The comparative analysis of payments for negative environmental impact in Russia and Kazakhstan

The article represents the calculation of the payment for negative environmental impact caused by the development of the uranium ores deposits in the Republic of Kazakhstan. To compare the deposits in Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation, the event is simulated as if the object were located in the territory of the Russian Federation. The comparison of the results serves as an evidence to substantiate the experts’ claim that the financial mechanism of land management in Russia should be reformed.


Introduction
Charges for the negative environmental impact is a way to compensate the damage to the environment [1] caused by the companies and other enterprises through contamination and waste disposal [2]. The scientists state that current charges perform neither compensation [3,4] nor regulatory functions [5]. Even with the penal sanctions being accounted, the payment of companies make up hundreds and tenths of a percent within the expenses and income respectively [6]. It is still more profitable for Russian companies to pay the charges for the damage to the environment than to carry out environmental actions [7]. The absence of economic incentives to motivate companies to perform environmental actions and insignificance of charges increase the level of environmental pollution [8,9,10].

Materials and Methods
The authors of the article analyze the payments for the negative environmental impact made by an exploration company in Kazakhstan in 2015. The company is Volkovgeology, which explores Irkol deposit in Kazakhstan. The calculation was made for all possible sources of contamination when constructing a well for in situ leaching of uranium, which makes a considerable negative impact on the environment. Special attention has been paid to the process waste management system as the wastes of this particular type are produced in great amounts. The same calculation has been made in compliance with the laws and regulations of the Russian Federation.

Results and Discussion
The major sources of negative environmental impact are the mobile drill rig BPU-1200 M equipped with the drill ZIF-1200 MR, the bulldozer T-165-2, trailers, the mobile power plant AKSA AJD-200 with the capacity of 160 kW, the excavator EK-18, the water tank truck KRAZ-6322, the maintenance crew vehicle GAZ-66, the repair vehicle on the basis of ZIL-131. All moving machines (plants and vehicles) firm and shave the soil, which causes dust. The vehicles and the power plant emit exhaust gases. Constructing pits, clarifiers, and sumps add even more dust [11]. Potential air pollutants, wastewater releases, and wastes caused by the construction works are represented in table 1. Well construction undoubtedly has a negative environmental impact on: air (due to the vehicles and special machines); soil and cover crop (due to the pits, clarifiers, and annular seal failure); surface and ground waters (mud losses, fuel and lubricant storage, formation fluid seeps); subsurface resources; flora, fauna, and human beings. The implemented waste management system makes it possible to minimize the negative environmental impact. Non-radioactive process wastes are split into two groups: one group is further recovered and recycled while the other one is buried. Radioactive and highly radioactive substances are sent to be buried at the special burial site for radioactive wastes. Broken rock debris and cuttings are put into wide ditches and covered with the humus layers, which were put aside and generated while digging the ditches. There is radiation safety and ecological control service which is in charge of environmental monitoring, i.e. accounting, keeping, transferring, and transporting all wastes including radioactive ones [12,5].
In the process of works, about 22.2 ha of soil will be disturbed. Therefore, during the performance period mine reclamation will be provided: backfilling, further covering of sumps, pits, and clarifiers with the soil layer, afterward furrow firming and irrigation. The experience of similar activities performed in the bordering region shows that the vegetation on such saline soils is restored within three years. As a result, by the end of the performance period a certain part of the lands will be reclaimed [8].
Moreover, actual mining will take place in the territory when drilling is completed. Therefore, the question on compensation for agricultural losses caused by different land-disturbing activities should be solved only after actual mining is over, reclamation activities are performed, and the land is transferred to the government.  The comparative analysis of payments for the negative environmental impact on Irkol deposit was made on the basis of current tariff rates in the RF. The calculation was made as per rate of exchange 1 ruble = 0.28 tenge (dated 10   If the same deposit were located in the territory of the Russian Federation, the total amount of payment for air pollution emissions in the Republic of Kazakhstan would be 42.5 times as much as that in the Russian Federation. While the tariff for benzo(а)pyrene emissions in Russia is 30 times as much as that in Kazakhstan, the tariffs for all other pollutants are significantly lower. For example, the tariff for hydrogen sulphide emission in Kazakhstan is 563 times as much as that in Russia. The results of the comparative analysis of payments for air pollution emissions caused by mobile sources are even more impressive: the total payment in Kazakhstan is 129 times as much as that in Russia.
However, the payments for waste disposal in Kazakhstan and Russia are commensurable: the payment in Russia is 38% more than that in Kazakhstan. The total payment for the negative environmental impact in Kazakhstan over 2015 will be 263571.73 rubles. If the deposit were located in the territory of Russia, the payment would be 32108.55 rubles. The total amount of payment in Russia would be an 8th of that in Kazakhstan (table 6). The comparison of payments for the negative environmental impact has allowed us to identify two different approaches to economic regulation of environmental protection. In the Republic of Kazakhstan, the regional authorities are in charge of approving the tariffs, with the minimum calculation indexes being specified in the tax laws of the republic. In Russia, the tariffs are approved by the Government of the RF, with the regional differences in the amount of the tax being determined by the ecological situation factor. In Russia, the payments for the air pollution emissions are lower than those in Kazakhstan, while the payments for wastes disposal in general are higher. The wastes in Russia are differentiated in accordance with the classes of hazard.

Conclusion
The analysis of the systems of payments proves that the charges in Russia do not encourage the companies to reduce the negative environmental impact, as the charges are low enough and incommensurable with the costs for environmental constructions.