Contested policymaking in Russia: industry, environment, and the “best available technology” debate

Abstract

The centralized nature of the Russian political system and the dominance of the executive can obscure the role played by other actors in the policymaking process. This article aims to further our understanding of the Russian policy process by examining the ability of industry to determine policy outcomes. An example from the environmental policy process concerning the introduction of the “best available technology” will be presented. This highly contested policy led to significant opposition from industry groups and disputes between government actors. The case demonstrates that industrial interests in Russia are able to exert considerable influence on the policy process; however, this influence is not absolute and requires closer scrutiny. Political leadership was found to be an important factor in achieving policy outcomes. However, for the most part, the policy process was found to be heavily bureaucratized, and dominated by a range of competing interests.

Keywords:

• Russia
• policymaking
• industry
• interest groups
• environment
• best available technology

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge the valuable assistance of Stephen Fortescue in the development of this article.

Notes

1. http://en.special.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/52178.

2. Note that there were originally three categories of negative environmental impact (severe, moderate, and minor), but this was changed to four early on during the policy process (significant, moderate, minor, and minimal).

3. These negotiations were put on hold by the OECD in March 2014 in response to the Ukraine crisis.

4. The State Council is an advisory body, chaired by the president. It includes the speakers of the Federation Council and the Duma, the presidential plenipotentiary envoys (to the federal districts), and the regional heads of government. The Council meets every three months. The presidium has nine members drawn from the State Council, and meets at least once a month.

5. This group of major polluters was one of the three groups outlined at the May 2010 State Council Meeting.

6. The Expert Council of the Russian Government is an advisory body that examines economic and social questions, and provides expert input into decision-making and policy implementation. It is also supposed to form a link between civil society and the prime minister. It has a very large membership, which includes a range of representatives from NGOs including the WWF, the private sector, academe, and business associations including the TPP and the RSPP.

7. Interestingly, Belousov was deputy minister of the MER from 2006, and was appointed minister from 2012 to 2013. He would have been at the MER during a large part of the NDT policy debate, but appears to have not been heavily involved in discussions. Since June 2013, Belousov has been a presidential aide. In June 2015, he was elected chairman of the board of directors at Rosneft.

8. The other was the Committee for Construction and Land Relations.

9. At the end of February 2015, the heads of five of Russia’s largest oil companies (Lukoil, Gazprom Neft, Surgutneftegaz, Bashneft, and Tatneft) wrote a letter to Putin requesting special consideration in the face of unfavorable economic conditions and declining oil prices. Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin’s signature was notably absent. The so-called “oilmen’s anti-crisis letter” (antikrizisnoe pis’mo neftyanikov) aimed to reduce the administrative burden on industry, primarily in relation to environmental regulation. A number of proposals were put forward, including the temporary reduction or delay of several regulations, including plans to reduce gas flaring and the requirement to rehabilitate damaged land. It was suggested that penalties for negative environmental impact not be raised for two or three years (recall that the latter were part of the NDT regulations). It was proposed to transfer enterprises in the fuel and energy complex that were classified as high or medium risk (in terms of their environmental impact) to the jurisdiction of Minenergo, which presumably might be more lenient in its application of environmental law (Podobedova 2015).