Report - UNDP Russia

where the level of pollution was already too high.Pollution growth exceeded growth of production atthe oldest fields (those in development for over 35years accounted for over 80% of all emissions) and atnewly commissioned sites due to flaring ofsecondary and natural oil gas. Specific emissions atboth the oldest fields (Frolovo in Volgograd Region,Pokhvistnevo in Samara Region) and the newest(sites in Khanty-Mansi and near the town ofStrezhevoy in Tomsk Region) exceeded 100 kg/1000roubles. The lowest rate of pollution growth was at20-30 year-old extraction sites around Surgut,Kogalym and Langepas. These areas have a relativelylower level of pollution due to specifics of gascontent in the oil-bearing strata, oil field area andwell numbers, and Soviet-vintage infrastructure forutilization of waste. High rates of specific pollutionare also characteristic of gas production centers(both extraction areas and locations of compressorstation).The situation is different in the oil refiningindustry, where there have been a number of positivetrends since the mid–1990s. The growing number ofcars on Russia’s roads and creation of verticallyintegrated oil companies helped refineries to operateat full capacity, and investments were made tomodernize facilities and increase the share of moreexpensive products in overall output. As a result,emissions per 1000 roubles of industrial outputdeclined by nearly 10 times (from 40-54 to 4.8-16 kg)in cities where oil refineries were the only source ofpollution (Kirishi, Kstovo, Novokuibyshevsk, Syzran,Tuapse). Reduction of pollution, though to a smallerextent (from 3-9 to 2.3-6.9 kg/1000 roubles ofproduction), was also recorded in cities where oilrefineries were not the only, but the major source ofpollution (Yaroslavl, Ufa, Perm, Saratov, Volgograd,Omsk, Khabarovsk). However, specific emissions permillion tonnes of primary refining output have onlyhalved, and this is true both for towns and cities whichpreviously had low pollution levels, such as Tuapse(5.5 kg/m.t. of oil) and for towns and cities withaverage levels, such as Komsomolsk-on-Amur (10.2kg/m.t.) or high levels, such as Ukhta (41 kg/m.t.).Rates of pollution reduction slowed down as early as2002, because further progress would require muchgreater investment.The first stage of Russia’s economic growthdid not lead to large-scale negative environmentalimpacts. However, the mechanism ofcompensational growth, based mostly on recommissioningof idle facilities and commissioningof low-efficiency hydrocarbon fields, has led to anincrease in specific and gross environmentalpressure in towns where pollution levels werealready high. Operation of obsolete assets led toincrease in pollution levels, mostly in small citiesand towns, which account for nine of out of tenurban settlements where specific pollution figuresgrew in 1998–2002.Rates of growth in the oil & gas industry andof investments by large companies have sloweddown since summer 2004, and positive effects fromsector restructuring and investments have beenmainly exhausted. Rate of growth of investments inenvironmental protection equipment declined from2004 (in comparable prices) and there was a declineof environmental investments in 2007, withemission control being the hardest hit (84%reduction of investments compared with theprevious year).Even though specific emissions continueto decline nationwide, the share of towns and citieswhere they are growing has returned to levels ofthe 1990s (47% of towns and cities, with 35.4% ofthe population). Several large regional centers(over 50,000 inhabitants) with heavy industry orcoal-fired power stations were among the 495towns and cities where environmental parametersworsened in 2007 (the large centers in questionwere Izhevsk, Vladivostok, Chelyabinsk,Novosibirsk, Krasnoyarsk and Volgograd (Figure7.2.4)). The pollution gap between large and smallurban settlements started to narrow in 2007, butonly due to this worsening of the situation in largecities.Energy and fuel intensity in the economymay well increase in the context of the latest crisis.Electricity generation declined in the transition crisisof 1990–1998, but specific emissions grew in 89% ofRussian towns and cities, reflecting environmentalinefficiency of many Russian power stations. Whenin 2006 power consumption rose by 4.2% andproduction of thermal power plants by 5.2%140 National Human Development Report in the Russian Federation 2009