Assessment of damage from the violation of environmental legislation: Review and systematization of methodological approaches and methodology support
https://doi.org/10.38050/01300105202111
Abstract
Damage from environmental pollution (damage from violation of environmental legislation) is a basic category in environmental-economic research and is assessed during the development of project documentation, environmental audit, evaluation assessment of the effectiveness of investment projects, environmental risks insurance. At the same time, variety of existing assessment approaches necessitates methodological and methods’ streamlining in the field under consideration. The purpose of the study is to review and systematize national and foreign experience in assessing damage from environmental pollution. Research methods: ecological-economic analysis, content analysis, information modeling, statistical analysis. The key findings of the study: identification of contradictions in the field of understanding and assessment of environmental pollution damage category, streamlining of methodological principles and methodology support in the field under consideration, development of approaches’ classification for calculating damage from pollution depending on the methods used and the directions of assessment, systematization of methodology support based on a wide range of criteria. Scope: environmental audit and expertise, environmental insurance, as well as regulatory documents of ministries (Ministry of natural resources, Ministry of ecology) and departments (Rostechnadzor, Rosvodresursy, etc.), scientific and educational publications on the assessment of anthropogenic load.
Supporting agencies: The reported study was funded by RFBR, project number 19-110-50409 (Expansion)
About the Authors
A. S. Tulupov
Market Economy Institute RAS
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Moscow
A. F. Mudrezov
Market Economy Institute RAS
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Moscow
A. D. Vitukhin
Market Economy Institute RAS
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Moscow
A. A. Avramenko
MGIMO University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Moscow
References
1. Balatsky, O. F. (1979). Economics of clean air. Naukova dumka.
2. Balatsky, O. F. (1982). Methods for determining economic damage from environmental pollution. Methods of planning and management of natural resources, 93–97.
3. Balatsky, O. F., Melnik, L. G. & Yakovlev, A. F. (1984). Economics and quality of the natural environment. Gidrometeoizdat.
4. Bobylev, S. N. (1995). Economic problems of biodiversity: determination of interrelationships (matrix approach). In Economics of biodiversity conservation. (pp. 19–26). Ministry of Natural Resources of Russia.
5. Bobylev, S. N., & Medvedeva, O. E., et al. (2002). Economics of Biodiversity Conservation. GEF Project “Conservation of Biodiversity of the Russian Federation”. Institute of Environmental Economics.
6. Bobylev, S. N., Sidorenko, V. N., Safonov, Yu. V., Avaliani, S. L., Strukova, E.B., & Golub A.A. (2002). Macroeconomic assessment of costs for the health of the Russian population from environmental pollution. World Bank Institute & Nature Protection Fund.
7. Bobylev, S. N., & Zakharov, V. M. (2009). Ecosystem services and economics. Institute of Sustainable Development. Center for Environmental Policy of Russia.
8. Bobylev, S. N., Perelet, R.A., & Solovyova, S. V. (2012). Assessment and implementation of the payment system for ecosystem services in specially protected natural areas. UNDP.
9. Bobylev, S. N., & Tishkov, A.A. (Eds). (1999). Economic valuation of biodiversity. Global Ecological Fund.
10. Temporary model methodology for determining the economic efficiency of environmental protection measures and assessing the economic damage caused to the national economy by environmental pollution. (1983). Economy.
11. Goffman, K. G. (1977). Economic assessment of natural resources under socialism. Economy.
12. Goffman, K. G., & Gusev, A.A. (Eds.) (1977). Environmental protection: models of environmental cleanliness management. Economy.
13. Civil Code of the Russian Federation (2020). Prospect.
14. Gusev, A.A. (2004). Modern economic problems of nature management. International relationships.
15. Gusev, A.A., & Pegov, A. S. (2000). Analysis of methods for assessing economic damage from air pollution. Theory and practice of environmental insurance. Proceedings of the IV AllRussian and II International Conference. MEI RAS.
16. Gusev, A.A., Martynov, A. S., Motkin, G.A., Ryumina, E. V., Tishkov, A.A., Artyukhov, V. G., Vinogradov, V. V., Gorsky, V. G., Gritsenko, A.A., Gurman, V.I., Karachevtsev, I. L., Kopylova, A.A., Morozova, O. V., Raver, E.A., Tulupov, A. S., Fidirko, A.A., Tsarevskaya, N. G., & Shvetsova-Shilovskaya, T. N. (2002). New financial mechanisms for biodiversity conservation. MEI RAS.
17. Danilov-Danilyan, V.I. (Ch. Ed.). (2003). Economic and mathematical encyclopedic dictionary. Great Russian Encyclopedia: Publishing House “INFRA-M”.
18. Medvedeva, O.E., Mikerin, G.I., Medvedev, P. V., & Vakula, M.A. (2017). Cost estimate of environmental damage. Modern methodology and practice. LEU VO “MAOK”.
19. Medvedeva, O. E. (2004). Assessment of environmental damage in determining the value of land. Eco-audit and environmental safety issues, 1 (2), 2–16.
20. Methodology for calculating the amount of damage caused to forests and natural objects located in them due to violation of forest legislation. (2018a). Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of December 29, 2018 No. 1730 “On approval of the specifics of compensation for damage caused to forests and natural objects in them as a result of violation of forest legislation.”
21. Methodology for calculating the amount of harm caused to aquatic biological resources. (2011a). Federal Agency for Fisheries. Order No. 1166 of November 25, 2011, approved by order of the Ministry of Natural Resources of Russia dated December 8, 2011 No. 948.
22. Methodology for calculating the amount of harm caused to hunting resources. (2011b). Order of the Ministry of Natural Resources of Russia dated December 8, 2011 No. 948.
23. Methodology for calculating the amount of damage caused to soils as an object of environmental protection. (2010). Order of the Ministry of Natural Resources of Russia No. 238 dated 07.08.2010.
24. Methodology for calculating the amount of harm caused to water bodies due to violation of water legislation. (2009). Order of the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation No. 87 dated April 13, 2009.
25. Methodology for calculating the amount of harm caused to objects of the animal world entered in the Red Book of the Russian Federation, as well as other objects of the animal world that are not related to the objects of hunting and fishing and their habitat. (2008). Order of the Ministry of Natural Resources of Russia No. 107 dated April 28, 2008.
26. Methodology for calculating the amount of damage caused to forests, including forest plantations, or trees, shrubs and lianas not classified as forest plantations due to violation of forestry legislation. (2007). Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 273 of 08.05.2007.
27. Methodology for determining the amount of harm caused to the environment by atmospheric air pollution from stationary sources of pollution in the city of Moscow. (2005). Decree of the Moscow Government No. 94-PP dated February 22, 2005.
28. Methodology for calculating the amount of environmental damage caused by atmospheric air pollution (draft). (2018b). ANO NIPI “Kadastr”.
29. Methodology for calculating the amount of harm caused to atmospheric air as a component of the natural environment (draft). (2018c). Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation. http://www.mnr.gov.ru/docs/metodicheskie_dokumenty/proekt_prikaza_minprirody_rossii_ob_utverzhdenii_metodiki_ischisleniya_razmera_vreda_prichinennogo_a/
30. Methodology for determining the prevented environmental damage. (1999). State Committee for Ecology.
31. Methodology for calculating the damage caused to fisheries as a result of the discharge of wastewater and other waste into fishery reservoirs. (1967). Approved. Ministry of Fisheries of the USSR 08/16/1967 No. 30-1-11.
32. Methodology for calculating the damage caused to fisheries as a result of violation of fishing rules and protection of fish stocks. (1974). Approved By the Ministry of Fisheries No. 30-2-02 of 12.07.1974 and the Ministry of Finance on 15.07.1974.
33. Temporary methodology for assessing damage to fish stocks as a result of construction, reconstruction and expansion of enterprises, structures and other facilities and various types of work in fishery reservoirs. (1989). Approved By the Ministry of Fisheries of the USSR 12.18.1989.
34. Order of the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation “On Approval of Taxes for Calculating the Amount of Recovery for Damage Caused by Illegal Extraction or Destruction of Flora” (1994) dated 04.05.1994 No. 126, as amended on 30.06.2009. Registered in the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation on 06.06.1994 No. 592.
35. Order of the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation “On the approval of rates for calculating the amount of damage caused to flora objects included in the Red Book of the Russian Federation and their habitat due to violation of legislation in the field of environmental protection and nature management” (2011) dated 01.08.2011 No. 658. Registered in the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation on September 20, 2011 No. 21841.
36. Revich, B.A., & Sidorenko, V. N. (2006). Methodology for assessing economic damage to public health from air pollution: a guide to regional environmental policy. Acropolis, CEPR.
37. Ryumina, E. V. (2009). Economic analysis of damage from environmental violations. Nauka.
38. Ryumina, E. V. (2000). Analysis of environmental and economic interactions. Nauka.
39. Ryumina, E. V. (2007). Damage from environmental violations. Ecologic-Economic Aspects of Baltic Sea. Riga Technical University.
40. Telizhenko, A. M., & Semenenko, B.A. (1995). Determination of the amount of compensation for harm to health of the population due to environmental pollution. Theory and practice of environmental insurance. Proceedings of the first all-Russian conference (pp. 110–118). MEI RAS, CEMI RAS.
41. Tulupov, A. S. (2017). Environmental insurance. SUM Publishing House.
42. Tulupov, A. S. (2009). Damage theory: general approaches and issues of creating methodological support. Nauka.
43. Tulupov, A. S., Mudretsov, A. F., & Prokopiev, M. G. (2019). On the methodology for calculating the amount of environmental damage caused by air pollution. Ecology and Industry of Russia, 23 (6), 41–45. https://doi.org/10.18412/1816-0395-2019-06-41-45
44. Tulupov, A. S. (2008). Damage theory: the need for formation and development. Economics of Contemporary Russia, 2 (41), 158–164.
45. Tulupov, A. S., & Vitukhin, A. D. (2017). Methodological support for assessing harm from violation of environmental legislation. Ecological Bulletin of Russia, 1, 32–35.
46. Tulupov, A. S., & Vitukhin, A. D. (2016). Information and analytical system for methodological support for assessing harm from violation of environmental legislation. Russia in the XXI century: global challenges and development prospects. (рp. 267–274). MEI RAS.
47. Tulupov, A. S. (2014). Computational and methodical tools for insurance of the risk of environmental pollution. Economics and Mathematical Methods, 50, 1, 24–36.
48. Tulupov, A. S. (2013). Economic Aspects of Voluntary and Mandatory Environmental Insurance. Economics and Mathematical Methods, 2, 44–53.
49. Federal Law “On Environmental Protection” (2002) dated January 10, 2002, as amended on December 27, 2019 (No. 7-FZ).
50. Atkinson, G., Groom, B., Mourato, S., & Braathen, N. (2018). Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment: Further Developments and Policy Use. OECD.
51. Bobylev, S. N., Bukvareva, E. N., Danilkin, A.A., Dgebuadze, Y. Y., Drooozdov, A. V., Filenko, O. F., Grabovsky, V.I., Khoroshev, A. V., Kraev, G. N., Perelet, R.A., Smelyansky, I. E., Striganova, B. R., Tishkov, A.A., & Zamolodchikov, D. G. (2018). Ecosystem services of Russia: prototype national report. BCC Press.
52. Boyle, K. J. (2003). Introduction to revealed preference methods. Dordrecht.
53. Carson, R. (2000). Contingent Valuation: A User’s Guide. Environmental Science and Technology, 34, 1413–1418.
54. Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. V. (1947). Capital returns from soil-conservation practices. Journal of Farm Economics, 29, 1181–1196.
55. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). (1980). United States, Pub.L. 96–510, approved December 11, 42 U. S. C. § 9601.
56. Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R. et al. (1997). The value of the wоrld’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 386.
57. Courant, P., & Porter, R. (1981). Averting Expenditures and the Cost of Pollution. JEEM, 8.
58. Daily, G. C. (1997). Natureʼs Services. Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press.
59. Davidson, M. D. (2013). On the relation between ecosystem services, intrinsic value, existence value and economic valuation. Ecological Economics, 95, 171–177.
60. Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council (2004). Directive 2004/35/ CE of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2004/35/oj
61. Handbook of Biodiversity Valuation: A Guide for Policy Makers. (2002). OECD.
62. Krutilla, J. (1967). Conservation reconsidered. Am. Econ. Rev., 57 (4), 777–786.
63. Malzubris, J., Senkane, S., & Ready, R. (1997). Contingent Valuation Study Estimating Willingness to Pay for Improved Water Quality in Sigulda. Cambridge.
64. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. (2005). Island Press.
65. Milgrom, P. (1993). Is sympathy an economic value? Philosophy, economics, and the contingent valuation method. In Hausman J.A. (Ed.). Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. (pp. 417–441). North-Holland.
66. Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method, Resources for the Future. Washington DC.
67. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (1999). Habitat equivalency analysis: an overview. Policy and technical paper series, No. 95-1. Technical paper 99-1. Damage Assessment and Restoration Program, Damage Assessment Center. Silver Springs, Maryland.
68. Pascual, U., Muradian, R., Brander, L., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Martm-Lopez, B., & Verma, M. (2010). The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. In Kumar P. (Ed.), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations (pp. 183–256). Earthscan.
69. Pearce, D. W., & Turner, R. K. (1990). Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment. Harvester Wheatsheaf.
70. Pearce, D. W., & Warford, J. W. (1993). World Without End: Economics, Environment, and Sustainable Development. Oxford University Press.
71. Pearce, D., Atkinson, G., & Mourato, S. (2006). Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment Recent Developments. OECD.
72. Rosen, S. (1974). Hedonic prices and implicit markets: Product differentiation in pure competition. Journal of Political Economy, 82(1), 34–55.
73. Shibata, H., & Winrich, J. S. (1983). Control of Pollution When the Offended Defend Themselves. Economica, 50.
74. Turner, R. K. (1999). The place of economic values in environmental valuation. In Bateman I. J., & Willis K. G. (Eds.), Valuing Environmental Preferences (pp. 17-41). Oxford University Press.
75. Tulupov, A. S., & Petrov, I. V. (2018). Fuel and energy complex and methods for assessing the harm from air pollution. Knowledge-based technologies in development and utilization of mineral resources. International Scientific Conference. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/206/1/012054
76. Tulupov, A. S. (2019). Environmental Resources Management and the Transition to the Cyber Economy. In Filippov, V. M. et al. (eds.) The Cyber Economy. Springer Nature Switzerland AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31566-5_31
77. Weisbrod, B. (1964). Collective-consumption services of individual-consumption goods. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 78, 471–477.
78. Willis, K., Garrod, G., Benson, J., & Carter, M. (1996). Benefits and Costs of the Wildlife Enhancement Scheme: a case study of the Pevensey Levels. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 39(3), 387–401.
Review
For citations:
Tulupov A.S., Mudrezov A.F., Vitukhin A.D., Avramenko A.A. Assessment of damage from the violation of environmental legislation: Review and systematization of methodological approaches and methodology support. Moscow University Economics Bulletin. 2021;(1):3-25. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.38050/01300105202111
Views:
447
Email this article 