena Nikitina argue in their article titled “Reorganization of Environmental Policy in Russia” that