1

044468

EACH-FOR

Environmental Change and Forced Migration Scenarios

Specific Targeted Project

Scientific support to policies – SSP

Deliverable reference number and title: D 2.1.1.3

Environment and migration in the VOLGA RIVER BASIN (Russian Federation)

Due date of deliverable: 31.12.2008

Actual submission date: 26.3.2009

Start date of project: 01.01.2007

Duration: 2 years

Organisation name of lead contractor for this deliverable: EUR Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Sixth Framework

Programme (2002-2006)

Dissemination Level

PU Public PU

PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission

Services)

RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the

Commission Services)

CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the

Commission Services)

EACH-FOR is a project funded by the European Commission, by SERI (Austria) and by ATLAS

Innoglobe (Hungary)

Project website: www.each-for.eu

2

TThhee VVoollggaa RRiivveerr BBaassiinn

TThhee RRuussssiiaann FFeeddeerraattiioonn CCaassee SSttuuddyy RReeppoorrtt

Responsible Institution:

Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR)

Authors: Dr. Alfons Fermin (EUR/Erasmus MC, Rotterdam) and

Dr. Irina Molodikova (CEU, Budapest)1

1. INTRODUCTION

This case study is on the relation between environment and migration in the Volga river basin of the Russian Federation. It explores the relation between environment and migration both in the past and the present. In contrast to other EACH-FOR case studies, this one is without field work, except for 3 interviews with experts. This first chapter presents both the national and regional contexts of the case study. The second chapter justifies and defines the case study area and describes the methods and approach of the case study. The third chapter presents and analyses the case study findings. First, it describes the history of river reconstruction and dam building in the Volga, with the resulting vast forced population movements in the Soviet era. Next, the current relation between environment and migration is explored, first by analysing available migration data, and subsequently by presenting and considering information from 3 expert interviews to investigate how some of the current most important environmental challenges or accidents in the region has impacted society and migration processes. The concluding chapter recapitulates the answers to the central questions of the case study. 1.1. Overview of the national and regional context 1.1.1. Russian Federation In December 1991, the USSR disintegrated into the Russian Federation and 14 other independent republics. Since then, the Russian Federation has been in a process of transition to build a democratic political system and market economy. Russia is a Federation constituted of 83 subjects or administrative 1 Irina Molodikova provided input for the sections on migration and on methods; she has

written the sections on ‘research findings and analysis’ (except the section on the Cabri-Volga project) and the ‘conclusions’. Alfons Fermin has written the other sections and edited the case study and conclusion sections. Irina Molodikova thanks colleagues who provided information on some environmental issues and helped to organize interviews, in particular Prof. Ruben Mnatsakanyan, Dean of CEU department, and PhD student Tsvetkova Ekaterina who provided information for the overview of environmental context of the Volga river basin.

3

units or regions of the federation: 46 of them are called ‘oblast’, 21 are ‘republics’, 4 are autonomous districts, 9 are territories, 2 are federal cities (Moscow and St. Petersburg), and 1 is an autonomous region. The administrative heads of the region are called ‘governors’, although their official titles vary. In 2000 the regional heads lost much of their power to the president of the Russian Federation, President Vladimir Putin at that time. He divided Russia in seven new entities called Federal Districts or Federal Okrugs (FO’s).2 From the 2000 elections until May 7 2008, President Putin was President of the Russian Federation. He restored order and stability after the Yeltsin era, but he also recentralised power in the federation. On May 7, 2008, Dmitry Medvedev became Russia's third post-Soviet president. But Putin continued to rule the Federation as prime minister. Russia is a middle income country with a gross national income per capita of $4460 in 2005 (GNI, Atlas method, WDI-2006). Until recently, the Russian economy was flourishing. The economy, mainly based on exploitation and export of the rich mineral and natural resources of the country, was fuelled by high international oil prices (The World Bank 2007). However, the recent international economic crises and fall of oil prices has impacted the Russian economy severely, compounded by high levels of bureaucracy and corruption (see: Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index). The Russian population reached a peak in 1992 when it was 148.3 million. According to the last census of 2002, the population decreased to 145.2 million. That is, in a decade, the population decreased by 3.1 million persons or by 2.1%. Two years after the census, in early 2005, the country had lost 1.7 million persons more. The population went down to 143.5 million. Thus the total decrease was 3.2% (Zainchkovskaya 2007). This decrease took place against an unprecedented net migration increase after the disintegration of the USSR. According to the census data of 1989-2002, Russia’s population increased by 5.6 million persons due to the influx of migrants. However, even such huge immigration flows are insufficient to compensate for the rapid decrease of the natural population and working age population. Currently, migration policy is perceived by the Russian government and Russian scholars, as one of the most important measures to overcome the forecasted demographic and labour shortage crisis. There is already a shortfall of appropriately-trained workers, which is exacerbated by low labour mobility (Foreign and Commonwealth Office 2007). Economic growth has contributed to recent improvement of the Human Development Index in the vast majority of Russia’s regions, but inequality between the less and the more developed regions has increased (UNDP 2007: 122). There is a dramatic regional diversity in human development indices and the regional disparities are widening. Over a quarter of Russia’s population lives in regions where the HDI is above the national average. And 2 http://www.russiaprofile.org/resources/territory On Federal subjects or administrative

units of Russia, see also: http://www.indopedia.org/Federal_subjects_of_Russia.html . For maps of administrative subdivisions, see: http://flagspot.net/flags/ru(f.html

4

15% of the population is living in the most affluent areas of the Russian Federation (Moscow, Tyumen region, St. Petersburg and Tatarstan). In contrast, 6% of the Russian population live in regions with the worst indicators (below 0.730), and two thirds of the country lives in the numerous regions of the vast "middle zone" that are lacking resources for development (UNDP 2007: 113). However, the higher the income level of a region, the higher the income inequality tends to be. Rapid economic growth leads to rapid increase of inequalities. This applies also the inequalities between men and women on the labour market. While in the Soviet Union, labour participation of women was promoted as essential for the functioning of the economy, inequalities increased with the transition to the market economy. Joblessness among women has increased, due to the economic restructuring, but also due to discriminatory practices (CIDA 1999). The Russian Federation has a multitude of national, ethnic, religious and linguistic groups. Regarding its national composition, according to the 2002 census, the Russian population consists of: Russian 79.8%, Tatar 3.8%, Ukrainian 2%, Bashkir 1.2%, Chuvash 1.1%, other or unspecified 12.1% (CIA World Factbook 2007). For distribution of religions, the estimated percentages of the population were (in 2006): Russian Orthodox 15-20%, Muslim 10-15%, other Christian 2% (CIA World Factbook 2007). This diversity is partly concentrated geographically: there are 21 ethnic Republics in the Russian Federation. Human development in Russia also has a clear ethnic dimension (UNDP 2007: 11).

1.1.2. Volga River Basin

The Volga River Basin is situated within the European part of the Russian Federation. The Volga river is the longest river in Europe, with a length of about 3,530 km (CABRI-Volga 2006). The source of the Volga is located in the Valdai Hills north-west of Moscow and the river ends up in the Caspian Sea. There are more than 200 large tributaries of the Volga river, the major ones are Oka, Belaya, Vyatka and Kama, each of them with a length of more than 1 000 km. Approaching the Caspian Sea, the Volga river spreads into a delta area which consists of about 275 channels covering about 12000 km2. This is one of the largest delta areas in Europe. The Volga Basin spreads across four major vegetation zones: the main water-collecting part in the north of the basin lies within a zone of mixed and broadleaf forests (from the river source towards approximately cities of Nizhniy Novgorod and Kazan). The next part of the basin, between cities of Samara and Saratov spreads across a forest-steppe transitional zone. Next, between Saratov and Volgograd lies the region of proper steppes, and further southward the semi-deserts. The Volga River Basin is the largest river system in Europe (1,358 million square km) covering nearly one-third of the territory of the European part of the Russian Federation (Figure 1). The autonomy of the federal subjects or regions (oblasts, republics, etc.) varies, with for example the (ethnic) Republic

5

of Tartarstan as a more autonomous region. Its capital Kazan is the Russian Islamic centre (CABRI-Volga 2006a: 31). The Basin is located in one of the most populated areas of Russia, in the geographic centre of European Russia. About 59 million people or nearly 40% of the population of the Russian Federation lives in this basin. The population density is high in the basin. The Russia average density is 8.3 people per km2, while in this region it is about 31 people per km2. The region accounts for 8% of Russia’s territory and produces almost 45% of the industrial and 50% of the agricultural production of the country (CABRI-Volga 2006c). The social and economic situation in the case study area varies considerably between and within oblasts and republics. In general, it is a highly urbanized region, with 74% of its population living in 445 cities or urbanized areas. Seven of the cities have a population over 1 million: Moscow, Nizhniy Novgorod, Samara, Perm, Kazan, Ufa and Volgograd (CABRI-Volga 2006a: 30). 33% of the Volga Basin population lives in the Moscow agglomeration, and 50% of the Volga Basin population lives in the Moscow agglomeration together with the ‘satellite’ oblasts located 150-250 km from Moscow (CABRI-Volga 2006a: 29-30). The Volga basin region encompasses some regions with a gross regional product that exceeds the national average, such as the Republic of Tartarstan, the Perm and Samara regions, and the Moscow and Vologda region (UNESCO 2004). But the basin also includes cities and regions of the federation ranking as economically depressed areas, such as Ivanovo, Ryazan, Mordovia and Mariy-Ei with a GDP twice lower than the Russian average (CABRI-Volga 2006a: 33). The natural resources, industries, electricity production (11 hydropower stations on the Volga and its major tributary the Kama) and agricultural production contribute to the economic potential and growth in the basin (CABRI-Volga 2006c). However, a significant part of the population in the Volga River Basin lives in poverty. For example, poverty rates in most regions in the Volga Federal District are 22-30% (UNDP 2007), and in the total natural Volga basin region 43% of the population has an income lower than subsistence level (CABRI-Volga 2006a: 30). Unemployment levels are also high, according to the CABRI-Volga project (2006a: 30), one third of the population is unemployed or works in the informal economy; the current economic crisis will have worsened the situation. In general, the HDI index becomes lower and the poverty rates becomes higher southwards: in the Central Federal District the average HDI it is higher than in the Volga Region Federal District, while it is even lower in the Southern Federal District (UNDP 2007). However there are huge differences between regions and republics. Health problems and declining life expectancy in Russia in general, but also in the Volga river basin, add to the social vulnerabilities of part of the population in this region. Life expectancy in the Volga basin is 66 years, and the population has been declining since the early 1990s (CABRI-Volga 2006a: 30). The Volga river itself is traditionally divided into three major parts: the Upper part of the Volga River Basin (between the source and joining of Oka

6

tributary); the Central or Middle part of the Volga River Basin (between tributaries Oka and Kama); and the Lower part of the Volga basin and the Delta (southwards towards the Caspian Sea). For the purpose of this case study we will define the territory of the Volga River Basin (VRB) along administrative boundaries: those of Federal Okrugs and/or oblasts and republics. In 2001, during the presidency of Vladimir Putin, the country was divided into 7 Federal Okrugs or Federal Districts led by direct representatives of the president. After this change, many of the Federal programs and socio-economic initiatives are financially supported at the level of Okrugs. From that time, the governance and socio-economic development of the regions and financial provision is not only related with the previous and still existing 89 administrative units of Russia, but also with the Federal Okrugs. As will be further defined and justified in the Methods chapter, we took as a case study area, a selection of 20 oblasts and autonomous republics along the Volga river, excluding the Moscow region and regions near the capital (see Annex for a map and table with the regions of the case study area).

7

Figure 1 Volga River Basin

Source: CABRI-Volga Project http://cabri-volga.org/ There is a big diversity between the 20 regions of VRB. The Upper Volga river region (UpVRB) is characterized by different demographic characteristics as compared to the middle (PFO) and lower (DoVRB) Volga regions. For example, UpVRB territories belong to an area which underwent early industrialization since the end of 19th century, and demographic depopulation developments since 1970s. These 4 oblasts have the most ageing population in the Central Federal Okrug. But their location near the Moscow metropolitan area makes them attractive for international migrants for decades (Molodikova 1987).

8

About a half of the 89 administrative-territorial constituents of the Russian Federation are national autonomies or (ethnic) republics. The importance of this fact cannot be underestimated because they are often characterized by their own policies, including migration policies. In our case, 6 out of 20 selected administrative units in the VRB are ethnic regions

1.2. Overview of the environmental situation in Russia and the Volga river basin

1.2.1. Russian Federation3 Russia is a country with rich mineral and natural resources. It has the largest forested area of any country and abundant surface and groundwater resources. However, many of its resources are located in remote areas with a harsh climate and this makes it expensive to extract them. Despite impressive progress achieved by the government during the 1990s in creating a legal and institutional framework of environmental management, Russia is still confronted with an inherited "stock" of environmental problems. These problems are exacerbated by low levels of investments, deteriorated performance of the national environmental management system, lack of preventive measures and abusive use of natural resources.4 Some of the environmental problems:

- Air quality. Violations of air quality standards were reported in 208 cities and towns surveyed in 1994. Cases where concentrations were over 10 times higher than the air quality standards were reported in 83 cities. While there is an overall favourable trend in the national air quality over time, negative trends have been observed in some of the biggest cities.

- Water quality. Negative water quality trends have been reported. The

number of water bodies with severe violations of water quality standards is gradually increasing. The level of pollution of the coastal seas is constantly high.

- Land. Over the last 25 years the total area of agricultural land has

decreased by more than 30 million ha. More than 1.5 million ha of land were destroyed in 1970-1991 in the course of geological exploration and mining. The area damaged by industrial and agricultural toxic pollution equalled 74 million ha in 1993.

- Forests and wildlife. Over 300,000 ha of forests were destroyed in

1994, including 270,000 ha of forests lost due to wild fires. Desertification problems have been reported within 17 territories of Russia. There are pronounced trends towards a decrease of wildlife

3 Source for this section: internal SERI (2007) report on Europe and Russia

4 World Bank, Russian Federation: Environment. http://go.worldbank.org/39GZTD4M60

9

habitats and a reduction of wildlife populations. Fish populations in inland and coastal waters have been seriously affected by wastewater discharges.

- Radioactivity. As a result of the Chernobyl accident, over 50,000 km2

of Russian territory (1.5% of the area of the European part of Russia) has been polluted with radionuclides, with radioactivity exceeding 1 Ci/km2. As a result of radioactive ore extraction and fuel preparation for nuclear power stations, 60,000 ha of land had been contaminated with radionuclides by 1993. Approximately 1,500 million Ci of solid and liquid radioactive wastes are currently stored at radio-chemical plants. High-radiation solid wastes (13 million Ci) are stored at 24 dumping sites. Another 200 dumping sites contain 30,000 Ci of medium- and low-radiation liquid wastes. Radioactive wastes from military and naval installations continue to be a significant threat to the environment.

Combinations of various environmental problems account for the unhealthy environment in many areas of Russia, including virtually all big cities and urban agglomerations, the European North of Russia, the catchment basins of the Baikal Lake and the Great European Lakes, the Caspian and the Black seas, the Ural and Kuzbass regions, and numerous areas polluted as a result of the Chernobyl accident. Of the 10 most polluted cities according to The Blacksmith Institute (2007), two were situated in Russia: Norilsk (heavy air pollution due to metal mining and processing) and Dzerzhinsk (chemicals and toxics as a legacy of the USSR weapon production). According to data of EM-DAT, 7 of the top ten natural disasters in Russia since 1990 in terms of the number of people affected were floods. Four of the flood events affected more than 200,000 people. The other disasters were extreme temperatures (1999), wild fires (1998) and epidemic (1995). The disintegration of the Soviet Union and the transition to a market economy and democracy has radically changed the institutional framework for environmental protection in Russia. New legislation was enacted, administration and environmental management was reorganised and decentralised, new economic instruments and participatory procedures were introduced, and the business sector and NGOs struggled to receive a new role. The institutional framework for natural disaster reduction has been established very well on national level during the 1990s (CABRI-Volga 2006a: 95). However, although the mentioned transformations opened new opportunities for environmental protection, the effectiveness of new environmental protection institutions and instruments varies, and in general appeared to be lower than expected (CABRI-Volga 2006c: 10). The sometimes chaotic transition period of the 1990s, including an economic crisis, the widespread corruption in the Federation, and the changing and complex administrative distribution of responsibilities between the Federation and various administrative units of the federation are probably main reasons for these problems of implementation and effectiveness.

1.2.2. Volga River Basin

10

Overall, the environmental situation in the Volga River Basin is better than in Western European basins. For example, water quality in the Volga is better than in the Rhine and Elbe (CABRI-Volga 2006c: 4-5). Still, there are problems with the drinking water quality in the Volga basin. For example, non of the cities in the Volga basin are supplied with drinking water that meets the national and WHO quality standards (ibid). General environmental problems along the river are those of land degradation and deforestation. And biodiversity in especially the lower Volga and Volga delta is at risk. The delta environment experiences a decline in commercial fish stock, degradation of coastal landscapes and a deterioration of environmental quality due to upstream pollution (CABRI-Volga 2006a: 42). Furthermore, the east–west oil and gas pipeline transportation systems intersect the Volga basin. These pipelines lifetime is close to expiration. Some of the submerged crossing in the Upper-and Mid-Volga and it tributaries pose risks in the Volga region (Roshydromet, 2005). There are a number of areas in the Volga Basin that are extremely polluted and where environment is in crisis. These places will be indicated in chapter 3, as well as the issue of flood risk in this region. 1.3. Overview of migration in Russia and the Volga river basin 1.3.1. Russian Federation Studies on migration in Russia usually do not look back much further than the early 1990s. Firstly, the disintegration of the USSR in 1991 changed the migration flows radically. In the preceding Soviet decades there was a significant inflow from other Soviet republics to Russia as well as a substantial reverse flow of ethnic Russians to these other Soviet republics. This outflow of Russians reversed in the 1990s, while previous internal migration flows were transformed into border crossing flows. Secondly, there is a the lack of (comparable) data on migration for the time before the year of 1992. Until then no special statistical migration data was maintained. There was no right of free movement in the Soviet Union; migration required permission. Still, population changes were registered, but in a different manner. Any citizen of the former USSR changing his place of residence had to fill in a leaving form and an entrance form. Until the 1990s, such forms allowed the assessment of the total of arrivals (the information of entrance forms was considered more reliable than those of leaving forms). Thus, it was possible for Statistical Offices in regions to calculate migration flows. Since 1992, as a result of the mass inflow of people into Russia, the State Statistical Committee began to collect and to publish annual overviews of migration data. In addition, in 1994, a first micro census was conducted, covering about 5% of total population of Russia (Goscomstat 1995). This was the first research that collected information about the places of origin of the migrants, their length of stay in the place of residence and their reasons for migration. Experts distinguish several main phases of migration flows and policies in Russia since 1991 (Mukomel 2005; Analytic report 2005; Molodikova 2005). The first period (1991-1996) was one of collapse for the Soviet Union, accompanied by a rise in forced migration and resettlement. The collapse

11

went along with local conflicts on the periphery of Russia. The internal and international migration flows traditionally from the central (Western) part to the peripheries of the USSR changed after the disintegration of the Soviet Union in the opposite direction: return migration to Russia from the other CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) countries and Baltic states of mainly ethnic Russians, and internal migration from Siberia and the Northern regions to the central, western regions of Russia. Approximately 25 million ethnic Russians were residing in other Soviet republics at the time of the disintegration of the USSR. The main flows of forced migrants to Russia between 1992-1997 came from Central Asia and Kazakhstan (67%), the Caucasus (17.6%) , the Ukraine (9.9%), the Baltic states (4.8%), and Belarus (0.7%). At the same time, there was a significant outflow of ethnic Germans and Jews from Russia predominantly to Germany, Israel and the USA (Chislennost naselenia, 1993,,1994,1995, 1996, 1997, 1998). There was a dire need for resettlement assistance and policies, which were lacking at the time. The Russian authorities had no experience with free international migration management. The second phase (1997-2000) was a time of decreasing forced migration and the start of labour migration. After the peak of forced migration in 1995, the inflow of forced migrants decreased gradually. Ethnic violence and conflicts were resolved or ‘frozen’, with the exception of the one in Chechnya. The exchange with the CIS countries and the Baltic States decreased, because the potential of ethnic Russian migrants was nearly exhausted, and the social and economic situation in these former Soviet countries gradual improved. Furthermore, the migration and citizenship laws and policy of the Russian Federation became tougher for migrants from the CIS countries over the years (Rybakovsky & Ryazantsev 2005). This restrictive policy did not allow migrants to register and to settle down officially. With the gradual normalization of the affairs, labour migration increased, mainly of irregular nature. Illegal labour migration flows exceeded the official resettlement flows, as well as the officially registered licensed labour migrants flows. Labour migration flows were motivated by differences in income and salaries in Russia and other CIS countries. The ethnic composition of labour migrants was different from that of repatriates or forced migrants. The major labour migration came from CIS countries: Ukraine (81%), Belarus (9,1%), and Moldova (6,4%). A significant flow of – temporary - labour migrants came also from Turkey. With the 2001 terrorist attacks in the USA and their aftermath, national security and controlling potential terrorist threats became central concerns of the authorities in the CIS countries. The already not very supportive responses of the authorities towards migration were backed by restrictive laws in the first years of the new century. In this third period (2001-2005), Russia tightened migration control and attempted to control irregular migration. Programs of repatriation and resettlement were curtailed and the Ministry of Interior became the main actor to manage migration in the Federation. The restrictive migration policy led to increasing irregular migration. This repressive policy, together with the high level of corruption in Russian bureaucracy, pushed migrants into the shadow economy (Andrienko & Guriev

12

2005: 3). In 2005, the officials recognized that in Russia, the number of illegal migrants fluctuated between 3.5 mln. and 15 mln people (Mukomel 2005, Molodikova 2007). Furthermore, Russian policy is characterized by many other contradictions, for example, between different federal agencies, and between federal and regional authorities (Rybakovsky, & Ryazantsev 2005: 20). The steady population decrease, reinforced by this restrictive policy of migration, led to a demographic crisis. Research showed that since 1995 the process of population decrease became a universal trend and migration could not compensate for natural loss even in the territories close to the border with Kazakhstan, where the number of incoming migrants is quite high (Molodikova, Nozdrina 1998, Zaionchkovskaya, 2004). About 40% of large enterprises have labour shortages (Analytic report, 2005). The demographic decrease and labour market shortages, in combination with inefficient policies to control irregular migration, incited the Federal government to change its policy towards migration. This policy change is the start of the fourth period (from 2007 onwards). The Russian Federal government introduced a new immigration policy. New migration laws entered into effect with regard to registration of foreign citizens and stateless persons, and an amended law on the legal status of foreign citizens. They simplified the procedures for registration of migrants at their place of residence along with employment (Zayonchkovkaya 2007). They removed serious obstacles for legislation of immigrants. These new laws transformed migration policy from one of migration prevention into one of “open doors” to labour migrants from neighbouring countries. According to the government, this policy is intended to compensate for the declining population and labour shortages. The laws also offered the Russian authorities the opportunity to establish quotas for economic migrants (Laruelle 2007). Thus, the Russian authorities fixed the quota for 2007 on 6 million work permits for labour migrants from former Soviet Union countries that have free visa movement with Russia. In that year the Federal Migration Service issued about 2 million work permits. In 2008, the quota also applied to migrants from “far abroad” (China and Vietnam) and some former Soviet Republics which currently have visa agreements with Russia (Georgia, Baltic States, Turkmenistan). In addition to liberalization of registration and access to the labour market, a program for compatriot resettlement was enacted. Such a program was much needed in the 1990s, but was abandoned at that time due to scarcity of funds. Currently, the threat of a demographic crisis pushes the Russian government to develop a program on attracting compatriots. The program aims at the resettlement of 300 thousand compatriots in Russia by 2012. But the results of this program are still very modest, mainly because of the lack of financial support in the regions of resettlement. Only about 30,000 people resettled until now, although the interest in CIS countries and even from “far abroad” is very high.

13

From 1989 to 2002, Russia received some 11 million immigrants, an average of 781,000 per year (Zaionchkovskaya, 2007: 140). In absolute volumes of immigration, both in terms of stocks and flows of immigrants, Russia has established itself among the leading immigration countries. In 2000 it was second only to the USA in the world (Andrienko & Guriev 2005). After its peak at the end of the first half of the 1990s, the rate of net migration dropped to 300 000 - 200 000 people in 1997 and about 60 000 people in 2001. (Molodikova, Nozdrina 1998, Goskomstat: Chislennost i migratsia 1998,1999, 2000, 2001). The number of registered refugees and forced migrants was at its zenith in 1998 (1191,939), and has decreased substantially since then to 85,406 in 2008 (Goskomstat 1999, 2004, 2007, 2008). A main reason was that most military conflicts as a consequence of the crumbling of the Soviet Union had ended at that time. Citizens from the former Soviet Union may be granted the status of ‘forced migrant’ under the Law On Forced Migrants of 1995. This forced migrants law applies primarily to citizens of the Russian Federation or citizens of the former Soviet Union who are forced to leave their homes because of violence, persecution or fear of persecution, whereas the refugee law of 1993 applies to foreign nationals.5 Presently, the refugee status is granted seldom in the Russian Federation, while the refugee status of those who are granted this status expires when they become Russian citizens. The status of forced migrant is also now rarely granted; it is granted to no more than one thousand people a year, mainly to citizens from former Soviet Union Caucasus republics, such as Chechnya and Ingushetia. 1.3.2. Volga River Basin The migration phases described above are not only typical for Russia in general, but in important aspects also for the Volga River Basin..Notably however, the numbers and characteristics of the migration flows in this region have their own peculiarities. Net migration rates of the VRB and the PFO in the 1990s generally repeated the overall Russian trend: both had an upsurge in the beginning of 1990s and a rapid decrease in the second half of that decennium to nearly zero net migration by 2001 (Artobolevskii, Zaionchkovskaya, 2004). Until 1995, migration did not only fully compensate for natural loss in many regions of the VRB but also provided some population growth in the region (for more than 1% in 1991-1995). In the succeeding years, the population in the VRB decreased as rapidly as in the country in general (-1,8% in VRB and -2,5% in Russia during 1996-2001). (p.36 Artobolevskii, Zaionchkovskaya, 2004, p.33). Between 1992-1997, the share of forced migrants in the regions of the Volga River Basin was very high; 30-36% of all forced migrants and refugees in Russia were received in the Volga River Basin. The high share of forced migrants in the VRB can be explained both by its geographical position near

5 http://www.legislationline.org/ Legislationline: Russian Federation: Immigration law and

policy.

14

the borders with former Soviet republics, and by its climate conditions, especially in the middle and lower part of the basin that resembles the conditions of Central Asia and Kazakhstan, main regions of origin of many forced migrants. Similar to the national trend, the numbers of forced migrants and refugees substantially decreased since 1998 (from 401,148 in 1998 to 19,295 in 2008; Goskomstat 1999, 2004, 2007, 2008). The decrease to 2001 of migration in Russia is reflected in all three sub-regions of the VRB. The VRB is situated on the route of internal migration flows from Siberia and the Far East to the European part of Russia and functions as a transit territory for internal migrants (Artobolevskii, Zhaionchkovskaya 2004). The demographic situation in the VRB region since 2001 was characterized by stagnation and decline because of the halted forced migration inflows and because the strict migration policy did not allow migrants to register and to settle down officially. The effects of the liberalization and legalization policy of January 2007 became visible in 2007 already. The situation in the regions improved, firstly because of the increase of migration inflow from CIS countries as a result of the more liberal policy and secondly, as a result of official registration of illegal migrants, who already existed in these areas in the previous years, but were statistically “invisible”. To understand the differences between regions, we have to analyze the composition of internal and international migration in the total migration inflow of every administrative area (Goskomstat 2000, 2002, 2006, 2008). Analysis shows that all regions have positive international immigration, but many of them lose population to other regions in Russia. Internal migration cannot be a substantial demographic donor for the VRB due to increasing competition for labour migrants between many regions in European Russia. Only in some 4 to 6 regions (Yaroslavskaya, Nizhegorodskaya, Samarskaya, Tatarstan, and in some years also Astrakhanskaya, Kostromskaya and Ivanovskaya), are the internal inflows from other Russian regions a substantial factor in their positive migration balance between 2002-2007. Between 2001 and 2007 about 3 to 6 regions in the VRB had a positive migration balance because international migration compensated internal outflow to other regions. And some 8 to 13 regions had a negative migration balance, because international migration did not compensate internal migration outflow. (Data from Goskomstat 2000, 2002, 2006, 2008). Currently, the biggest Russian cities are growing almost entirely due to migration, and only migration is capable of providing their future growth. However all regional centres in the VRB are losing their population. (Molodikova, Makhrove 2007; Artobolevskii, Zaionchkovskaya 2004: 71). From the beginning of 1992, the total population of the 5 cities with one million or more inhabitants decreased from 6,036.7 thousand people to 5,577.8 thousand people in 2005. In the beginning of 2008 in the VRB there were 4 cities with a population of a million and more: Samara, Nizhny Novgorod, Kazan and Ufa. Perm’s population slightly decreased in 2005 to “only” 990,000. The biggest cities in the region stagnated and they only weakly

15

attract local population (Artobolervskii, Zaionchkovskaya 2004: 34). Even Nizhny Novgorod, the fourth largest city in Russia (after Moscow, Saint-Petersburg and Novosibirsk), is not a centre of attraction for the population of its own region (Artobolevskii, Zaionchkovskaya 2004: 68). It however plays this role for the population of other regions of Russia. Samarskaya oblast, Nizhegorodskaya oblast, Yaroslavlskaya oblast and Tatarstan are the main regions in the VRB attracting migrants from other regions. The ethnic characteristic of migration flows from the CIS countries in the researched years (1999-2007) was stable. Migration was dominated by ethnic Russians (53%), a quarter were nationalities that have their own nation-territorial autonomies (republics) in the Russian Federation (Tatars, Bashkirs, Chyvashi, Marijtsi, Udmurti, Mordva, Komi-Permyaki); and 20% are migrants from the indigenous ethnic groups of the CIS countries in Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and the Caucasus. For this reason, in the majority of the regions, migrants practically do not interfere with the existing inter-ethnic balance. In Orenburgskaya oblast and Saratovskaya oblast nationals from CIS countries, above all Kazakhstan, Central Asian countries and Trans-Caucasian states (Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan) play an important role in the increase of immigrants, but the increase of numbers of migrants originating from these countries is gradual (Artobolevskii, Zaionchkovskaya 2004 p.59, Molodikova, Nozdrina 1998). The ethnic and national composition of the migration flows are gradually changing. With the decrease of forced migration and the increase of labour migration, the share of migrants from the Ukraine and Moldova is increasing. The introduction of the new liberalization policy in 2007 changed the geography of migration significantly in one year. The variety of source regions increased, and in 17 from the 20 regions, we can see now dominant migrant groups from other CIS countries (Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Armenia). The statistics of 2007 reveal the hidden illegal migrants that already stayed there illegally, and registered after the introduction of the new laws. Economic motives now dominate, and this explains why Kazakhstan in 2008 was replaced by Uzbekistan, Ukraine and Armenia as the main sending country. Kazakhstan’s socio–economic indexes does not differ much from those of Russia and this country is competing with Russia for labour migrants from Central Asia (Molodikova 2007). 2. METHODS 2.1. Justification of the selection The Volga River Basin region is one of the main regions in the Russian Federation, both in economic and demographic terms. The basin has been the subject of environmental risk management research: the CABRI-Volga project on Cooperation along a Big River (http://cabri-volga.org/). The relationship of environmental risks and risk management with migration patterns in this region has however not been investigated.

16

The Volga River Basin is an interesting case study region because of the vast forced displacement of populations due to dam and reservoir construction projects during the Soviet era. In this respect, comparisons with other forced displacement cases within the EACH-FOR project are possible, for instance the Three Gorges Dam in China and the Ataturk Dam in Turkey. Flood vulnerability has been reduced substantially by these river regulations efforts. Currently, the main environmental risks in this region are related to industrial activities and pollution, both as a heritage of the past and as a product of more recent economic developments. Some of the most polluted sites of Russia and even of the world are located in this region. The boundaries of the Case Study region – the Volga River Basin – have been defined using two approaches. Official data on migration is available at the level of oblasts and autonomic republics.

1. The first line defining the region is the official division into administrative units of the Russian Federation in Federal Okrugs or Districts, established in 2001. Using this approach we took all Privolzskii Federal Okrug (PFO), which consists of 14 oblast and autonomous republics, as the Central part of the VRB. Formally the Volga river itself flows only in 7 of these 14 administrative units, but all of them are within the basin, including the water catchments of major tributaries such as the Kama.

2. The second criterion for the definition of the VRB region is in terms of

the territory of the administrative oblast or autonomous republics. According to this criterion and in accordance with the traditional division of Volga River Basin into upper, middle and lower parts, we included the regions of Tver, Ivanovo, Yaroslavl and Kostroma from the Central Federal Okrug into the Upper Volga River Basin (UpVRB). Privolzsky Federal Okrug (PFO) as a whole constitutes the middle part of the Volga Basin, as indicated above. And the Volgograd and Astrakhan oblasts belonging to the South Federal Okrug, constitute the lower, downstream part of VRB (DoVRB). (See Annex for a map and table of the regions)

According to our division, the VRB as case study area consists of 20 oblasts and autonomous republics. This definition of the VRB diverges somewhat from the natural basin of the Volga River, which also includes parts of Moscow, Ryazan, Smolensk and Tula oblasts in the upper parts of the basin. It was decided that these four regions be excluded from this case study because the migration processes in these oblasts are influenced to a very great extent by developments in the capital Moscow and the Moscow region (Molodikova 1989).

2.2. Discussion of methods

This case study deviates from the general format of most other EACH-FOR case studies because It does not incorporate fieldwork. In the EACH-FOR research plan, it was decided to limit the European case studies to desk

17

research, because it was expected that sufficient data and research reports would be available. However, it turned out that studies on the relationship between environment and migration in Russia are rare. Therefore, some additional interviews with 3 experts were undertaken. Another important divergence to the methodology of most of the other EACH-FOR case study reports is the historical approach of this case study. A historical element is highly relevant in this case, because of the huge forced population movements due to dam building activities in the Soviet times. The current situation in this region is also studied with regard to the effects of environmental developments on the local society, including in- and outmigration. The EACH-FOR core case study question is: what is the relationship between environmental change and (forced) migration in the selected sites/country? To understand this relationship and changes in this relationship, an additional question is: how is this relationship and changes in this relationship linked to social, demographic, political, institutional and economic transformation processes? This question is addressed here by investigating both past and current developments. The research of this CSR is based on available literature, internet resources, official data and informal information collected by interviews with experts. The three expert interviews made it possible to identify sites with potential environmental (flooding, water-logging, salinisation, bank erosion, air and water pollution) reasons for migration. At the same time, the experts were questioned about whether these environmental hotspots caused some outmigration. Altogether, a few examples of the most polluted cities were pointed out, as well as reservoirs with acute river bank erosion and water-logging problems, the Cheboksary reservoir case (potential flooding problem if the water level rises) and some emergency situations associated with various environmental disasters. Secondly, we analysed available migration data to detect the importance of environmental motives for migration. Our analyses of (forced) migration flows and motives for migration mainly made use of statistics of the State Committee of Russian Federation Statistics yearbooks “ Chislennost I Migratsia Naseleniaon Rossiiskoi Federatsii “ in 1992, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2008, Demographic Yearbooks of Russia for 1990-1999, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007 and Microcensus 1994: Prodolzitelnost prozivania naselenia Rossii v meste postoiannogo zitelstva (GKS 1995). Since 1992, the mass inflow of people into Russia pushed the State Statistical Committee to collect and to publish annual overviews of data on migration. In 1994 there was the first micro census of the population, covering about 5% of total population of Russia (Goscomstat 1995). This was the first research that allowed the collection of information about the places of origin of the migrants and the length of stay in the place of residence. This was also the first time that people were asked questions about the reasons for migration. Since that time the indices of the reasons for migration started to be regularly published in the annual collections.

18

According to us, with this combination of analysis of migration data and expert interviews, our approach is appropriate as an explorative one to detect main areas in the VRB where migration could be attributed to environmental causes. 3. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS 3.1. Introduction Historically the Volga River was subject to periodic floods. Its floodplain contained some of the most productive agricultural lands in Russia, mostly meadows. Among main sources of water for the Volga River were snow melting (60%), followed by ground water (30%) and rain water (10%). Maximum flooding was in spring (April- June), minimum in the summer and winter, and small increases in autumn (October). Average annual runoff of the Volga River is about 250 km3 (direct observations started in 1881). Minimum runoff before regulation of the river was observed in the dry year of 1921 (162 km3), and a maximum in the wet year of 1926 (382 km3). Seasonal variations were even more spectacular. For example, in spring of 1926 near Volgograd the highest ever discharge was measured (59,000m3/sec), while in the summer low water discharge could go down to 2000 m3/sec, and in winter even to 700-800 m3/sec. Before dam construction and regulation, the annual variations of water level near the city of Tver could reach 11 meters, at the junction of the Volga with its main tributary Kama 15-17 meters, and in the delta area, near Astrakhan- around 3 meters.6 Obviously such variations could cause flooding of large areas. For example, during the above-mentioned flood of 1926, the water level in Kazan, capital of Tatarstan, rose by 14.8 meters and nearly 700 houses were destroyed, as well as dams, bridges, tram routes, etc.7 But habitually people settling in the Volga valley for centuries chose higher grounds for the construction of cities and villages. There is no evidence that there was mass migration of population in the Volga basin due to flooding in the past, although some catastrophic floods could have caused a lot of damage. People usually rebuilt their dwellings. The only mass forced migration took place in 20th century, when major water reservoirs were built and population resettled.

3.2. Environment and migration in the past

3.2.1. Pre-revolutionary times Historically, the Volga River played an important role as the main trade route between Central Asia and Europe since the 8th century. Since the 14th century, after the Mongol invasion, significance of trade along the river 7 Tatar on-line encyclopedia: http://www.ite.antat.ru/articles/st3.html

19

increased, and cities such as Kazan, Nizhniy Novgorod and Astrakhan played a major role in this trade. When Kazan was conquered by Russia in the mid-16th century, the whole Volga River system was within one state, and trade along the river flourished in the 17th century. New cities emerged: Samara, Saratov, and Tsaritsyn (now Volgograd). Large caravans were travelling along the river (up to 500 boats). First water works in the Volga Basin started during the times of Peter the Great, in 1709. Near the city Vyshny Volochek an upper tributary of Volga River, the river Tvertsa, was connected with the upper tributaries of river Msta, which belongs to the basin of the Baltic Sea. The economic development (trade, some industries, fisheries, etc.) was favourable for many places (e.g., Nizhniy Novgorod with its famous fair, which made it de-facto economic capital of the Russian Empire). Transportation capabilities of the Volga River were significantly affected by low water during the summers. Along the whole river course, from Tver to Astrakhan, hundreds of shallows developed, some of them with a depth of less than 0.5 meters. When steamboats appeared in the 1840s, the situation became even more complicated because of their deeper draught. At the end of 19th century along the Volga River there were some 300,000 barge haulers (burlaki) who carried the boats upstream. In the past, environmental threats in the Volga River basin were determined by natural (seasonal) events such as flooding during the spring and autumn periods and low water in summer and winter time. Over the centuries people adapted in various ways to these repeating and rather predictable seasonal events. There is no evidence of mass environmental migration induced by flooding. The population was not very mobile at that time. Only when in the upper Volga River (Ivanovskaya, Tverskaya, Yaroslavskaya regions) industrialization started at the end of 19th century, the local population participated in seasonal winter migration to the cities. The population of other regions of the Volga River basin was mostly rural and agrarian and did not participate much in migration processes (Lenin 1907). During the 19th century it became gradually clear that without dams and reservoirs it was not possible to improve navigation. The first dam in the upper part of the Volga River, regulating its runoff, the so-called Volga bijsloot (Dutch word meaning water regulating canal) was built in 1843 in the upper lake district, where Volga River starts. This dam was very big for the time (385 million m3). By releasing water from this system it was possible to support navigation during the summer time of low water in the Upper Volga. However, economic development in the second half of 19th century required a deeper channel for navigation. The city of Rybinsk was the main grain trading port in the whole Volga basin and the fair in Nizhniy Novgorod attracted a lot of traffic from the downstream area. It became clear that without construction of larger dams and associated reservoirs, navigation with modern steamboats was impossible. Construction of the railroads took part of the cargo traffic from the water transport, while the appearance of steam dredges helped to keep navigable channels deep enough. At the same time, the development of hydro turbines allowed the construction of hydropower stations which became yet

20

another argument for large dam construction. After 1909, the planning for deepwater navigation and power dam construction started. But the First World War and the Civil war delayed realization of these plans. 3.2.2. The Volga River basin in the Soviet Union After the end of Civil war in 1921 there was a long period of so-called ‘new economic policy”, which effectively meant reconstruction of the economy destroyed during the war. In the 1930s, Joseph Stalin, who had promoted himself into the role of supreme leader (and dictator) of the Soviet Union at that time, started rapid industrialization of the country, which took the form of the well-known “Five-year plans”. The first five-year plan was completed in four years, between 1929 and 1932. Construction of dams on the Volga River started during the second five-year plan period. The project of “Socialist reconstruction of the Volga River and Creation of the Volga Electric and Transportation System” was first discussed at the session of the Academy of Sciences in 1933, and it basically made use of the foundations which were developed in 1909. Since the 1930s massive dam construction and engineering works completely changed the water course, transforming the Volga into a chain of artificial lakes with hydroelectric dams, suitable for navigation along practically the whole course of the river. The construction extended over a period of more than 50 years, from the mid-1930s to the end of the 1980s, and was accompanied, especially during the Stalinist period, by forced relocation of hundreds of thousands of people. The Volga river project was the first among a long list of dam and power station constructions. The regime needed an inexpensive, free labour force for the construction of dams and power stations. Human and environmental consequences were not considered. The Soviet totalitarian political regime and its methods of realization of economic industrialization were brutal. The main migration flows included: - “Kulaks” (rich peasants) that were resettled in 1931-1934. Many of these

kulaks joined the GULAG prisoners who worked on the dam construction along the Volga River.

- The local population which was resettled by force; - Nearly 800,000 Germans from the Volga German autonomic republic

(located near the present city of Saratov) were forcibly resettled in 1940-1943 to Siberia and Central Asia regions of the USSR.

The human losses during dam construction by prisoners of the GULAG reached up to 30% and were counted in hundreds of thousands (Polian 2007). The economic consequences of such politically motivated forced population movements are difficult to evaluate, because there is hardly any data available. But, for example, the anti-kulak Stalin campaign in Volga river basin, in Ukraine, South Russia regions and in Kazakhstan caused severe

21

famine that resulted in the loss of several millions lives. The WWII refugees’ movements from Western regions of the USSR to the East and evacuation of millions of people and industries to the Volga Region, Ural and Siberia in 1941-1943 further complicated the picture of population movements. The dam-induced resettlements were huge and forced (see Table 2), but the other forced migration movements within, into and from the Volga region due to political processes were of an even larger scale. Forced population resettlements took place until 1956, when Secretary General Nikita Khruschev discontinued this practice of the Stalin regime. Large flows of liberated people emerged, arriving back home from exile and labour camps, and whole nations returning back to their homelands (although the German Autonomous republic was never restored). The Soviet history shows that all migrations at that time (including so-called environmental ones) were in fact politically induced. Free population movement in the country was controlled and regulated by the so-called “propiska” (or internal residence permit) regime, which gave little chance for people to resettle voluntarily. The rural population - which prevailed in this region until the 1970s - had no opportunity to leave from their collective farms, or kolhozy, because until the 1960s, they had no internal identity cards (so-called passports) and did not get salaries in cash, only in natural products (food, wood, etc.). In Soviet times there was de-facto serfdom of peasants. Peasants received possibilities of free movement to urban areas only in the 1960s and at that time, cities began to expand dramatically. Cities were the centres of industrial development and they also offered a more comfortable way of life. Industrialization of the country demanded new plants and factories, and the Cold War arms race demanded construction of military plants and factories at any cost. Environmental issues were never discussed publicly. Discussions on environmental issues started during the “perestroika” times, but because of the dissolution of USSR, environmental problems quickly lost their priority in public discussions. Mass forced migration flows since the 1990s from former Soviet Union countries created new problems of integration and survival for newcomers in Russia, including the 30% of the forced migrants that settled in the Volga River Basin. Environmental issues had no high priority at that time (Larin et al. 2002). 3.3. A short Review of Main Reservoirs and their Past and Present Problems In this section we briefly describe the 8 Volga-Kama hydroelectric stations. Table 1 summarizes them, and Figure 2 shows their location.

22

Table 1 The Volga-Kama cascade of hydroelectric stations

Area of flooded lands, thousand ha Resettled Including

Reservoir name Years of dam construction Total

Arable Grass-lands

Forests Other Commu-nities

House- holds

Population (thousand people)

1 Ivankovo 1937 29,2 9,8 7,8 7,0 4,6 100 4670 19,5 2 Uglich 1939-1943 13,7 5,6 5,4 1,5 1,2 213 5270 24,6 3 Rybinsk 1940-1949 434,0 58,2 116,3 241,2 18,3 745 26520 116,7 4 Gorky (now N. Novgorod)

1955-1957 129,2 21,0 47,0 41,0 20,2 273 11836 47,7

5 Cheboksary 1981 167,5 7,7 46,5 97,8 16,5 108 8100 42,6 6 Kuybyshev (now Samara)

1955-1957 503,9 69,5 208,3 163,3 62,8 290 43380 150,0

7 Saratov 1967-1968 116,9 7,5 45,6 47,3 15,6 86 7900 25,3 8 Volgograd 1958-1960 269,3 30,4 107,0 70,2 61,7 125 17860 50,0 9 Kama 1954-1956 175,5 9,9 58,2 83,4 24,0 248 12900 47,8 10 Votkinsk 1961-1964 92,2 23,9 7,2 42,2 18,9 178 8794 61,0 11 Low Kama 1978 198,3 21,0 83,3 50,3 43,7 147 8310 58,0 Total 1937-1981 2128,8 264,5 732,6 845,2 286,5 2513 155580 642,9

Source: http://www.rfc.or.jp/IWT/iwtrkp/www/htdocs/knowledge_data/session7/Valentin_Naydenko.

23

Figure 2 VRB with major reservoirs; the numbers on the map correspond to those of Table 1

Source: http://www.grid.unep.ch/product/publication/freshwater_europe/volga.php Publications GRID UNEP -Freshwater in Europe Major European Watersheds. During the Soviet time, between the 1930s and 1980s, 8 large dams were constructed along the Volga river and 3 along its main tributary the Kama (see Figure 2 and Table 1). Total electricity production is 36 - 40 kW-hours per year, which correlates well with the 1909 Academy of Sciences projection. The total surface area of water reservoirs is 38,000 km2; they contain about 90 km3 of water. In the lower Volga River, more than 10 million ha dry lands

5 2

3

4

1 6

7

8

9 1

10

11

24

are being irrigated, but processes of salinisation and water-logging of irrigated lands are severe. The Ivankovo Dam was constructed in 1937, together with the Volga-Moscow canal and a series of smaller reservoirs between Moscow and the Volga along the canal. The reservoir is about 30 kilometres long, and 2-5 kilometres wide. When it was constructed in 1936, the small city of Korcheva (about 2500 inhabitants) and nearly one hundred surrounding villages were flooded. People were resettled into the nearby city Konakovo. The dam itself is 9 kilometres long and 14 meters high. It was built, as practically all dams in the 1930s and 1940s, by the work force of imprisoned people. Hundreds of thousands of people were involved in the construction. At first, most work was done by hand with very primitive mechanization, and only later in the construction process were large excavators used.8 Currently the proximity to Moscow has allowed the creation of large recreational zones in this area. Since the beginning of 1990s many old village houses have been bought by Muscovites as their summer homes and renovated. Many new cottage-type villages were built and the land prices rose sharply. The Uglich dam was constructed in 1939. It is a long reservoir of 143 km. The total area of the reservoir is about 250 km2. During its construction, a large part of the city of Kalyazin was flooded and many villages re-settled. 9 Currently, bank erosion along its shores is a problem. The Rybinsk Dam was built near the city of Rybinsk. In that region Volga’s inner delta was located, the so-called Mologa-Sheksna lowland, a very productive meadows area that was frequently flooded. The Caspian sturgeon went upstream to its spawning grounds in this region. The plan envisaged the construction of a 18 metre high dam with 6 turbines, and the flooding of a huge area of practically the entire lowland. One city (Mologa, 5 thousand people) was completely submerged under water; parts of several other cities (Myshkin, Kalyazin, Uglich, Poshekhonye, Vesyegonsk, Breytovo) were flooded. The huge artificial sea covered nearly 700 smaller villages, three large monasteries, more than 140 churches, etc. The total number of resettled people was about 130,000. The resettlement of the local people was undertaken in a very brutal manner. When the decision to construct a dam was made, people who lived in a flooded area were not even informed what would happen to them. They were told to re-settle only one year after the beginning of construction of the dam. Those who tried to raise a voice in protest were immediately sent to the labour camps as enemies of the Socialist renovation and were forced to work for dam construction. Resettlement started in 1937 and lasted for four years. House owners originally had large houses with land plots around them (0.2 ha on average). They were given much smaller plots and they were obliged to build smaller houses in the resettlement places which were reserved for them. For example, inhabitants of Mologa city were given empty land plots on the

8 http://afisha.dmitrov.su/ru/news/214.html

9 http://a-lapin.narod.ru/Uglich.htm

25

outskirts of the city of Rybinsk. One of the survivors remembers that when they were told by the head of the city council that they had to resettle and to build new houses themselves, someone asked why the state could not provide them with new housing. The head replied that if they would demand the new houses from the authorities, most likely they would be given houses built by GULAG prisoners, which often were of very poor quality that would make it extremely difficult to survive in the cold winter. So if we want quality houses, we have to build them ourselves, concluded the head, and all people agreed.10 In this part of region, houses were assembled from large logs without nails. If necessary, these logs could be dismantled and the house could be re-assembled in another place. The authorities gave the inhabitants some money for re-settlement, but not enough to cover all the costs. People had to dismantle their houses, made rafts out of the logs and put as much of their belongings as they could on these rafts to go downstream to the places which were prescribed for their re-settlement. The authorities even forced people to sign so-called “obligations”.11 Each family was “obliged” to construct a wooden house of a prescribed type with dimensions 8 x 9 metres. The price of the new house was estimated at 10,000 rubles12, of which 7900 rubles should be paid by the family itself (this probably included the price of in-kind materials – the logs of the old house - and the in-kind labour of the owner). The remaining 2100 rubles were given as a cash credit from the authorities. The family was supposed to repay this credit over a period of 20 years, until 1959. The re-settlement was furthermore expedited, causing devastation in this originally rich and densely populated agricultural area. Remaining houses were destroyed to prevent them from obstructing navigation, as well as trees, orchards, churches, bell towers, etc. Many people, especially elderly and infants, died from cold, malnutrition, and diseases. One document clearly demonstrates the size of human tragedy of this re-settlement. This is a confidential letter from the local Security service lieutenant to his superiors. In this letter he confirms that 294 citizens of the city of Mologa – with 5000 inhabitants, thus 6% of the population - preferred to drown with their houses. He explained that all of them were “mentally ill” and many chained themselves to the building so that it was impossible to detach them.13 The Gorky (now Nizhniy Novgorod) reservoir was built in 1955-1957. It is 427 km long, 16 km wide, and with a total surface area of 1590 km2. As resettlement took place in mid-1950s it was done in a more civilized way. Currently due to water regulation an annual fluctuation of 2 metres water level is possible, and this may cause problems for those who live in immediate

10

ibid 11

The typical obligation text is mentioned in http://mapmologa.narod.ru/Zatoplenije.htm : Mologa-city portal 12

This was a lot of money at that time. To compare: a monthly salary of a skilled worker at that time was about 200-250 rubles per month; unskilled labourer received about 80-100 rubles per month. 13

http://mapmologa.narod.ru/Zatoplenije.htm Mologa-city portal

26

vicinity of the reservoir. Bank erosion, landslides and water pollution prevail as the major current environmental problems. The Cheboksary dam was constructed relatively recently. The work started in 1981, and the reservoir is not yet filled to the projected height of 68 meters above sea level. The current height of the water level is about 63 meters. For the first time, the public had something to say about the project, and this situation led to a deadlock. There is strong opposition from the upstream territories (Nizhniy Novgorod region and Mari El republic) to a further rise of the water level, for this will cause flooding of large areas on their respective territories, loss of cultural heritage, and resettlement of thousands of people. At the other site, the Chuvash republic, where the Cheboksary dam is located, insists on raising the water level, because it will not only generate more electricity, but it will lead to a faster flow of water. The problem for the Сhuvash republic is that they can only take drinking water from the river. In still and shallow water, pollution and euthrophication are taking place at much higher speed. In order to have better water quality, they insist that they need a higher water level. Thus currently there is a conflict of interests between the Chuvash republic on one side and N. Novgorod and Mari El regions on the other side, involving local governments, NGOs, and the general public. For the moment, the Russian Federal Government is in favour of the upstream territories, but the dispute is far from resolved.14

The Kyibyshev (Kuybyshev or Samara) dam was constructed in 1955-57. This is the largest reservoir on the Volga river, more than 580 km long, maximum 30 km wide, and an average depth of 9 metres. The total area of the reservoir is about 6,500 km2. Fluctuation of the water level between seasons is about 6 meters. Currently, bank erosion and especially landslides are among the major problems. Out of the 2.6 thousand kilometres of total length of the shores nearly 1 thousand km is affected by erosion. In some sections, annual retreat of the shoreline due to erosion may reach 6 metres. Nearly 500 ha of agricultural lands are lost annually, and many houses, industrial enterprises, and cultural monuments are affected. At least 40 km of shores need urgent strengthening against erosion processes.15

The Saratov dam was constructed in 1967-68, and the reservoir is about 360 km long. The reservoir is 1831 km² and has a volume 12.9 km³. Bank erosion along the shores of the Saratov reservoir is significant; at some places bank erosion already destroyed banks at a distance of 40-70 meters (Vesti Otechestva 30.10.2001).16

The Volgograd dam was built in 1958-1961, encompassing a reservoir with a surface of 3117 km2, a length of 540 km, a maximum width of 17 km, and an average depth of 10.1 m. Along the reservoirs large areas of irrigated lands

14

http://forum.rus21.ru/index.php?showtopic=82875&st=0&start=0 - internet discussion about Cheboksara dam Volgograd dam 15

www.antat.ru/files/vodohran.doc - materials of international conference on ecological problems of reservoirs 16

http://www.businesspress.ru/newspaper/article_mId_43_aId_87995.html - newspaper “Delovaya pressa” : 41 (117) in 30.10.2001

27

were created, and salinisation and especially water-logging are among the major problems there. For example, twenty years after the construction of the dam, the level of groundwater increased to 15-20 meters in the close proximity of the reservoir, and 2-3 metres at distances up to 20-25 km. Because these soils are located in areas of dry steppes and semi-deserts, the rise of groundwater inevitably leads to soil salinisation. Penetration of groundwater in the upper levels also may cause water-logging, deformations of the ground, destruction of communication infrastructure and foundations of buildings. These processes are occurring in the cities of Primorsky, Balakovo, Volzhsky, and Kamyshin. Landslides are a huge problem, especially along the higher river banks. Along the lower banks, destruction of shores due to waves, currents and bank erosion is significant, and in some places, the shoreline has already retreated up to 200-220 meters.17 On the other hand, downstream of the dam negative environmental changes were associated with the lack of water. Annual runoff of the Volga River below Volgograd after the dam construction decreased 9 to 10%, and flooding of the flood plain also decreased considerably. As a result, in the valley downstream of the dam, the groundwater level lowered, which stimulates desertification.18

To conclude, we can say that for the major reservoirs that were built after WWII and especially after the end of the Stalin era, resettlement was less brutal, although the local population was by no means consulted. The only time when the public had an opportunity to participate was in the 1980s when the Cheboksary dam was built. Immediately a conflict of interests emerged between upstream and downstream regions, and no solution to this conflict is in sight. Altogether, nearly 650,000 people were resettled from the areas of the reservoirs along the Volga and the Kama rivers over the period of fifty years.

3.4. Current environmental threats and migration in the VRB

The regulation of the river course with dams did have many positive effects on the region. It opened numerous other possibilities in terms of industrial and rural development. Navigable canals link the Volga with neighbouring river basins, making it possible to go by boat not only to the Caspian, but also to the Black sea, the Baltic sea and even to the White Sea. Possibilities offered by cheap and reliable water transportation, relatively inexpensive hydroelectric power, exploitation of rich oil and gas deposits along the lower river basin, as well as the presence of a qualified workforce in numerous cities helped to create hundreds of major enterprises in ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgy, machine-building, cellulose, wood-processing, food and textile, chemical and petrochemical industries, as well as numerous enterprises of the military-industrial complex, including chemical weapons plants and rocket-building facilities. Many irrigation areas were established, especially along the

17

http://www.priroda.ru/reviews/detail.php?SHOWALL_1=1&ID=4266 ) –Nature of Russia , National portal : Siniakov V., Kyznetsova S.,Beliaev Y. (2003) “Geoecological security of Bolgograd Oblast, in Ispolzovenie i ohrana prirodnih resyrsov v Rossii, 2003, n.5. 18

http://www.priroda.ru/reviews/detail.php?SHOWALL_1=1&ID=4266 ) –Nature of Russia , National portal : Siniakov V., Kyznetsova S.,Beliaev Y. (2003) “Geoecological security of Bolgograd Oblast, in Ispolzovenie i ohrana prirodnih resyrsov v Rossii, 2003, n.5

28

lower Volga. Furthermore, more than 70 different fish species are found in the river, among them herring, pike perch, sazan, catfish, pike, sturgeon, starlet and others. The biggest environmental problems today originate from these major industrial complexes, air and water pollution originating from large cities, efforts for keeping the river navigable and salinisation and water-logging of irrigated lands along the lower Volga. Water pollution remains the major issue. Flooding, in its traditional sense, takes place in some tributaries especially in the northern, forested areas where in spring, after snow melt, a sharp rise of water level is possible. But usually the population in these areas is adapted to flooding and this does not cause migration; people return and re-build their houses after damage by floods. In this study, two approaches were taken to explore the relation between environment and migration today. First the migration data was analysed, looking for evidence of the relevance of environmental motives for migration. Subsequently, three expert interviews were conducted.

3.4.1. Evidence from statistics

A review of the relevant migration literature and bibliographies published in CIS countries between 1992-199919 and more recent publications, reveals that publications on environmental motives for migration are very scarce. In all available literature on migration between 1992-2000, only 13 of the 1131 publications on migration were on issues of environmental or ecological migration, and these publications were mainly on health problems of migrants’ families or health as motive for migration, or on Chernobyl and Northern areas in Russia and not on the Volga River Basin area. While in this study this motive is referred to as “environmental,” in official statistics of the Russian Federation, this motive is labelled as ‘ecological.”. Notably, this motive is specified only by 0.3% of all migrants in the Russian Federation, as demonstrated below. Two types of statistical sources are used in this section. Firstly, the annual overviews of migration data since 1992, published by the State Statistical Committee. Secondly, in 1994, the first micro population census was conducted, covering about 5% of total population of Russia (Goscomstat 1995). The data of this micro census offered information on places of origin of the migrants and the length of stay in the place of residence; this was also the first time when people were asked questions about the reasons for migration. Since that time, the indices of the reasons for migration were published regularly in the annual collections. The number of question on migration motives was limited and grouped into 9 positions. When the collection of this data started, in the 1991-1994 micro census, the reasons were: (1) Education; (2) Work; (3) Ethnic conflicts; (4) Deterioration of the ‘criminal’ situation; this

19

Migratsia v transformiryiyschemsia obschestve .Ed.by Zh.Zaionchkovskaya. Annotirovannii bibliograficheskii ykazatel literatyri izdannoi v stranah SNG v 1992-1999, Moscow, 2000. Migration in transforming Society. Bibliography of Literature published in CIS countries in 1992-1999. Council on Forced Migration. Moscow.

29

motives implies: all kinds of conflicts, often of ethnic nature, in combination with the absence of sufficient protection by the authorities; (5) Low standard of living and problems with amenities; (6) Environmental problems; (7) Climate reasons, meaning: the climate is unhealthy for family members; In the Soviet times an ‘unhealthy’ climate, including extreme temperatures, was a reason for extra salaries and other benefits; although this is not the case anymore in the Russian Federation, it is still kept as motive for migration in statistics; (8) Family reasons; and (9) Other reasons. Later category 5 of “low standard of living and problems with amenities” was changed into “repatriation” reasons. People could fill in only one motive for their migration into or from Russia. The categories are not specified further (than in the general terms mentioned above) and the motives that migrants fill in are neither specified; thus the data of the micro census offer no possibilities for investigating the more specific motives or how the migrants have interpreted these categories. The data on the reasons for migration include data on sex and age characteristics of the migrants, their level of education and data on their status (forced migrants and refugees). Starting from 2000, the annual statistical overviews also included information from the Border services on reasons for crossing the border. Such information is based on the migratory control form (migration card) of foreigners crossing the border of Russia, which was introduced in 2002. The reasons are slightly different, i.e. tourism, permanent residence, business, personal, education etc. Unfortunately the data from the Border services and from the Federal Migratory Services do not correspond to the data of the Statistical Committee. There were several main reasons for migration to Russia pointed out in different surveys: repatriation, ethnic conflicts, language problems, future prospects of children and absence of job and education opportunities in CIS countries (Vitkovskaya 1994, Zaionchkovskaya 1999, 2001, Savoskul 2001, Molodikova 2002). We analysed statistical yearbooks for 1992, 1997, 2002, 2005, 2007 (GKS 1993, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2008) and micro-census data (GKS 1995) where all reasons for migration were grouped according to the categories presented above Our analysis clearly shows that the environmental factors, among others, are insignificant between 1992 and 2007. The number of migrants who indicated environmental reasons was about 0.5% of the net migration number for all period of time. Environmental and climate reasons were among the two least mentioned reasons (see Annex Table 5, 6 and 7: Reasons for migration). For example, the net migration for all of Russia slowly decreased from 309,966 migrants in 1997 to 95,855 migrants in 2005 and then rose in 2007 after the introduction of new legislation to 215,765 migrants. The net migration for environmental reasons also decreased for all Russia from 1,686 migrants mentioning this motive in 1997 to 435 in 2005 and in 2007 it again decreased to only 403 and now equals only to 0.45% of the motives mentioned by all migrants. This means that the percentage of migrants mentioning environmental motives for all years was around 0.5%.

30

The total turnover, that is, the total of all arrivals and departures for internal and international migration in Russia also fluctuated between 4.3 million people in 1997 to 3.8 million people in 2007. The turnover of net migration for ‘environmental’ reasons consequently was between 6,000 – 7,000 people for all Russia or only 0.1%. In the Annex, Table 6 (Reasons for migration in regions of VRB in 2007) shows how insignificant this motive is for both Russia and the VRB. We included the information on arrivals, departures and net migration in all federal units of the VRB case study region. The total turnover for VRB in 2007 was 969,222 migrants, but of these migrants only 1,835 migrants mentioned environmental motives and 1,832 an unfavourable climate as motive for migration for all VRB. Thus 0.19% mentioned environmental motives for their migration. Differentiated for arrivals and departures, in 2007 the motive of environment was mentioned by 982 of the 497,186 arrivals and by 853 of the 472,036 departures from the VRB region. Thus, environment as motive for migration into or from the VRB region was mentioned by 0.19% of the arrivals and by 0.19% of the departures. In addition, the motive of an unfavourable climate was mentioned by 1193 of the arrivals and by 803 of the departures. (See Table 6 in the Annex) The main motive filled in usually by more than 50% of all migrants is the one of “family and private reasons”. This is a universal phenomenon known from migration literature. This motive is prevailing because it includes the vast spectrum of possible family reasons for migration such as marriage, divorces, reunification, and resettlement at a relative’s home. It is understandable that this is the main motive, for many surveys also indicate that 80% of the migrants resettled to Russia with relatives or close to relatives or friends (Molodikova 2002). This reason hides much of the peculiarities of the conditions of migration. However, even if we disregard this main motive, among the other reasons for migration environmental and climate ones are again insignificant. This all shows that according to the statistics, environmental reasons are not an important motive for internal or international immigration into or emigration from the VRB region. It may be a motive for migration from or to some specific local sites, but even if this would be the case, this could only be revealed by case study research in local contexts. As indicated in the Methods section, fieldwork was excluded for the Volga case study. When it became clear that there was hardly any evidence available for environmental motives for migration in the VRB, we decided to undertake some interviews with experts to gather some indicative information on possible sites of environmental induced migration in the VRB region. Due to limits of time and resources, we interviewed only three experts.

3.4.2. The current situation: the CABRI-Volga project

Before we present and discuss the results of the expert interviews, we will first present the indications of environmental threats and their impact on local society and population movements from a large research project on the Volga river basin.

31

The CABRI-Volga project (Cooperation Along a Big River; 2004-2007) 20 was an international project to facilitate cooperation and to coordinate research in environmental risk management in large river basins in the EU, Russia and the New Independent States, focussing on the Volga Basin and financed by the European Commission (6th Framework Program). The CABRI-Volga project has investigated the flood risk and the disaster risk infrastructure in the VRB. Although the impacts of environmental changes and hazards on society is not an issue of research within the project, the project reports offer some relevant information to get an indication of these impacts. The national institutional framework for reduction of natural disasters is developed quite well in the Russian Federation. EMERCOM is the federal executive organ responsible for the implementation of the national disaster risk reduction policy and for the management and coordination of government actions in the case of disasters (CABRI-Volga 2006a: 95). Flood risk reduction is part of this disaster risk reduction institutional framework. Currently, it comprises two components: institutional arrangements for emergency preparedness, response and recovery, and those for floods prevention and mitigation measures and institutions (CABRI-Volga 2006a: 95). According to official data of EMERCOM 22 natural disaster emergencies, 320 technological disasters and 8 biomedical disasters occurred in the Volga Basin in 2004 (CABRI-Volga 2006a: 97)21. Major types of natural disasters that occur regularly in the Volga Basin are floods, severe storms, extreme snowfalls, forest and peat fires, droughts and insect plagues. The number and frequency of extreme weather events and fluctuations has increased over the years, such as heavy rain- and snowfall, storms, droughts and extreme summer and winter temperatures (CABRI-Volga 2006a: 97). Although the Volga is a highly regulated river system, floods still occur regularly. According to the CABRI-Volga team, they regularly “result in severe social and economic damage to livelihoods, and require emergency evacuations and rehabilitation of affected livelihoods” (ibid). They damage agricultural crops and disrupt infrastructure. “About 4.7 million people in the basin are reported to be potentially vulnerable to floods” (ibid)22. High vulnerability to floods – with about one third of the total population of each regions at risk – “is registered in Volgogradskaya and Yaroslavskaya oblasts, in Kalmykia, in Mary El and Bashkortostan republics, and in Komi-Permiatky okruig” (Perm region) (ibid). And according to official data - approximations by regional authorities – “in 2004 the damage from floods in the Volga Basin accounted for 958 million rubles, or forty five percent of the national total” of damage due to floods (ibid). Although this sounds alarming, it is not clear on what evidence these numbers are based and what it exactly implies. More detailed evidence is presented in another report of the project (CABRI-Volga

20

http://www.cabri-volga.org/ 21

Source: State Report on Protection of Population and Territories of the Russian Federation from Natural and Technological Emergencies in 2004. EMERCOM, Moscow, 2005 (in Russian) 22

Source: Shahramanyan, M., Akimov, V., Kozlov, K. 1998. Evaluation of natural and technological security of Russia. Theory and Practice. VNII GOCHS, Moscow (In Russian).

32

2006b: 72), a table with the results of an assessment of recent damages in the region by questionnaires in the spring of 2006. According to this table, the effects of flooding of the Volga River and all other rivers in the VRB were: 200 cows were isolated by flood, agriculture was affected, and an employment centre, tax inspection and a heat unit were flooded. The project team concluded from these questionnaire data that only minor damages result from flooding in the basin and that small settlements located on small rivers appear to be most vulnerable to floods (ibid). A lot of improvement with regard to flood risk reduction is possible in this region according to the project team. The “levels of local preparedness and protection in the flood prone regions of the basin are poor” (CABRI-Volga 2006a: 98). For example, flood damages occur because of violations of settlement and construction norms in flood-prone areas. More disturbing is that many of the existing hydro-technical facilities - dams and reservoirs that are operating over 30 years - are worn-out, “placing many settlements and territories along Volga under threat” (ibid). The CABRI-Volga project resulted in numerous recommendations to improve risk management in the Volga River Basin.

3.4.3. The current situation: expert interviews on environment and migration

The CABRI-Volga project reports produce an ambiguous impression of the impacts of flooding on society in the basin: it presents some alarming general indications of people at risk and evacuations but not backed by empirical evidence (or, in any case, it is not clear what the evidence is), and at the same time it presents some more detailed questionnaire results that only show minor flooding damage in the area. In an attempt to get a more accurate picture of the effects of environmental changes and hazards on migration, we interviewed some experts. Three in-depth interviews were conducted with representatives of relevant different institutions23. We interviewed two academics, one from Samara and one from Cheboksary; the former also works for the state monitoring agency. A third expert is the former minister of environment of the regional government of Chuvash republic. The interviewed experts are:

1. Dr. S. Simak, expert of Russian State Nature Monitoring Agency (Rosprirodnadzor), and also vice-rector of Samara State Oblast University; Samara

2. Dr. Z.A. Trifonova, Associate Professor of Geography Department of Chuvash State University; Cheboksary

3. Mr. F.A. Karyagin, former minister of ecology and natural resources of Chuvash republic, Cheboksary

23

An efforts to interview with the head of the regional migration service (in Chuvash republic) failed, because he considered himself not competent on the issue of environmental migration; the service primarily deals with illegal migrants and foreign immigrants.

33

These interviews, in combination with the analysis of other types of information, provide an indication of the major localities along the Volga river where migration issues could be influenced by environmental factors. By environmental factors we mean factors such as flooding, water-logging, bank erosion, salinisation, water and air pollution with various chemicals, etc. Thus, these interviews in combination with other data from media and publications should offer insight into the peculiarities of migration in this region in relation to environment and add relevant details for the better understanding of the relation between environment and migration processes in the Volga River Basin. Anthropogenic environmental disasters, according the experts’ opinion, happened primarily during the Soviet period and now we are dealing with their consequences. In the opinion of the three experts, it is not relevant any more to talk about migration due to flooding along the Volga, as this river is a well-regulated stream. “Environmental migration” in the Volga River Basin is rather an exception than a rule, it is mostly connected with bank erosion and water-logging which are taking place in close proximity to the reservoirs. Moreover environmental migration, if it would take place, will not just be a consequence of environmental factors, other socio-economic factors such as poverty and economic depression (collapse or crisis of the main enterprises in industrial towns, lack of social and professional perspectives for the youth, etc.) also play an important role. Chemical industry and pollution According to Dr. Sergei Simak, purely environmental migration is rather “exceptional.” Currently, it can be found in to two cities with chemical industries, where environmental pollution was very high. All experts pointed to Chapaevsk in the Samara region and Dzerzhinsk24 in the Nizhniy Novgorod region. In fact, these two towns were former centres of chemical weapons production. According Dr. Simak,, it is quite obvious that people are leaving these cities because of the environmental conditions. After finishing school most young people leave. Dr. Simak described Chapaevsk, as a city with a population of 72.7 thousand people (2005 census), situated 43 km from the regional centre of Samara (a city with more than a million inhabitants). Chapaevsk has suffered from environmental problems since 1928, when the factory which produced poisonous gases was constructed. After the agreement on destruction of chemical weapons in the 1980s, these substances were burnt in a specially constructed facility, but this resulted only in contamination of the city with dioxins. People leave this city not only because of this pollution. The city’s environmental conditions did not allow development of other business

24

Dzerzhinsk is one of the 10 most polluted cities in the world according to The Blacksmith Institute (2007): “A major site for Cold War era manufacturing where industrial chemicals have been discharged into the local water supplies. Life expectancy is short and the death rate is significantly higher than Russia’s average”. A number of efforts but “no major clean-up activity has been undertaken”.

34

activities in the 1990s, and now all of the young and mobile population is leaving the city in search for job opportunities. Dr. Simak also mentioned Novokyjbishevsk, another city with a chemical industry. This city has 110 thousand people, and is the site of a large petrochemical plant. Due to this plant, the city has always been on the list of the most highly polluted cities of the Russian Federation. But in this case, the peculiarity of its geographical position is very influential. It is located only 20 km from Samara city, a well-developed city that has the combination of a variety of industrial and socio–cultural activities that makes it attractive and which is the main magnet for people from its own region and from other regions of the RF. People living in Novokyjbishevsk commute to work to Samara, and therefore outmigration from the Novokyjbishevsk is not that common. According to Dr. Simak, there are also cities in which the environmental factor plays an indirect role in migration. To some extent, Syzran in Samarskaya oblast can be mentioned. Adverse environmental conditions can play a role – although only a subordinate one - as a motivation for migration. Moreover, internal migration of local Syzran inhabitants is surpassed by the immigration into Syzran, so the picture is ambiguous. In this city, the level of atmospheric pollution is increasing despite the overall stabilization trend. In many cities, the atmospheric pollution is even decreasing because many heavy industries are closed down. People of course leave Syzran as they cannot commute from here to Samara because of the distance, and not because of the adverse environmental conditions. The socio-economic situation is much worse in Syzran than in Samara and people are gradually resettling. However, the population of Syzran is not decreasing as there is a migration trend to Syzran as a transit city; so the migration picture is also blurred. The majority of migrants came to Syzran in the 1990s from CIS countries and these flows still continue. Industrial accidents Another environmental problem, which can potentially create population displacement, is acute water contamination which is happening in parts of the Volga River basin. This is a more realistic risk than flooding. Of course high tides after heavy rainfall occur, especially on smaller rivers, and they can flood summer houses. But in such places, people are aware of that risk and build their summer houses accordingly. According to Dr. Simak anthropogenic contaminations and environmental catastrophes take place from time to time. He gave the example of Kinel-Cherkass, a village in Samarskaya oblast. In 2008 the local administration together with an environmental NGO won a court case against the regional administration because of large-scale violations of environmental rights of the citizens. Regional authorities sanctioned the burial of several dozens of thousands of tonnes of toxic saline slag of aluminium origin at the regional polygon, which is situated only at 3 km from the settlement and at 1 km from the river Kinel. It is situated 5 km upstream of the water supply point of Kinel-

35

Cherkassi and 20 km upstream of the water supply point of the city of Otradny. This polygon has kept loads of toxic substances since 1992. The public started to deal with this case only a year ago. Then the regional administration started to become anxious and stopped bringing in toxic waste. That which had already been dumped there however was not dealt with. Most active toxic substances were already decomposed. Infiltration takes place at 1.5 to 2 km from the river. Toxic substances can hit the river during snow melting and high spring tide. In the court the precautionary principle of environmental legislation was used; violation of regulations for burying toxic substances led to an increased threat for the local population. People believe that in recent years the level of diseases has increased, but it was not possible to support this with evidence. Another example was given by Dr. Zoya Trifonova. An accident occurred at the huge chemical facility in Novocheboksarsk. Until the 1990s, a special unit of this plant produced neuro-paralytic gas VX; the special unit was destroyed later and contaminated equipment and materials were buried in polygons in the Southern Urals. An EU commission observed the process. Currently, the factory “Chimprom” produces for civil purposes. However accidental pollution by nitrogen, chlorine and nitrous chlorine combinations generally happens at least once a year. Emissions of polluting substances from the source into the atmosphere have decreased considerably (from 123.000 tonnes in 1990 to 32.000 tonnes in 2006). Large scale migration flows out of these areas have not been observed. Various anthropogenic environmental disasters happen from time to time according to the interviewed experts, but they are rather the exception rather than the rule. Fedor Aleksandrovich Karyagin, former Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources of Chuvash republic,states: “We don’t have environmental catastrophes here, but as in any other regions, sometimes human-induced technological catastrophes happen”. The most serious one is the railway accident in 1996 at a station Myslets in the Shymerlinsky region with a cargo train carrying toxic substances, leading to the contamination of an area of 1000 km2 with toxic substances and gases (phenol). The incident did not receive much publicity. The adverse environmental situation and its negative impact on health may have encouraged a few people to move away. Flooding Dr. Zoyz Trifonova talked about flooding of small rivers in Chuvash republic. Annual flooding in the smaller rivers - there are 2356 smaller rivers in the republic – occurs frequently, for example high waters in the river Tsivil. Main victims of river flooding of Tsivil are the citizens of the city of Tsivilsk and adjacent villages. Every year, meadows along the river Sura are flooded; in some years, adjacent settlements also suffer from high waters. However this natural phenomenon is in no way causing migration as people have adjusted themselves to such events, Mr. Trifonova explained. The situation at Tsivila and Syra is monitored by the special service of the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources. Special anti-flooding measures are implemented, and special activities are undertaken aimed at educating people on how to behave

36

during a flood and how to minimize the risks to the household in the spring period. Generally, the situation is within the norms, and forced migrations have never been observed. One of the interviewees, Dr. Sergei Simak, mentioned another issue. The land along river banks in some places has become attractive for recreational purposes, and for rich people to build a country house. In these places, the land plots along the Volga river banks in many regions are becoming a kind of “apple of discord”. This may even lead to chasing local inhabitants away, by burning their houses if they do not want to sell their estate to rich people who want to buy the land. While the city administration of Samara abstained from intervening with such ‘market forces’, the city administration of Togliatti (also in Samara region) developed a policy to protect the recreational zones. Cheboksary Dam All three experts paid some attention to problems induced by Cheboksary Dam and reservoir. This case can be presented as a real conflict between several administrative regions of the Volga River basin. As was mentioned earlier, the Volga in the beginning of the 20th century, before the construction of the cascade of dams, used to have high spring floods. In the Chuvash republic, water could rise to 15 meters. The greatest floods in the 20th century were in 1908, 1922 and 1926. After the completion of the dam and reservoir construction in 1981, the river’s spring flood in the area between Novocheboksarsk and Cheboksary does not exceed 1 meter. Cheboksary dam was the last of the Volga hydroelectric cascade. According to the plan, the headwater level was supposed to be 68 meters with a water volume of 12.9 km3 and with a water-surface area of 2190 km2. At present, the headwater level is 63 meters with a water volume of 4.6 km3 and with a water-surface area of 1100 km2. It was planned that 167.5 thousand hectares of land would be flooded (of which 54.2 thousand hectares of agriculture land). However, only 25 thousand hectares of the agriculture lands were really flooded. In the course of the preparation to put the dam and reservoir into operation, various protective measures were planned as well as the resettlement of the adjacent residential areas: on the left bank of the Volga people from Sosnovka, Torfyanoe, as well as inhabitants from the so-called “private-housing sector” which accounts for a considerable amount of settlements in the valleys of the smaller rivers such as Sygytka, Trysikha and Cheboksarka that are tributaries to the Volga. In the context of the project the majority of the population from these territories (15 to 20 thousand people) were allocated flats in the multi-storey buildings in the regional capital, Cheboksary. Planned resettlements from the flooded zones were also envisaged in Tsivilsk and Mariinsky Posad. However, the scale of resettlement was much lower here (less than 1 thousand people). There is a plan to increase the water level in the Cheboksarskoe reservoir in the future up to the point of 65 metres. According to this plan, villagers from

37

Sosnovka will be resettled. The state intends to provide new dwellings but the conditions of these resettlements are not known yet. The insufficient height of the water level in the reservoir accounts for inefficiency of the Cheboksary Hydro Power plant, the capacity of which is used only at one third. In 2005, the Minister of Economic Development of the Russian Federation decided to complete the Cheboksary waterworks facility. However, there is opposition to these plans. For example, representatives of the Marij El republic and Nizhniy Novgorod region insist on keeping the current water level because increasing water levels threaten to raise the groundwater levels and flooding of the Marij El forests and the lowlands of the Nizhniy Novgorod region. If the water level in the reservoir increases, it will cause, according to these representatives, water-logging of valuable agricultural lands and forests, loss of existing recreational areas along the banks of the reservoir, and even potential loss of the architectural monuments of the historic Nizhniy Novgorod citadel (Kreml). On the other side, the Chuvash republic government insists on raising the water level in the reservoir, arguing that it is currently too shallow and therefore misses biological opportunities for self-purification. The deadlock situation has some negative consequences itself. Recreational zones within the reservoir boundaries develop very slowly as the question with the water level is still not solved. Notwithstanding the still pending resettlement, the population of this region decreased three times during the last 15 years due to both migration and natural loss. 4. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH In this conclusion we recapitulate the main findings more systematically in answering the main research questions of the study. 1. What are the past, present and plausible future environmental threats to the population in the selected case study sites? In the past, before the construction of dams started in the 1930s, the main environmental threats were associated with floods. The system of dams was created between the mid-1930s and the end of the1980s, and caused a loss of nearly 2.4 million ha of lands and required the resettlement of 650,000 people over the period of about 50 years. Currently, the main environmental threats are: - High levels of air and water pollution, including pollution of drinking water

sources. These phenomena are observed throughout the major industrial centres in the Volga River basin, especially in former centres of chemical weapon production, Chapaevsk and Dzerzhinsk, and also in the centre of petro-chemical production Novokyjbishevsk and the centre of the chemical industry Novocheboksarsk.

- The main environmental conflict along the Volga River today is

associated with the dispute over the increase of the water level of the

38

Cheboksary dam reservoir in the Chuvash Republic. Cheboksary dam was the latest one, built in the 1980s, and when filling of the reservoir started at the end of the 1980s, it was already impossible to ignore public opinion. Authorities of the Chuvash Republic want to fill the reservoir to solve some problems and to make it possible for the hydropower station to work on full capacity, but this will have adverse effects for the upstream-located regions of Nizhniy Novgorod and Mary El Republic. Federal authorities overruled Chuvash authorities, not allowing them to raise the water level further.

- Bank erosion along the shores of practically all reservoirs and water-

logging of surrounding areas are the major direct environmental threat in the immediate vicinity of the reservoirs, making development of their coastal zones very costly and sometimes causing local people to leave threatened villages. This is an especially serious problem along the flat plains, composed of easily erodible sediments like loess that usually characterize the eastern banks of the river.

- High sedimentation rates of reservoirs, together with high levels of

chemical pollution of these sediments in reservoirs, lead to deterioration of water quality. In many cases, especially in Chuvash republic, water from the Volga is used as drinking water, so a deterioration of water quality of the reservoirs may require costly water purification programs. Furthermore, deterioration of water quality in the river reservoirs, in combination with uncontrolled poaching, may lead to problems for local fisheries, both in terms of quantity and quality of available fish catch.

2. What has been the impact of these environmental phenomena on the population and the economy in the region, in for instance losses due to flooding or people displaced due to dam construction? - Major dam construction and related displacement of people took place

mainly in the past. Natural flooding is not a major issue any more except for some upper tributaries of the Volga and Kama Rivers where it may have some minor impact in certain years. Only in a few places of chemical production (Chapaevsk, Dzerzhinsk, partly Novokyibyshevsk) were levels of water, soil and air pollution so high that they indeed caused some migration, especially among young people. But this was very limited in scope; and of course there was no relation with river basin issues.

- In the case of the Cheboksary dam, if the water level in its reservoir would

be raised as originally planned, dozens of villages in the Nizhniy Novgorod and Mary El regions could be affected and thousands of people would be displaced, but in the current deadlock situation, this is unlikely to happen.

- Currently, environmental problems are also associated with improper land

privatisation and associated misuse of water protection zones in some areas, especially in the proximity of large cities. Here people are wealthy enough to have second houses for recreation. In numerous cases,

39

especially in the Upper Volga region close to Moscow, but also in Samara, water protection zones along the banks of reservoirs are under pressure by development plans.

- Among other pressures we can list salinisation of irrigated lands in the

lower Volga region, especially in Volgograd region. This affects the functioning of agricultural communities that cultivate on these irrigated lands.

- There has also been a sharp decline in salmon catch and caviar

production due to dam construction, which together with pollution and poaching led to certain problems with the fishery industry. Salmon is now only artificially cultivated directly in the Caspian sea, salmon naturally spawning in the river practically ceased despite the fact that dams were equipped with fish lifts. But these lifts cannot help migratory fish to go up and down the river.

3. What are the main migration flows into, within and from the selected case study sites? What are the main motives for migration from and within the case study sites? And to what extent is migration directly or indirectly related to environmental factors? To start with, environmental factors appear to play practically no role as a reason for migration within the Volga basin for the last two decades. According to most surveys, ‘environmental reasons’ constitute 0.5% - 0.1% among all reasons for migration. As the study clearly suggests, migration flows within the region since the collapse of the Soviet Union reflected the general migration patterns typical for Russia at that time: incoming forced migration of the ethnic Russians from Central Asia and the Caucasus, followed in the 2000s by labour migration from Ukraine and Moldova. Most recently large numbers of migrants from the Caucasus region have been legalized, which appears statistically as a sharp increase, although it was built up over a number of years. At the same time there is a constant outflow of people, especially from rural areas and from small towns where the socio-economic situation is unfavourable, towards major cities, capital cities such as Moscow and partly abroad for those people who are eligible (ethnic Germans, Jews). 4. What is the role of the (national, regional, local) government and what is the role of social and economic factors (like poverty, urbanisation) with regard to the changing interrelation between environment and migration? What is their role with regard to the vulnerability or resilience of the inhabitants to cope with environmental risks such as floods? The role of national government historically was paramount, because all dams were planned and built by the national authorities. Local governments had very little say about the size of flooded areas, for example. The situation has changed since the 1980s, with the gradual democratisation of the country and the growth of NGOs. Currently the national government plays the role of

40

arbiter in the dispute around filling the reservoir of the Cheboksary dam, fixing a level that can be regarded as a compromise between downstream and upstream users. Poverty is a relevant factor in migration movements, especially when people want to leave cities in depression, with one factory type of industry, and with a high level of pollution. They tend to move to bigger urban agglomerations either nearby or outside the Volga region. Local and national governments have well-developed services of assistance in case of natural and made-made disasters. The Ministry for Emergency Situations has offices in each region. 5. What are reasonable expectations with regard to future scenarios for the case study sites with regard to environmental change and migration? And what are policy options to improve the resilience of the society and economy to the risks of and vulnerability to environmental challenges? As far as policy options for vulnerable groups are concerned, the most urgent need is a strengthening of the banks of reservoirs most subject to bank erosion in those places where erosion directly may affect rural communities. Strengthening of the banks with stones or concrete is very costly, budgets of local communities and even regional governments can hardly afford such costs, so federal help is necessary in this case, and in the current economic situation providing such help on a massive scale looks very problematic.

41

5. REFERENCES

Analytic report. 2005. Politika Immigratsii i Naturalizatsii v Rossii: Sostoianie del i Napravlenia razvitia. M.”Nasledie Evrazii”.

Авакян A. Chto delat s volzskimi vodohranilischami (What to do with Volga

reservours)? http://wsyachina.narod.ru/earth_sciences/impoundments_on_volga.html

Andrienko, Yuri & Guriev, Sergei. 2005. Understanding Migration in Russia. A

policy note prepared for the World Bank in June 2005. Moscow. Center for Economic and Financial Research at New Economic School.

Artobolevskii S., Zhaionchkovskaya Zh. 2004. (Ed.) Migratsionnaia Situatsia v

Regionah Rossii. Privolzskii Federalnii Okrug. Vipusk 1.Center of Migration Research, Moscow.

Birkmann J. 2006 Measuring vulnerability to natural hazard: Towards disaster

resilient societies. UNU Press. Blacksmith Institute. 2007. The world’s worst polluted places. The top ten (of the

dirty thirty). New York: Blacksmith Institute. http://www.blacksmithinstitute.org/wwpp2007/finalReport2007.pdf

Bogardi J. and J. Birkmann. 2004. The BBC Conceptual Framework.

Environmental risk management in a large river basin, United Nation University.

CABRI-Volga Consortium. 2006a. Project Deliverable D2: Environmental Risk

Management in the Volga Basin: Overview of present situation and challenges in Russia and the EU. State of the art review. www.cabri-volga.org

CABRI -Volga Consortium. 2006 b. Project Deliverable D3: Environmental Risk

Management in Large River Basins: Overview of current practices in the EU and Russia (Good practices report).

CABRI-Volga Consortium. 2007a. Project Deliverable D4: The Volga Basin’s

Development: Today’s Problems, Tomorrow’s Challenges (Challenges and Obstacles Report).

CABRI- Volga Consortium .2007b. Project Deliverable C5: Policy

Recommendations. CABRI-Volga Consortium. 2007c. Project Deliverable D6: Action Plan and Future

Research Agenda. CIDA. 1999. Russia: gender equality issues and resources in brief. Canadian

International Development Agency.

42

Council of Europe. 2005. Recent demographic developments in Europe, 2004. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.

European Commission. Flood events:

www.ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk European Commission. 2008. Social Inclusion and Income Distribution in the

European Union – 2007. Monitoring Report from the European Observatory on Social Situation and Demography. Directorate-General Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities; Unit E1 - Social and Demographic Analysis.

Economic Commission for Europe, Committee on Environmental policy. 2007.

Progress in environmental management in Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia.

Federal State Statistic Service. Available at www.gks.ru European Parliament, Policy Department, Economic and Social Policy. 2006-

2007. Climate change-induced water stress and its impact on natural and managed ecosystem.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office. 2007. Country Profiles: Russia. Available at

http://www.fco.gov.uk. Accessed on 20 Dec, 2007 Götz, R. 2007. “Russia and global warming: implications for the energy industry”,

Russian Analytical Digest 23. IOI Operational Center Volga. 2006. Management of riverside areas in the Volga

basin, Nizhni Novgorod, Russia. IOM. 2008. International Dialogue on Migration no.10 Migration and Environment.

Experts Seminar, Geneva Switzerland. IPCC. 2007a. Climate change 2007. Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, IPCC. IPCC. 2007b. Climate change 2007. Mitigation of climate change, IPCC. IPCC. 2007c. Climate change 2007.Synthesis Report, IPCC. IPCC. 2007. Working Group II Contribution to the IPCC Fourth Assessment

Report Climate Change 2007: Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability - Summary for Policymakers.

ICPDR. International Commission for the protection of the Danube River.

Available at www.icpdr.org Ivakhniouk, Irina & Aleshkovski, Ivan. 2005. New approaches to international

migration management in Russia in early 2000s. Paper XXV IUSSP International Population Conference, Tours, France, 18-23 July 2005.

43

Kaczmarczyk, Pawel and Okolski, Marek. 2005. International Migration in Central and Eastern Europe-Current and Future Trends. United Nations Expert Group Meeting on International Migration and Development, Population Division. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. United Nations Secretariat. New York.

Kokorin, A.O & I.G. Gritsevich. 2007. “The Danger of Climate Change for Russia

– Expected Losses and Recommendations”, Russian Analytical Digest 23: 2-5. Kosmarskata, Natalia. 2005. Deti Imperii, Natalis, Moscow. Kydyralieva, S. 2008. “Migration in Eastern Europe and Central Asia”, Journal or

Turkish Weekly. Lang I, T. Farago, K. Hajos. 2006. Impacts and Responses in Central and Eastern

European Countries, Regional models and forecast, REC. Larin, V., Mnatsakanian R, Larin V., Shvarts E, Tchestin I. 2002. “Nature

protection in Russia”, Gorbachev do Putin. M. Lenin Vladimir. 1980. Razvitie kapitalizma v Rossii. M. Politizdat. Mansoor, Ali and Bryce Quillin. 2006. Migration and Remittances: Eastern Europe

and the Former Soviet Union. World Bank Publications. MAPup. 1996. Key Environmental Problem Areas in Russia. Available at

http://mapup.com/asia/maps-of-russia-10.html . Accessed on 20 June, 2007. Molodikova Irina, Makhoriva, Alla. 2007. “Urban patterns in Russia in the post-

Soviet era” in Stanilov K. (Eds) Cities after Socialism. Springer , NY. Molodikova, Irina. 2007. “Transformation of migration pattern in Post Soviet

space: Russian New Migration Policy of “Open Doors’ and its effect on European Migration Flows”, Review of Sociology 13 (2):1-15.

Molodikova, Irina. 2002. “Are the Russian –Speaking Population in the “Near

Abroad” a New Diaspora or Repatriates?”, Migracijske I ethnicke teme Journal 1: 41-62. Zagreb, Croatia.

Molodikova, Irina. 2002. “The Migration Behavior of Russian –speaking population

in Latvia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan (at the end of 90s)”, Diasporas Journal 1: 134 –161.

Molodikova, Irina, Nozdrina Nadezda. 1998. “Migration Flows to Russia in 1990s

and their Impact on Territorial Re-distribution of Population”, Problems of Forecasting 6: 89-105.

Mkrtchyan, Nikita, Zainochkovskaya, Zhanna. 2007. The Internal Migration in

Russia: Law Enforcement Practices. Center for migration studies.

44

Mukomel, Vladimir. 2005. Migration Policy of Russia (Post -Soviet Context). ISRAN.

Polian, Pauvel. 2004. Against Their Will:The History and Geography of Forced

Migrations in USSR, CEU Press, Budapest. Russian Expert Review. 2004. “Migratory Policy of Russia”,Russian Expert

Review 8. Available at www.rusrev.org National Intelligence Council. 1999. The Environmental Outlook in Russia,

National Intelligence Estimate. Available at http://www.dni.gov/nic/special_russianoutlook.html. Accessed on 05 July, 2007

Roshydromet. 2005. Strategic prediction for the period of up to 2010-2015,

Moscow. Rybakovsky, Leonid & Ryazantsev, Sergey. 2005. International migration in the

Russian federation. Paper for the UN expert group meeting on international migration and development, UN Population Division, New York, 6-8 July 2005. UN/POP/MIG/2005/11.

SERI. 2007. EACH-FOR Background Report: Environmental Degradation in

Europe and Russia. Unpublished (internal EACH-FOR) Report. Shahramayan M., V. Akimov and K. Kozlov. 1998. Ocenka prirodnoi I

technogennoy bezopasnosti Rossii, Moscow. Simai, M. 2006. Poverty and Inequality in Eastern Europe and the CIS Transition

Economies. DESA Working Paper No. 17 United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

Tishlov, V, Zayinchkovskaya, Z and Vitkovskaya, G. 2005. Migration in the

countries of the former Soviet Union. Prepared for the Policy Analysis and Research Programme of the Global Commission on International Migration. Global Commission on International Migration.

Tyuryukanova, Elena. 2006. Force Labors in Russian Federation Today: Irregular

Migration and Trafficking in Human Beings. Geneva, ILO. UNDP. 2007. Human Development Report. Fighting climate change. UNDP. 2007. Russia's Regions: Goals, Challenges, and Achievements. Human

development Report 2006/2007 for Russian Federation, UN, NY, 2007. UNDP Russia, Conservation of wetland biodiversity in the lower Volga Region,

2004-2010. UNESCO/ROSTE. 2004. Integrated impact analysis of Volga river Discharge

Regulation on Floodplain and Delta Ecosystem.

45

UNESCO. 2004. The Volga vision. UNESCO, Paris. UNEP. 2007. Global Environmental Outlook 4, UNEP. Vitkovskaya, G. 1994. Vinuzdennie Migranti. Carnegi Fond Moskva (Forced

Migrants. Carnegy Foundation, Moscow). Vitkovskaya, G. 2005. Irregular Migration in Russia, Moscow. IOM. Vorobieba, Olga. 2001. Migration of Population, System of Immigration Control.,

Ed. By Regent, T., Arhipov, Y.M.vol. 4. Volga River. 2009. In Encyclopædia Britannica. Available at

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/632239/Volga-River. Accessed 11 February, 2009.

WHO. Country reports, Russia. Available at www.who.org World Bank. 2005. Growth, Poverty, and Inequality: Eastern Europe and the

Former Soviet Union. World Bank. 2007. Russian Federation, Country Brief. Available at

http://web.worldbank.org/. Accessed on 05 January, 2008 World bank. 2007. Migration and Remittance in Central and Eastern Europe. Zaionchkovskaya, Z. 2000. Migratsia v transformiryiyschemsia obschestve

Annotirovannii bibliograficheskii ykazatel literatyri izdannoi v stranah SNG v 1992-1999, Moscow, (Zh.Zaionchkovskaya. 2000. Migration in transforming Society. Bibliography of Literature published in CIS countries in 1992-1999. Council on Forced Migration. Moscow).

Zaionchkovskaya, Z. 2007. “Why Russia needs the immigration policy?”, in

Zaionchkovskaya, Zh., Molodikova, I., Mukomel V., Methodologia i Methodi izychenia migratsionnih prosessov. M. INSD: 114-142.

Zaionchkovskaya, Z. 2005. “Labour Migration in CIS Countries: the Remedy

Against the Economic Crisis”, in Migration, Social and Intercultural Aspects of Sustainable Development. М., Conference paper: 159-165.

Zaionchkovskaia, Z. 2003. Labor Migration in CIS countries (social and economic effect. Institute of Economic Forecasting RAS.

46

Internet-based sources: http://www.gks.ru/scripts/db_inet/dbinet.cgi?pl=2403012 – http://www.gks.ru/free_doc/2008/demo/popul08.htm- http://www.gks.ru/gis/D_04.htm http://www.rfc.or.jp/IWT/iwtrkp/www/htdocs/knowledge_data/session7/Valentin_Naydenko http://www.ite.antat.ru/articles/st3.html http://afisha.dmitrov.su/ru/news/214.html http://a-lapin.narod.ru/Uglich.htm http://mapmologa.narod.ru/Zatoplenije.htm http://informacia.ru/topsecret/news2.htm http://forum.rus21.ru/index.php?showtopic=82875&st=0&start=0 www.antat.ru/files/vodohran.doc http://www.businesspress.ru/newspaper/article_mId_43_aId_87995.html http://www.priroda.ru/reviews/detail.php?SHOWALL_1=1&ID=4266 http://www.grid.unep.ch/product/publication/freshwater_europe/volga.php (http://www.ite.antat.ru/articles/st3.html). - Tatar on-line encyclopedia (http://a-lapin.narod.ru/Uglich.htm) http://mapmologa.narod.ru/Zatoplenije.htm Mologa-city portal http://informacia.ru/topsecret/news2.htm - portal secret materials of Russia http://forum.rus21.ru/index.php?showtopic=82875&st=0&start=0 - internet discussion about Cheboksara dam www.antat.ru/files/vodohran.doc - materials of international conference on ecological problems of reservoirs (http://www.businesspress.ru/newspaper/article_mId_43_aId_87995.html )- newspaper “Delovaya pressa” : 41 (117) in 30.10.2001 http://www.priroda.ru/reviews/detail.php?SHOWALL_1=1&ID=4266 ) –Nature of Russia , National portal : Siniakov V., Kyznetsova S.,Beliaev Y. (2003) “Geoecological security of Bolgograd Oblast, in Ispolzovenie i ohrana prirodnih resyrsov v Rossii, 2003, n.5. http://www.rfc.or.jp/IWT/iwtrkp/www/htdocs/knowledge_data/session7/Valentin_Naydenko - http://www.grid.unep.ch/product/publication/freshwater_europe/volga.php Publications GRID UNEP -Freshwater in Europe Major European Watersheds Volga Statistical information: Goscomstat 1995 Prodolzitelnost prozivania naselenia Rossii v meste

postoiannogo zitelstva. Microcensus 1994. : GKS.Moscow, Goscomstat 1995 “ Chislennost i Migratsia Naseleniaon Rossiiskoi Federatsii”

in 1992, Goskomstat Rossii. GKS., Moscow. Goscomstat 1995 Chislennost Naselenia I migratsia v Rossii in 1996

Statisticheskii ezegodnik. Goskomstat Rossii. Moscow. Goscomstat 1996 Chislennost i Migratsia Naseleniaon Rossiiskoi Federatsii “

in 1997, Statisticheskii ezegodnik.Goskomstat Rossii. GKS., Moscow. Goscomstat 1997 Chislennost i Migratsia Naseleniaon Rossiiskoi Federatsii “

in 1998, Statisticheskii ezegodnik. Goskomstat Rossii. GKS., Moscow.

47

Goscomstat 2000 Chislennost i Migratsia Naseleniaon Rossiiskoi Federatsii “ in 1999. Statisticheskii ezegodnik. Goskomstat Rossii. GKS., Moscow.

Goscomstat 2003 Chislennost i Migratsia Naseleniaon Rossiiskoi Federatsii “ in 2002. Statisticheskii ezegodnik.Goskomstat Rossii. GKS., Moscow.

Goscomstat 2006 Chislennost i Migratsia Naseleniaon Rossiiskoi Federatsii “ in 2005. Statisticheskii ezegodnik. Goskomstat Rossii. GKS., Moscow.

Goscomstat 2008, Chislennost i Migratsia Naseleniaon Rossiiskoi Federatsii “ in 2007. Statisticheskii ezegodnik. Goskomstat Rossii. GKS., Moscow.

Goscomstat 2005 Predpolozitelnaya chislennost naselenia Rossiiskoi federatsii di 2025 po regionam. GKS, Moscow

48

Annex

Table 2 List of abbreviations

CIS Commonwealth of Independent States, intergovernmental organization of FSU states, established Dec. 1991; the current CIS member states are: Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Ukraine

COE Council Of Europe

DoVRB Lower Volga River Basin. Case study area, Astrakhanskaya and Volgogradskaya oblasts

FSU Former Soviet Union PFO Middle or Central part of Volga River Basin. Case study area, located

in Privolzkii Federal Okrug (PFO;14 oblasts and autonomous republics)

RF Russian Federation

SU Soviet Union (USSR)

UpVRB Upper Volga River Basin. Case study area: Yaroslavskaya, Kostromskaya, Tverskaya and Ivanovskaya oblasts.

VRB Volga River Basin: case study area, includes UpVRB, DoVRB and PFO

49

Figure 3 Volga River Basin

Source: CABRI Volga Project (2006c): 9.

50

Table 3 Regions of the VRB Case study area

Name of Region Status Capital Part of Federal District

Kostromskaya or Kostroma region

Oblast Kostroma

Tverskaya or Tver region

Oblast Tver

Yaroslavskaya or Yaroslavl region

Oblast Yaroslavl

Upper VRB (UpVRB)

Ivanovskaya or Ivanovo region

Oblast Ivanovo

Central Federal District (Central Federal Okrug or Central FO; Adm. Center: Moscow)

Astrakhanskaya or Astrakhan region

Oblast Astrakhan Lower VRBn (DoVRB) Volgogradskaya or

Volgograd region Oblast Volgograd

Southern Federal District (Southern FO; Adm. Center: Rostov-on-Don)

Republic of Bashkortostan

Republic Ufa

Republic of Mariy El Republic Yoshkar-Ola Republic of Mordovia

Republic Saransk

Republic of Tatarstan (or Tataria)

Republic Kazan

Republic of Udmurtia (or Ydmurtia)

Republic Izhevsk

Republic of Chuvash (or Chuvashia)

Republic Cheboksary

Kirovskaya or Kirov region

Oblast Kirov

Nizegorodskaya or Nizhny Novgorod region

Oblast Nizhniy Novgorod

Orenburg region Oblast Orenburg Penzenskaya or Penza region

Oblast Penza

Permskaya or Perm territory

Oblast Perm

Samarskaya or Samara region

Oblast Samara

Saratovskaya or Saratov region

Oblast Saratov

Central VRB (PFO)

Ulyanovskaya or Ulyanovsk region

Oblast Ulyanovsk

Volga Region Federal District (Privolzhsky Federal Okrug, PFO; Adm. Center: Nizhny Novgorod)

51

Table 4 Population data (population changes) for the regions of the VRB (2007-2008)

Population

on Changes for 2007. (+,-) Population % of 2008

All population January Total

increase including On January to 2007

2007 / decrease Natural

decrease Net

migration 2008

Total Russian Federation 142.220.968 -212.130 -470.323 258.193 142.008.838 99,85 Total VRB (UP+DO+Volga FO) 37.218.058 -67.317 -238.804 171.487 37.150.741 99,82

Kostromskaya 1.087.886 -8.281 -9.714 1.433 1.079.605 99,24 Tverskaya 702.209 -5.166 -4.965 -201 697.043 99,26 Yaroslavskaya 1.390.444 -10.902 -14.396 3.494 1.379.542 99,22 Ivanovskaya 1.320.140 -5.135 -9.931 4.796 1.315.005 99,61 Total for UpVRB 4.500.679 -29.484 -39.006 9.522 4.471.195 397,33 Astrakhan 994.127 6.747 -615 7.362 1.000.874 100,68 Volgograd 2.619.955 -11.193 -10.183 -1.010 2.608.762 99,57 DoVRB 3.614.082 -4.446 -10.798 6.352 3.609.636 200,25 Bashkatostan 4.050.989 1.742 -3.691 5.433 4.052.731 100,04 Mari El 706.680 -3.460 -2.439 -1.021 703.220 99,51 Mordva 847.645 -7.254 -5.592 -1.662 840.391 99,14 Tatarstan 3.760.534 2.275 -8.070 10.345 3.762.809 100,06 Ydmurtia 1.537.858 -5.122 -2.060 -3.062 1.532.736 99,67 Chuvashia 1.286.239 -3.672 -3.807 135 1.282.567 99,71 Kirovskaya 2.730.892 -12.665 -9.727 -2.938 2.718.227 99,54 Nizegorodskaya 1.426.917 -13.660 -8.804 -4.856 1.413.257 99,04 Orenburg 3.381.328 -21.512 -28.543 7.031 3.359.816 99,36 Penzenskaya 2.125.503 -6.500 -5.224 -1.276 2.119.003 99,69

52

Permskaya 1.395.981 -7.960 -8.975 1.015 1.388.021 99,43 Samarskaya 3.178.577 -5.790 -14.733 8.943 3.172.787 99,82 Saratov 2.595.315 -11.507 -13.312 1.805 2.583.808 99,56 Ylianovskaya 1.321.710 -9.502 -8.514 -988 1.312.208 99,28 Volga FO 30.346.168 -104.587 -123.491 18.904 30.241.581 99,66

Source : Goskomstat 2008

Table 5 Reasons for migration in Russia, 2002,2005,2007, 1997; net migration

reasons

Net migration education new job return

migration ethnic

tensions deterioration

criminal situation

environmental Unfavourable Climate

family and

private reasons

other

1997 net migration

Total 309966 13433 63412 4892 66305 5830 1686 828 140849 12731 including:

Internal 21182 569 1618 1694 7039 1698 11 30 7547 976 International 288784 12864 61794 3198 59266 4132 1675 798 133302 11755

including: CIS and Baltic States 339495 11605 60323 6690 593490 4238 1856 903 176234 18267

Other countries - 50681 1259 1471 - 3492 - 83 - 106 - 181 - 105 - 42932 - 6512 2002 net migration Total 76281 3976 7108 2310 10946 1105 352 215 47290 2979

including: Internal 7365 307 480 438 631 409 13 38 4308 741 International 68916 3669 6628 1872 10315 696 339 177 42982 2238

including: CIS and Baltic States 106113 2965 7378 1616 10326 709 401 210 77052 5456

Other countries - 37197 704 - 750 256 - 11 - 13 - 62 - 33 - 34070 - 3218

2005 net migration Total 95,855 2,726 4,174 4,153 6,460 647 435 289 70,216 6,755

including: Internal 27 -27 -17 36 9 4 5 7 8 2 International 95,828 2,753 4,191 4,117 6,451 643 430 282 70,208 6,753

53

including: CIS and Baltic

States 116,598 2,175 4,845 3,615 6,594 665 472 315 89,818 8,099

Other countries -20,770 578 -654 502 -143 -22 -42 -33 -19,610 -1,346

2007

net migration

Total 215,765 2,500 20,954 8,756 4,621 368 403 474 141,813 16,368 including:

Internal -1 71 -1 -1 1 - - 4 -61 -3 International 215,766 2,429 20,955 8,757 4,620 368 403 470 141,874 16,371

including: CIS and Baltic

States 218,253 2,509 20,823 7,690 4,613 365 414 478 146,142 16,845

Other countries -2,487 -80 132 1,067 7 3 -11 -8 -4,268 -474

Table 6 Reasons for migration in VRB in 2007: Arrivals and departures

reasons

Arrivals, 2007 arrivals

Education

new job

return migratio

n

ethnic tensions

deterioration

criminal situatio

n

environment

al

climate

family and

private

other no answer

Russia, total 1,997,559 134,138 208,1

40 254,38

4 5,266 757 3,796 6,018 1,235,1

82 118,87

2 31,006

Kostromskaya 14,112 754 1,292 1,873 57 7 43 67 8,892 592 535 Tverskaya 9,496 337 1,022 1,725 37 6 18 46 5,538 602 165 Yaroslavskaya 20,918 3,390 1,796 1,159 117 8 42 46 13,801 32 527 Ivanovskaya 15,507 2,022 878 913 57 2 25 40 11,144 42 384 Total for UpVRB 60,033 6,503 4,988 5,670 268 23 128 199 39,375 1,268 1,611

54

Astrakhan 13,755 15 2,084 415 14 9 88 4 10,896 230 - Volgograd 25,402 420 2,114 2,184 136 5 44 122 17,956 1,951 470 Total DoVRB 39,157 435 4,198 2,599 150 14 132 126 28,852 2,181 470 Bashkatostan 78,372 11,543 7,144 21,513 431 25 128 201 33,546 2,919 922 Mari El 9,811 218 861 1,891 16 1 19 28 4,749 1,953 75 Mordva 9,424 547 766 1,474 7 - - 17 5,181 683 749 Tatarstan 54,656 2,244 2,327 30,669 53 9 2 10 18,474 53 815 Ydmurtia 13,368 1,393 1,430 2,591 7 3 48 35 6,600 922 339 Chuvashia 18,708 2,637 1,074 4,331 10 6 26 42 9,644 633 305 Kirovskaya 25,636 628 3,139 4,217 38 7 109 108 15,737 1,309 344 Nizegorodskaya 14,218 514 1,366 2,513 9 2 42 47 9,719 6 - Orenburg 32,744 1,805 3,608 2,906 156 17 151 142 20,553 3,128 278 Penzenskaya 27,679 1,676 4,152 3,437 97 9 33 12 17,386 69 808 Permskaya 19,076 857 650 1,993 94 6 7 22 11,765 3,681 1 Samarskaya 39,851 4,879 4,034 2,877 242 17 94 110 24,435 2,599 564 Saratov 39,644 302 1,619 2,293 69 4 24 45 31,551 3,701 36 Ylianovskaya 14,809 307 1,064 1,934 56 7 39 49 7,103 3,724 526

Total PFO, Volga FO 397,996 29,550 33,23

4 84,639 1,285 113 722 868 216,443 25,380 5,762 reasons

Departures, 2007 departures

Education

new job

return migratio

n

ethnic tensions

deterioration

criminal situatio

n

environment

al

climate family and

private

other no answer

Russia, total 1,781,794 131,638 187,1

86 245,62

8 645 389 3,393 5,544 1,093,3

69 102,5

04 11,498

Kostromskaya 12,912 802 1,277 1,691 - - 17 21 7,978 924 202 Tverskaya 9,714 656 1,054 1,529 1 2 13 20 5,740 599 100 Yaroslavskaya 17,598 3,355 1,425 1,083 5 4 9 20 10,588 1,077 32

55

Ivanovskaya 11,186 1,419 705 909 4 1 8 14 7,701 402 23 Total for UpVRB 51,410 6,232 4,461 5,212 10 7 47 75 32,007 3,002 357 Astrakhan 12,262 208 725 920 1 1 99 33 9,700 547 28 Volgograd 26,398 650 2,440 2,455 2 3 49 56 18,383 2,074 286 Total DoVRB 38,660 858 3,165 3,375 3 4 148 89 28,083 2,621 314 Bashkatostan 73,632 12,059 9,280 16,951 19 2 91 127 31,649 2,785 669 Mari El 10,708 512 1,168 2,034 3 - 12 14 4,914 1,996 55 Mordva 10,884 748 1,313 1,099 2 - 1 8 6,541 1,124 48 Tatarstan 45,737 2,687 2,897 21,134 5 8 29 25 17,712 853 387 Ydmurtia 15,932 1,660 1,856 2,930 2 3 33 36 8,095 1,028 289 Chuvashia 18,527 2,548 1,495 3,868 4 2 15 26 9,450 941 178 Kirovskaya 28,224 1,366 3,317 3,954 8 4 131 107 17,476 1,584 277 Nizegorodskaya 18,385 961 2,550 2,388 4 1 24 35 11,869 496 57 Orenburg 26,777 1,442 2,552 2,692 23 8 100 37 17,164 2,645 114 Penzenskaya 28,560 2,378 4,020 3,160 9 1 66 60 17,599 960 307 Permskaya 18,479 1,088 1,360 1,800 7 - 2 16 11,830 2,333 43 Samarskaya 32,220 3,491 2,560 4,180 10 8 80 63 19,496 1,956 376 Saratov 38,327 723 2,705 2,568 10 3 49 52 28,207 3,902 108 Ylianovskaya 15,574 824 2,055 1,930 3 5 25 33 8,795 1,551 353

Total PFO, Volga FO 381,966 32,487 39,12

8 70,688 109 45 658 639 210,79

7 24,15

4 3,261

Continuation 2007: Reasons for migration in VRB; Net Migration

2007 Net reasons

56

migration education

new job

return migratio

n

ethnic tension

s

deterioration

criminal situation

environment

al

climate family and

private

other no answer

Russia, total 215,765 2,500 20,95

4 8,756 4,621 368 403 474 141,8

13 16,368 19,508

Kostromskaya 1,200 -48 15 182 57 7 26 46 914 -332 333 Tverskaya -218 -319 -32 196 36 4 5 26 -202 3 65 Yaroslavskaya 3,320 35 371 76 112 4 33 26 3,213 -1,045 495 Ivanovskaya 4,321 603 173 4 53 1 17 26 3,443 -360 361 Total for UpVRB 8,623 271 527 458 258 16 81 124 7,368 -1,734 1,254 Astrakhan 1,493 -193 1,359 -505 13 8 -11 -29 1,196 -317 -28 Volgograd -996 -230 -326 -271 134 2 -5 66 -427 -123 184 Total DoVRB 497 -423 1,033 -776 147 10 -16 37 769 -440 156 Bashkatostan 4,740 -516 -2,136 4,562 412 23 37 74 1,897 134 253 Mari El -897 -294 -307 -143 13 1 7 14 -165 -43 20 Mordva -1,460 -201 -547 375 5 - -1 9 -1,360 -441 701 Tatarstan 8,919 -443 -570 9,535 48 1 -27 -15 762 -800 428 Ydmurtia -2,564 -267 -426 -339 5 - 15 -1 -1,495 -106 50 Chuvashia 181 89 -421 463 6 4 11 16 194 -308 127 Kirovskaya -2,588 -738 -178 263 30 3 -22 1 -1,739 -275 67 Nizegorodskaya -4,167 -447 -1,184 125 5 1 18 12 -2,150 -490 -57 Orenburg 5,967 363 1,056 214 133 9 51 105 3,389 483 164 Penzenskaya -881 -702 132 277 88 8 -33 -48 -213 -891 501 Permskaya 597 -231 -710 193 87 6 5 6 -65 1,348 -42 Samarskaya 7,631 1,388 1,474 -1,303 232 9 14 47 4,939 643 188 Saratov 1,317 -421 -1,086 -275 59 1 -25 -7 3,344 -201 -72 Ylianovskaya -765 -517 -991 4 53 2 14 16 -1,692 2,173 173 Total PFO, Volga FO 16,030 -2,937 -5,894 13,951 1,176 68 64 229 5,646 1,226 2,501

57

Table 7 Reasons for migration in regions of the VRB in 2005; net migration

reasons

Net migration 2005

Net migration education new

job return

migration ethnic

tensions deterioration

criminal situation

environmental climate family and private

other

Russia, total 95,855 2,726 4,174 4,153 6,460 647 435 289 70,216 6,755

Kostromskaya -147 86 -62 178 67 1 44 26 -194 -293

Tverskaya -319 -203 -141 179 40 6 22 14 -258 22

Yaroslavskaya 510 -306 31 126 191 13 36 42 1,226 -849

Ivanovskaya 3,072 694 69 112 60 5 25 36 2,448 -377

Total for UpVRB 3,116 271 -103 595 358 25 127 118 3,222 -1,497 Astrakhan -685 -201 -322 -434 5 6 -7 -19 447 -160 Volgograd -2,683 -236 -495 -544 133 15 12 50 -1,533 -85 Total DoVRB -3,368 -437 -817 -978 138 21 5 31 -1,086 -245

Bashkatostan -1,610 -828 -2,095 3,471 34 8 33 46 -2,029 -250 Mari El -490 -279 -163 95 30 5 7 12 -205 8 Mordva -2,117 -242 -552 483 30 - -4 4 -1,542 -294 Tatarstan 5,433 252 -413 4,779 76 2 -4 -3 1,378 -634 Ydmurtia -1,440 17 -393 -46 47 1 10 3 -1,159 80 Chuvashia -460 11 -494 606 22 -1 10 8 -420 -202 Kirovskaya -2,055 -668 -419 624 47 4 -1 -2 -1,476 -164 Nizegorodskaya -3,523 -680 -1,140 348 18 -2 16 34 -1,654 -463 Orenburg 3,244 599 435 120 173 9 29 76 1,633 170 Penzenskaya -1,672 -526 -771 719 262 34 -11 -37 -774 -568 Permskaya -803 -209 -778 435 129 11 2 -2 116 -507 Samarskaya 6,459 1,181 1,675 -1,334 281 18 - 74 3,631 933 Saratov 1,865 -349 -1,073 -260 178 15 -30 3 3,855 -474 Ylianovskaya -3,299 -550 -1,059 235 70 5 8 13 -1,552 -469 Total PFO, Volga FO -468 -2,271 -7,240 10,275 1,397 109 65 229 -198 -2,834

Table 8: Reasons for migration in regions of the VRB in 2002; net migration

2002 Net reasons

58

migration education new job

return migration

ethnic tensions

deterioration criminal situation

environmental climate family and

private

other

Russia, total 76281 3976 7108 2310 10946 1105 352 215 47290 2979

Kostromskaya 650 12 -125 179 58 11 31 61 220 203

Tverskaya 989 -291 200 160 284 31 63 114 1291 -863

Yaroslavskaya 2570 -103 155 24 194 10 33 55 2634 -432

Ivanovskaya 705 -146 -108 124 68 15 35 45 517 125

Total UpVRB 4914 -528 122 487 604 67 162 275 4662 -967

Astrakhan 1333 -194 558 -347 55 21 -16 -28 1025 259

Volgograd -2090 -127 -425 -427 296 39 59 119 -1618 -6

Total DoVRB -757 -321 133 -774 351 60 43 91 -593 253

Bashkatostan 1288 -711 -1705 3559 495 47 17 71 -492 7

Mari El -114 -6 -337 56 40 1 6 8 -36 154

Mordva -2252 -243 -644 510 51 -1 11 15 -1682 -269

Tatarstan 5027 -4 434 6450 182 38 35 12 -1404 -716

Ydmurtia -1160 227 -408 -78 80 5 12 15 -1051 38

Chuvashia -107 -49 -603 880 43 9 12 29 -412 -16

Kirovskaya -2365 -486 -1012 305 68 1 7 52 -990 -310

Nizegorodskaya 2275 35 419 25 188 14 45 44 2010 -505

Orenburg -3199 -605 -770 333 247 61 -10 -23 -1819 -613

Total PFO, Volga FO 1711 -2105 -5291 11968 2269 269 211 359 -3807 -2162