The tasks of the assessment of environmental damage in the Arctic

Timeliness of the problem

As practice shows, the development of oil and gas fields of the Arctic zone carries the risk of destroying of ecosystems and causing significant environmental damage, the elimination of which is problematic due to the fragile Arctic ecosystem and its poor ability to heal and clean itself. The accident on an oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico has estimated at approximately tens of billions of US dollars ($ 17.6 billion— $ 90 billion). $ 17.6 billion are possible fines and compensations; $ 90 billion — losses of the BP1. The damage of such an accident in the Arctic zone can significantly exceed these amounts.

Therefore it is particularly important to take preventive measures in the early stages of the Arctic exploration. It is also necessary to create financial funds, and other tools to begin rehabilitation work in case of emergency and to eliminate the consequences of the damage caused. The basis of such measures and tools is the valuation of the environmental damage. Solving such problems could reduce the risk of environmental degradation in the Arctic zone.

However, despite the apparent simplicity of the problem, and good at first glance, methodological support2, there are a number of problems such as methodological and organizational ones. These issues include the following questions:

• 1.    Why should we assess the loss?

• 2.    What loss should we assess and what does the loss mean?

• 3.    Who is the victim and who should receive compensation?

• 4.    How should we assess the loss value in terms of money?

The term ecological loss and its assessment

Before answering these questions, we should define the concept of “ecological loss”. It is widespread in the scientific and educational literature. This concept is often equated with the concept of “environmental damage”, which, in our opinion, it is not legitimate from an economic point of view, since the concept of “ecological loss” is much broader and takes into account all the negative consequences for society. In my opinion, under the “ecological loss” should be understood all the negative consequences caused by environmental pollution, loss and depletion of natural resources, destruction of ecosystems and their individual components (including the atmosphere, air, water objects, soil, flora and fauna) and creates a real threat to life and human health, welfare, property and the economy of the country and its individual regions. These effects may include deterioration of human health and premature death, extinction of plants and animals, loss of natural ecosystems, reduced productivity of farmland, the death of fish in reservoirs, reducing the cost of property, loss of jobs, recreation, the loss of its traditional sphere of activity and primordial living environment, loss of historical and cultural landscape, the cost of rehabilitation and compensation measures for personal and public budgets, and others.

Economic assessment of the ecological loss means the evaluation of those negative effects in terms of money, designed either for specific subjects of legal and economic relations, or for a specific community of people, the economy of the country or region. Such assessments can be conducted at different levels of coverage of the negative effects — local, regional and global levels.

In the legal field in recent years the concept of ecological loss is replaced by the concept of the environmental damage or its individual components3. Thus, the law on the protection of the environment considers the environmental damage as a “negative changes in the environment caused by pollution and leading to the degradation of natural ecosystems and the depletion of natural resources”4. That is, saying damage we mean some physical damage, destruction or deterioration of the natural environment and its individual components with no connection to the cost or monetary assessment of the damage. At the same time in other articles of this law (77 and 78) there is a mention of determination of the damage to the environment in the value form. It is proposed to determine the scale of the damage in two ways: either “based on the actual costs of restoration of the environment, taking into account the losses incurred, including loss of profits” or “in accordance with the rates and methods of calculating the amount of harm done to the environment, approved by the executive authorities engaged with the governance in the field of environmental protection”5. Such an interpretation of the amount of environmental damage claims the role of a methodology for assessing the environmental damage, as it contains a formula of assessment in monetary terms. However, this formula is not correct and leads to a deadlock in studies to assess environmental damage, as it allows to evaluate only a small part of the loss, resulting from such harm and makes it impossible to take into account all the real social and economic losses, including harm to human health and life and loss of native living environment that is particularly relevant for the population of the Arctic territories of the country.

The rule, entered to the Law on Environmental Protection, regarding compensation for damage to health and property of citizens being the result of violations of the law in the field of environmental protection, is broken — such cases are single because of the complexity of the proof of causality between the harm to the health and violation of environmental laws, and on the other hand, the rule is aimed at specific cases and does fit the macroeconomic assessment.

In this article the author will stick to the expanded interpretation of the concept of the ecological loss, as it allows it to apply modern economic tools and conduct macroeconomic assessments.

What for to assess the loss

The answer to the first question — why should we assess the loss — involves the creation of such instruments for environmental protection, such as:

• a)    Insurance of environmental risks;

• b)    The establishment of collateral and compensation funds, which could be used to pay the work on liquidation of the consequences of damage after their completion;

• c)    Compensation for the current damage and recovery.

List of applied problems of management and producing the environmental instruments required for valuations could be continued. Its main feature is the non-fiscal nature of the payments and orientation to the elimination and prevention of the environmental damage.

The calculation of insurance premiums for oil and gas companies could serve the example of the valuation of environmental damage.

It is necessary to perform a series of preliminary procedures to compete such a calculation:

• 1.    Determine the possibility of the insured event.

• 2.    Determine the amount of losses of the company in case of the environmental damage for each event insured.

• 3.    Create a database on the valuation of the damage and the cost of liquidation of the damage caused by the most common cases.

The amount of the insurance premium could be calculated by the formula:

Net rate = ecological damage * (the number of cases of environmental damage for the period / number of contracts concluded during the period) + insurance extra charge

Example of calculation of the insurance premium by the proposed formula:

V Oil pollution — 3 ha

V The cost of recultivation 1 ha — 5 million rub. * 3 = 15 million rub.

V Tainted soil volume — 5,000 m3

V   Cost of 1 m3 of soil — 800 rub.

V   The cost of tainted soil = 5,000 m3 * 800 rub. = 4 mln. rub.

V Total loss: 19 mln. rub.

V   The number of cases of environmental damage for a certain period — 2

V   The number of contracts concluded during the same period — 1000

V The possibility of the insured event 2/1000 = 0.002

Net rate = 19 mln. rub. * 0.002 = 38,000 rub.

What loss we should assess and what the loss means

The answer to the second question — what loss we should assess and what the loss means— is connected with the picking out 3 categories of environmental loss: past, present and future.

The present or current environmental damage— is damage caused by violation of environmental norms in the process of economic activity, or damage caused by the emergency. Damage to the environment at the current causing loss is usually expressed in air pollution, pollution of water, soil pollution, including oil spills and penetration of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, destroying or damaging the soil, animals and vegetation, as well as animal habitats, including hunting grounds, reindeer pastures, reduction or loss of soil fertility, pasture degradation, loss of historical, cultural and valuable landscapes, biodiversity loss, loss of ecological functions and environmental services of ecosystems. Assessing the current environmental damage in terms of value should be more than just an accounting these types of harm and should include losses from increased morbidity and mortality, as well as economic losses and social losses arising from the injury. We can assume that these are the statement mentioned in articles of the Law on Environmental Protection. Thus, according to Article 77 of the Law, 10.01.2002 N7-FZ, environmental damage is compensated, taking into account the losses incurred, including loss of profits, and in accordance with the Article 78- the size of the damage to the environment is carried out taking into account the loss incurred, including loss of benefits. However, the Law does not clarify what should be considered as incurred losses and loss of profits because of the environmental damage, who is the victim and whom and in what form the loss should be compensated. All this makes the issue of assessing and managing the environmental loss quite confusing in legal and economic terms.

Past environmental loss or, as we call it, gained loss is caused by the environmental damage of past activities of people and businesses. From an economic point of view, the past damage has no difference from the present, so as to evaluate it uses the same methods, mainly based on the calculation of the cost of the negative effects and restoration of the environment. Its difference from the real damage is primarily in the legal aspect, as the perpetrators of the damage for various reasons cannot be installed and load the cost of its removal falls mainly on the shoulders of the state. Although, there may be other mechanisms to solve this problem, for example, the equal distribution of the cost between the federal government, regional authorities and future investors. This model has been used in Germany for the rehabilitation of damaged areas and areas polluted by industrial activity after joining the GDR.

Thus, from the perspective of the economic evaluation, the differences between the past and the current environmental damage there is little, they can be combined into a single category since all the damage “lying on the ground” (or at the bottom).

Future harm. This category of damage may be called project damage, since it is calculated and evaluated at the design stage, or if it is evaluated at all due to the gaps in national legislation. So, it happens extremely rare. Sometimes these assessments are carried out when applying for loans in foreign banks, requiring compulsory reflection in the project documentation of social and environmental risks and their reduction for sustainable development at the expense of environmental protection measures and measures of social orientation. Previously our country had a mandatory procedure of compensation of losses of the fishing industry in the form of allocation of investor funds for the construction of hatcheries and preventive conservation measures.

Future or project loss should be calculated at the design stage and to be included into the documentation to assess its impact on the environment. Now, such estimates are not binding and they are not provided by the current legislation and for that reason are not held. Although their conduct could provide an economic tool aimed at the future of environmental loss compensation from permissible economic activity in the initial stage of project implementation and thereby help to minimize the expected social and environmental losses of investors in order to reduce the costs of the project. Compensation for future environmental loss could also create a financial basis for the specialized funds aimed to ensure the elimination of the negative consequences on the next stages of project’s implementation.

Quite close to the concept of the future or project loss is the concept of averted loss, which refers to score (in the form of money) of possible negative effects of environmental pollution avoided after planned or carried out environmental activities. Usually averted loss is calculated as the difference between the damage, without taking into account certain measures for its prevention or reduction, and taking into account the damage of these activities. Averted loss is determined to assess the cost-effectiveness of environmental measures laid down in the draft, or to assess the environmental performance of public authorities. For these purposes, the “Temporary method of determining the averted environmental damage”was developed and approved in 1999 by the Russian State Committee6.

Prior to its abolition in 2008, the constituent elements of the project could be regarded7 as compromising the so-called loss of agricultural production and forestry, which was calculated according to certain rules and rates and was compensated to investors, carrying out a new business project. After 2008, only losses of the land owners, including ascribed to agricultural land and forest lands were assessed and compensated instead of the losses of agricultural production and forestry.

The term project loss can be attributed to calculation of compensation to the local population for various kinds of losses and damages from future pollution, loss of native habitat and destruction of the traditional way of life in the areas of oil and gas production, minerals extraction, hydropower, as well the other large-scale commercial works.

At present, the compensation is defined only for the indigenous peoples of the North, Siberia and the Russian Far East, and then it is done partially and not fully. At the federal level, the issue is not resolved as a whole and leads to serious social conflicts. An example is the protests in the Voronezh region against the development of nickel deposits on Hopr, the movement against the raising of the Cheboksary Reservoir level in the Nizhny Novgorod region and others.

The settlement of this issue on the basis of sound calculation of the ecological loss, as well as all the costs and benefits of the parties involved in this process could reduce social tensions arising in these regions and ensure the balance between the interests of local communities, business and government.

Who is damaged and who should get the compensation

The answer to the third question — who is damaged and who should get the compensation — has no answer in the Russian legislation. Its decision could be carried out in two ways — through various mechanisms of compensation for the whole of society through the inclusion of externality costs into the financial flows of private firms (the elimination of market failures), and through the mechanism of elimination and prevention of particular cases of harm to the environment by specific individuals and firms. Russian environmental legislation, made in the 1990s, was focused on compensation for environmental damage to the whole society through the calculation of the loss of the national economy. Compensation mechanism was implemented through the creation of environmental funds maintained by the means of environmental fees, fines, and restitution. Than these funds were allocated for environmental protection and rehabilitation, and organizations carried out such activities were not supposed to pay the ecological charges. Thereby, the goal of reducing the environmental damage was achieved.

The environmental legislation provided the distribution between environmental budgets at various levels of the budget system of the Russian Federation in the ratio: 60% — for local environmental activities (city, district); 30% — for environmental measures of republican, territorial and regional importance; 10% — for the environmental activities of federal significance.

Since January 2001, the federal and regional environmental funds were liquidated in accordance with the new Budget Code (enacted in 2000), all funds received for compensation for environmental damage became consolidated in the budgets of various levels and not connected with the cost for environmental protection. Thus the fundamental principle of this kind of payments was eliminated —namely their non-fiscal origin and direct use for the environmental and rehabilitation measures.

At present, the order of transfer of funds in respect of environmental damage is regulated by federal laws on the budget and is to be established each year. In 2014, funds for compensation of damage caused to the environment were included into the budgets of urban districts, municipal districts, as well as the budgets of federal cities (Moscow and St. Petersburg). In the West, this mechanism is also pretty good and showed itself in some countries such as the US, where in the 1970s it was created by the so-called Superfund accumulating funds for the restoration and remediation work and was effectively used for the purpose of minimizing the environmental damage.

Transfer of funds for compensating the environmental damage to the local and regional budgets is legitimized by the State and it recognizes the social significance of this mechanism. But it does not remove the fiscal nature of payments, so it connects them with the expenditure of environmental protection measures indirectly.

Currently, the environmental legislation gives the priority to the mechanism of monetary valuation of individual cases of harm to the environment by its collection only from the individual violators of environmental legislation (the issue of compensation of the future and past damage is not regulated). Thereby, it narrows the possibility of using the economic instruments to protect the environment and restore its quality.

Amounts of the environmental damage compensations are mainly collected through the courts on the basis of calculations carried out by an approved public authorities (federal and regional) and with the use of fees — cost norms of the damage extent. General rules for assessment of the damage and the procedure for compensation are set by Articles 77 and 78 of the Federal Law on Environmental Protection.

How to assess the loss in monetary terms

The answer to the fourth question— how to assess the damage in monetary terms—is attached to the issue of development of a standardized accounting methodology. Now there are 2 main approaches to the evaluation of the environmental damage:

• a)    for the costs of elimination of damages, including compensation for damages to third parties;

• b)    non-market estimates of people's willingness to pay for the natural benefits received the name of ecosystem services.

• c)    In international practice, the assessment of environmental damage bythe cost prevails because the results of valuation are recognized by the courts and are considered to be

sufficiently conclusive. Discussions are conducted mainly on the volume of recovery and environmental quality to be restored (the European principle of “how clean must be clean”). Methods of non-market assessments of ecosystem services in recent years, received the most extensive development. They are now the “mainstream” in this field of activity, but are not applied for legal practice because of the large conventions estimates due to the use of so-called surrogate modeling markets. At the same time, the estimates obtained by these methods are successful and are widely used to support the decisions related to the development of territories and the implementation of the infrastructure projects carried out at the expense of budget financing. In the latter case, they are mandatory and are included into official guidelines for evaluating the effectiveness of such projects [2,3,4,5,6].

In our country the third way of calculating damages was introduced. It is convenient, as easy to use and does not make to analyze. The majority of recognized techniques are used in the country and said to cover almost in all cases of damage, are built on the tax principle. But this is a fail method, as it is not possible to get the objective measures comparable with market realities emerging in the country. Its economic essence is to multiply the “tau” to “meow”, and what happens, let's call the damage. The “meow” is different multiplying factors set out by experts and the “tau” is the fees.

You can make an exception for certain procedures of the Ministry of Emergency Situations to assess the damage in emergency situations and methods of assessing damages to marine bio resources. There are separate departmental documents regulating the procedure of calculating the damage to the environment of a particular industry. But they suffer from the same defect.

The same principle of “normative” estimates carried out by the cost parameters designed by the State is used in the valuation technique for prevented damagethat is widely used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of environmental protection measures stipulated in the investment projects. As the result we get “lying” numbers. They are incomparable with anything and cannot be used in real-world financial instruments.

In the country, despite a large number of documents regulating assess of damage (more than 25), there are no common methodological principles and standards for assessing environmental damage, recognized by the State. This circumstance is the most important gap in the assessment of environmental damage that leads to the fact that the newly created documents and instruments developed contain incompatible methodological approaches. The criteria of truth are not available for their results. The consequence of this is to obtain the cost indicators that do not reflect the amount of the damage.

Another serious problem arising from the current situation is the inability to challenge economically unreasonable rates and methods of calculating damages in courts. An example of such documents are the “Method of calculating the amount of damage caused to the soil as an object of the environmental protection” and the “Methods of calculating the amount of damage caused to water objects due to violations of water legislation”. The assessment of environmental damage is based on these documents and is the multiplication of a certain sum of money assigned by the state, called the tax on the natural rate, which measures the damage, and the number of raising factors.

This approach is fundamentally contrary to generally accepted international practice, but, as mentioned above, is very convenient, because it allows collecting any amount of money in favor of the budget, and the amount itself is calculated in accordance with the procedure usually confirmed by the courts. In this case, the amounts are not connected with the real cost of activities addressed to prevent the environmental damage. All this contributes neither to the objectives of economic development nor to environmental objectives.

At the same time at the federal level, there is an approach that outlines the principle of assessing ecological loss (called the environmental damage) in accordance with best international practice. Article 78 of the Federal Law “On Environmental Protection”, 10.01.2002 №7-FZ states that “determining the amount of environmental damage caused by the violation of legislation in the field of environmental protection is carried out on the basis of actual costs of restoration of the environment, taking into account the losses incurred, including the loss of profits, as well as in accordance with the reclamation projects and other recovery operations, in their absence — in accordance with the rates and methods of calculating the amount of environmental harm, approved by the executive power in charge of public administration in the field of the environment”.

So, the Law requires assessing the environmental damage caused by the cost of its removal and restoration of environment. But these standards are not met, and the ministries accepted methods that ignore the Federal Law. For example, such a document was adopted in 2010 “Methods of calculating the amount of harm caused to soil as an environmental object of protection”, which established only “tax” approach and was not intended to declare the legal assessment of environmental damage at the cost of its removal.

Why is it so important to get right amounts of the loss?

Apart from the fact that the valuation of environmental loss is the basis of instruments aimed to prevent the environmental damage and improve the situation after it, the insurance of environmental risks, the creation of a compensation fund for the elimination of the damage caused and other objective amounts are needed to determine the feasibility of all major investment projects and justification of the fair distribution of financial flows among all interested parties.

An example of inclusion of the ecological loss cost estimates into the project analysis is shown in the pictures 1 and 2.

Picture 1.The difference between the social benefits and the ecological damage caused by the implementation of the projects on the regional level

Picture 2. The difference between the social benefits and the ecological damage caused by the implementation of the projects on the local level

Conclusion: What should we do to improve the situation?

• 1.    Abandon the “tax” principle and develop the cost principle.

• 2.    Develop non-market methods of the assessment of the loss with a regard to the loss of health, loss of ecosystems, traditional living environment and etc.

• 3.    Develop and adopt a single standard for the valuation of the ecological loss by analogy with the International Valuation Standards (IVS), Federal Valuation Standards (FSO) and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).

• 4.    Include the calculation of the future loss into the project documentation.

• 5.    Carry out the “cost-benefit” analysis when selecting the projects for governmental funding and to include this analyze into the draft, as is done in the United States and the EU.

• 6.    Use the existing experience —SOPS’ (Council for Studying Productive Forces, СОПС) activities in the Arctic— and create a database for the costs of removal of ecological damage and other losses.

Public hearing will not help to save the Arctic ecology without this. A list of major federal documents defining the procedure for assessment of environmental damage and ecological loss is below.

Federal legal documents on economic issues of the ecological losses Table 1 № Name of the document        Adopted and ratified by Registratio n at the Ministry of Justice Status of the document 1 «Temporary  typical   methods   of Approved by Decree of the determining the cost-effectiveness of USSR     State     Planning the     environmental     protection Committee, the USSR State measures and assess the economic Construction Committee, the damage to the national economy Presidium  of the  USSR caused by pollution».                  Academy of Sciences on October 21, 1983 № 254/284/134. No Used for the research 2 «Method for determining the size of Approved by the Ministry of the damage caused by soil and land Natural Resources of the degradation».                          Russian Federation on the 11.07.1994 and by the State Committee of Russia in 1994, Russian     Ministry     of Agriculture in 1994. No Unidentifie d status 3 «The procedure for determining the Approved by the Ministry of size of the damage caused by land Natural Resources of the chemical pollution». Russian on 18.11.1993 and No Removed the state land Committee Russia in 1993, the Russian Ministry of Agriculture in 1993

• 4    «Method of calculating the amount of

  damage caused to wildlife and listed in Order of the Ministry of Registered the Red Book of the Russian Natural Resources of the on the Federation, as well as other objects of Russian          Federation, 29.05.2008.

the animal world, not related to 28.04.2008 № 107            № 11775

hunting and fishing, and their habitats».

• 5    «Method of calculating the amount of Order of the Ministry of Registered damage caused to water bodies due to Natural  Resources of the     on

violations of water legislation».         Russian  Federation,13. 04. the25.05.2

2009 № 87.                 009. №

• 6    Fees for the calculation of

  compensation for damage caused by Order of the Ministry of Registered legal entities and individuals by illegal Natural Resources of the on the hunting, gathering, preparation or Russian Federation, 04. 06.06.1994. destruction of flora to the species of 05.1994 № 126                № 592

plants and fungi, listed in the Red Book of the Russian Federation, as well as destruction, depletion and destruction of their habitat.

• 7    Rates for calculating the amount of damage caused to forest plantations or ascribed to forest plantations trees, shrubs and vines due to violation of the forest legislation, which are allowed for logging

• 8    Rates for calculating the amount of Russian          Federation

  damage caused to trees and shrubs, Governmental Resolution, timber harvesting of which is not May 8, 2007 № 273 «On the allowed                              calculation of the amount of

• 9    Method of calculating the amount of damage caused to forests damage caused to forests, including due to violations of forest forest plantations, or ascribed to forest law».

plantations trees, shrubs and vines due to violations of forest law

• 10    Rates for calculating the amount of damage caused to forest due to violation of the forest legislation, except for the damage caused to forest plantations or non-forest plantations ascribed to trees, shrubs and vines

• 11    Fees for the calculation of Order of the Russian Ministry Registered compensation for damage caused by of Agriculture,25.05.1999,     on

legal entities and individuals or №399                        the24.06.1

In force

In force

In force

In force

In force

destruction of illegal hunting of wildlife, ascribed to hunting

Fees for the calculation of compensation for damage caused by citizens, legal entities and individuals and stateless persons, illegal fishing, or the extraction of aquatic biological resources in inland fisheries waters, internal waters, territorial sea, continental shelf, exclusive economic zones of the Russian Federation, and fish species produced in the rivers of Russia, beyond the exclusive economic zone of the Russian Federation to the outer limits of the economic and fishing zones of foreign countries

Fees for the calculation of

№ 1812

compensation for damage caused by Russian Federation Govern-citizens, legal and stateless persons, by mental Resolution,  26.09.

illegal fishing, or the extraction of 2000, № 724 aquatic biological resources listed in the Red Book of the Russian

Federation, inland fisheries waters, internal waters, territorial sea, the continental shelf, in the exclusive economic zone of the Russian

Federation

«The procedure for determining the amount of damages that may be caused to life and health of individuals, property of individuals and legal entities in the accident of the hydraulic constructions»

Order of the Russian Ministry of Emergency Situations, 18.05 2002 № 243; Order of the Russian Ministry of Energy, № 150; order of the Ministry of Natural

Registered on 03.06.2002. № 3493

In force

In force

Resources, № 270; order of the Russian Ministry of Transport, № 68,

Order № 89 of the Federal

Mining and Industrial Inspectorate of Russia

«Methods for determining the amount Order of the Ministry of     No

In force

of harm that may be caused to life and Emergency Situations of health of individuals, property of Russia, Russian Gosgortech-individuals and legal entities in the nadzor 15.08. 2003 № 482 / accident     of     the     hydraulic № 175a agreed with the constructions»                        Ministry of Economic

Development of Russia.

Letter dated: 14 March 2003

№ MC-234/23

16	«Temporary method of determining Approved  by  the  State	No	In force
17	the averted environmental damage »   Committee   of   Ecology 09.03.1999 «Methods of calculating damage for Approved by the Ministry of	No	In force.
18	fisheries by the discharge of fishery Fisheries of the USSR, ponds of sewage and other waste».    16.08.1967, № 30-1-11. Agreed with the Ministry of Finance of the USSR and the Ministry of Land Reclamation and Water Resources of the USSR «Methods of calculating damage for fisheries caused by an infringement of Approved by the Ministry of	No	Unidentifie d status In force.
19	fisheries and protection of fish stocks». Fisheries       of       the Not applicable in the territory of the USSR,07.12.74    №30-2-02 Russian Federation as regards the and the Ministry of Finance calculation of damages from work 15/07/74 intakes(Order         of         the Roskomrybolovstva of the Russian Federation, 07.04.1995 № 53) «Temporary method of estimating the Approved by the Ministry of	No	Unidentifie d status In force.
20	damage caused to fish stocks by the Fisheries of the USSR, 18.12 construction,    reconstruction    and 1989; the State Committee expansion of enterprises, buildings and of the USSR, 20.10.1989; the other facilities and carrying out Ministry of Finance of the different types of work in the fishery USSR, 21.12 1989. waters» «Method of calculating the amount of Order    of   the    State	No	Unidentifie d status In force.
21	damage  caused  by  pollution  of Committee of Ecology of the groundwater».                        Russian         Federation, 11.02.1998, № 81 «Method of calculating the amount of Order of the Ministry of	Registered	Unidentifie d status. In force
	damage caused to the soil as anobject Natural Resources of the of environmental protection».          Russian    Federation,08.07. 2010, № 238	on the7.09.20 10. №18364