‘Trouble spots’ of the Russian Arctic

Topicality of the researched problem

This article identifies the current environmental problems of the development of the Russian Arctic, using the concept of the trouble spots (trouble spots, abbreviated TS), an interdisciplinary and environmental approach. Environment is understood as real, spatially localized reality in which people coexist – nature – society [10, Dregalo A. A., Uliyanovsky V. I]. The composition of the medium in this case included not only society, but also an individual person with a free will and realizing this freedom in accordance with the personal relationship to the ‘society’, ‘nature’, and the constraints coming from the society and nature. Today it is not only relevant features of ecosystem conservation, the protection of nature in the nature of the conflict – a man – a society, but also the man from nature, man from man. Man is both a part of nature and subject to social and cultural creativity. Material culture, including human subjects of the social and cultural creation and destruction of the subject at the same time, interact with nature, the natural environment, part of which is again the man himself as biosocial being, subject and object impact. The challenge is not only to preserve cultural artifacts and natural ecosystems in their environmental relationships, but also in protecting the priority of the people themselves, local communities, regional northern societies here and now. Actual protection of people and culture in the broadest sense of the concept from the damaging effects of nature (hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, climate change and other extreme natural disasters). The fall of the meteorite Chebarkul in the Chelyabinsk region February 15, 2013 aggravated the situation and put on the agenda of the Russian state policy further problem of protection from the effects of the space. This issue con- cerns not only Russia but requires the effort of the cooperation of many countries of the global society.

The interdisciplinary approach is based on the finding that the Arctic – is a multi-faceted facility that explores the experts from diverse scientific areas and disciplines, for no one branch of knowledge is almost impossible to understand and embrace, conceptually express the diversity, the polyphony of the Arctic area. Quality of the environment, conservation of man as the part of nature, for nature as a value in itself, environmental risks and threats to public health, the negative social and economic consequences, past environmental damage and other issues to some extent dealt with in philosophy, law, politics, regional studies; state, regional and municipal management, environmental management, biological and other sciences. In ‘Diagnostic analysis of the environment of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation’, edited by Doctor of Geographical Sciences B. A. Morgunova (2011) notes that a comprehensive environmental study of the various parts of the Arctic region of Earth being more than 50 years, and the Arctic territory of Russia – is more than 80 years. Range of the research gradually expanded the geographical, geodetic, mapping, hydrographic and meteorological to biological, ecological, zoological and microbiological studies of the Arctic ecosystems [8]. Methodological basis of the research is also the author's interdisciplinary model of the multilayer space Arctic [17], in which, along with the natural are the humanities within the modern Arctic scientific paradigm.

As a result of the research, the creation of the scientific basis and now becomes relevant interdisciplinary systems approach in the use of the methodology of the diagnostic analysis of the Russian Arctic environment, its quality and the minimization of the risks and threats. Today it is a question of balance between ecology and economy, sustainable development of the northern societies, modernization of the infrastructure of the Arctic, the elimination of the past environmental damage, general cleaning of the Arctic territories and waters the accumulation of human capital, environmental education and upbringing. Using the concept of trouble spots can highlight the most urgent and most pressing problems not only in the Ecology of the Russian Arctic, but also in other spheres of the society.

The object of the research

The object of the research in this article is the Russian Arctic or the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation (Russian Arctic). In connection with the existing scientific literature and government are different approaches to the definition of the Russian Arctic (1989, 2008) should be emphasized that the two concepts – the Russian Arctic and AZRF – by entering of them in the land area and the water area are identical, but most often used in different semantic contexts: domes- tic – AZRF and foreign – Russian Arctic. Developed and published already in 2011 the author card is fully consistent with the Russian Arctic Art. 2 of the Federal Law ‘On the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation’ dated January 23, 2013 [29]. The structure of the Russian Arctic in whole or in part from the position thalassocracy incorporate in nine Russian regions bordering the coast of the Arctic seas: the Murmansk and Arkhangelsk regions, Nenets and Yamal-Nenets and Chukotka Autonomous District, Krasnoyarsk Territory, the Republic of Karelia (3 MO), the Republic of Komi (Vorkuta), the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) of land and islands in the Arctic Ocean north of the coast of the Russian Federation to the North Pole, internal waters, territorial sea, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the Russian Federation, the airspace above listed territories and waters1. Some law of the Russian Arctic to adequately clarify the map of impact areas, location and number of localized hot spots of the Russian Arctic. In this article, subject structure of the Russian Arctic is correlated with a new project of the Federal Law ‘On the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation’ and a map of the Russian Arctic.

Conceptual definition of ‘trouble spots’

To define the concept of the trouble spots in the article the initial formulation TS, which is given in the UNEP/GEF2 Project ‘Russian Federation – Support to the National Plan of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment’ (Wiley, 2008): ‘Trouble spots are:

• a)    Sources or human activities (or local group effect) that adversely affect human health, ecosystems, their biodiversity and resilience that its negative economic impact (reduction of commercial stocks, recreational building, awareness of occupational diseases, etc.), causing the need to take measures to reduce or eliminate adverse effects.

• b)    Coastal areas of the Arctic Ocean, where the industrial impact creates conditions that adversely affect the condition of ecosystems, their biodiversity, sustainability, which entails a negative economic impact, causing the need to take measures to reduce or eliminate the harmful effects’ [31].

In this definition, a key feature of TS indicates human activities (sources or human activities), causing negative health effects of the same people, ecosystems and economies. Here the emphasis is rightly on human health. In the coastal regions of the Arctic Ocean, ‘the sources or human activities’ are replaced by the words ‘where as a result of the anthropogenic impact formed conditions’, and then almost duplicated the same text, which, apparently, you can edit, combining human activity and human impact in the coastal areas of the Arctic Ocean. Human health in the ‘b’ is excluded, as the various accidents, fires, explosions, emergencies do not have a negative impact on people's lives. Also, the source of the anthropogenic impact is still prior activities of people, not space aliens. Formation of adverse conditions is not only a result of man-made, but natural exposure, when it comes to natural disasters – are earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, volcanic eruptions, meteorite falling from space, weather and sea hydrological hazards, wild land fire, particularly dangerous epidemics. Another remark is related to the fact that technological impact not only causes adverse economic consequences, but also threatens people in general life of society, not just the economy. Thus, the definition of hot spots in the UNEP/GEF project is incomplete coverage of the entire problem space of negative consequences. But in fact it was introduced into scientific and used by Russian scientists [12] and in the general government.

The Strategic Action Programm for Environmental Protection of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation (hereinafter – the ‘SAP-Arctic’. Moscow, 2009) defines an TS: ‘Trouble spots’ – is the limited space within which human-caused sources of pollution have adverse effects on the environment Wednesday. In the territories of such spaces is many times greater than the standard value of the components of natural pollution, ecosystem degradation, ill health, loss of biodiversity and life support systems breach’ [36]. Here, in contrast to the UNEP/GEF (2008) focuses on the understanding of hot spots as space is limited. But direct human activities (sources or human activities and their local group effect) on a ‘here and now’ are excluded, and it is only about anthropogenic sources of pollution locally confined spaces. However, the adverse effects TS revealed here not only through ecosystem degradation, ill health, loss of biodiversity, but also through the violation of life support systems, creating a real threat to the life of the local society in the present.

Another locus of understanding aimed at trouble spots scale ecosystem degradation, harmful for levels of contamination. As already mentioned the extended summary of the ‘Diagnostic analysis of the environment of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation’ emphasizes that the environment of the Russian Arctic remains fragmentary studied and is growing concern ‘due to the formation of trouble spots in which the degradation of natural ecosystems have reached dangerous levels, and pollution levels are much higher than permissible limits, as well as due to changes in the environmental quality at the background level’. [8] Adverse effects are linked to the degradation of natural ecosystems and changes in environmental quality at the background level. Threat to human life, the economy, the whole life of the northern societies is not mentioned. But emphasizes the need for urgent action ‘to mitigate’ accumulated environmental damage and to prevent potential threats to Arctic ecosystems associated with increasing economic activity. In the same paper gives another insight TS, which literally swarm correlates with what is given in the ‘SAP-Arctic’ above.

One can hardly agree with extremely broad definition of hot spots in documents NEFCO – Nordic Environment Finance Corporation (Nordic Environment Finance Corporation). This is an international financial institution owned by the governments of the five Nordic countries and part as an observer in the Arctic Council, finances investment projects in Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Moldova in order to improve the environmental situation in the Northern Europe, and the new Carbon Trust NeCF works around the world3. NEFCO's first postulate approach to the ‘hot spots’ states: ‘All of the ‘hot spots’, in fact, are the priority environmental issues that require action!’ [40, Henrik G. Forsström]. Does this apply to the direct impact on the natural environment of people?

The problem is that the term is used in the Trouble spots of the earth sciences, oceans, volcanoes, earthquakes. One of these points is in Hawaii, where the surface of the rising hot mantle flows in the moving oceanic crust above it. Of points on Earth right now established a set4. Global map trouble spots investigated in D. Anderson and K. Schramma. It provides a directory of the volcanic tectonic geo-chemical formations within the earth, which are called ‘trouble spots’. Unlike catalog volcanic trouble spot directory contains objects that are not associated with strong mantle plumes. Anomalous zone melting, or trouble spots, may be formed as a result of a local temperature rise in the mantle, the local saturation or partial melting of the atheno sphere. Some hot spots identified softened/moistened (‘wetspots’) points, some are called ‘hot line’ (‘hotline’) by the impact of the litho spherical stress [3].

With reference to the Arctic such phenomena researched by RAS corresponding member F. N. Yudakhin (1934–2011), drawing attention to the potential hazards associated with the development of hydrocarbon deposits, including Stockman, and calling them ‘revenge bowels’. In some cases, it is generally very difficult to distinguish between human activities (human factor), manmade and natural influences. The accident at the Japanese nuclear power plant ‘Fukushima’ in March 2011 began with the earthquake, tsunami, and then transformed into the largest manmade disaster twenty-first century as a result of a previous human activities. The man could not be accessed directly, and there was then a natural disaster, but it is to construct and operate a nuclear power plant that place. NPP ‘Fukushima’ has become a Toruble local point at which both in- corporated various natural and anthropogenic impacts, supplemented by human error, not always professional activity of people to eliminate the negative effects of the accident already, especially in the very beginning.

The report ‘Identification of trouble spot areas of forest cover changes in boreal Eurasia’ for trouble spots (hot spot areas) in boreal Eurasia refers to the areas in which significant changes of forests caused by logging, fires, and other activities. The maps of the location of the Eurasian ‘trouble spots’ for the northern Europe, Siberia, China. The study focused on two types of hotspots: where there has been a change and the expected trouble spots. Transformation in the hot spots were due to clear-cutting, high-intensity selective logging, and the transition to non forest area in connection with the exploitation of natural resources, agriculture, urbanization, for est degradation due to an increase in fire frequency and the influence of man, etc. [1]. There are many other works, which investigated the effect of warming trends and other changes in vegeta tion at high latitudes, the situation in the trouble spots.

I think that should be a clear understanding of the whole process of interdisciplinary complex adverse effects on the quality of the environment, creating a range of different risks, threats and challenges to the human society, the nature and require urgent action. Man as a biosocial being its activities in the Arctic, including indirect technological impact, harming not only the surrounding natural and man-cultural environment, but also to himself as part of nature and the creator of culture, as well as the whole of their social existence, all walks of life of northern societies. This process entails a complex and not always clearly manifested complex of negative socioeconomic impacts, which are stretched over time. So we can treat these activities as always reproducible conflicts between man and nature, the environment and the economy, nature and culture in the broadest sense of the word (all artifacts, built environment, including the material and spiritual). Emerging conflict situations, environmental crises are transformed by local area in critically dangerous Trouble spots, impact areas, requiring the implementation of urgent measures to minimize the risks and threats. There is no doubt that the sources or human activities, both manmade and natural influences in the hot spots, that is, within the limits of a local area of the Russian Arctic, not only adversely affect human health, and threaten the very life of the people living north societies. Any of them threaten not only obviously man-made, but natural emergencies (catastrophic, crisis, etc.) in the trouble spots of the Arctic area.

Thus, system security environment ideally carried out not only for the conservation of nature, ecosystems, biodiversity, but also to maintain favorable conditions for societies, the life of the man as an integral part of nature. Can be synthesized that environmental trouble spots – this is usually, conflicts related to the quality of the environment, its critically dangerous pollution in the local area as a result of human activities, man-made and natural impacts, which have a strong negative impact: 1) on human health, including threats to their lives, and 2) on the economy, culture and all other spheres of life of the local society, and 3) the state of ecosystems and their biodiversity, flora and fauna.

The term trouble spots is widely used in the media, in the scientific circulation, in the speeches of the heads of the federal agencies when it begin to discuss the Arctic. By ‘hot spots’ in public opinion are concrete objects dumping of toxic industrial waste, mine fields, areas of oil-polluted, abandoned warehouses with chemicals, garbage, landfill for the destruction of chemical weapons, abandoned military camps; submerged in the waters of the Arctic Ocean ships and nuclear reactors. Obviously, there is a need to introduce widely used in the public opinion, research, and practice the concept of international environmental hot spots in the legal space to legalize its use in politics, administration, official documents of the Russian state.

The management to serve the environment in the documents of the Russian State

The selection of ‘trouble spots’ in relation to certain environmental factors affecting the health of the population in many countries around the world, is one of the main activities as the environmental policy and environmental management, and public health. In the USA, in 1980, Congress passed a special law on the Comprehensive Environmental Compensation and Liability (Comprehensive Environment Response, Compensation and Liability Act – CERCLA), more commonly known as Superfund, which accumulate significant funds for the assessment and rehabilitation of the most contaminated areas. At the expense of the fund conducted studies to determine the effects of the environment on human health, are designed and implemented as environmental and health preventive measures. If required by the fund is displaced people from the most contaminated areas. List of territories that are considered hot spots regularly approved by the US Congress and they established a special unit of the Agency for Environmental Protection, which to oversee the implementation of environmental protection measures. Lists of hot spots developed in Germany, Switzerland and other countries of the world [34, Revich B. A.].

The Russian law about the environmental protection (from December 19, 1991 № 2060-1, dated January 10, 2002 № 7-FZ) formulated identical in the content to the trouble spots concept of the zones of ecological emergency, where as a result of the economic and other activities occur stable negative changes in the environment that threaten public health, the natural ecological systems, the genetic pool of plants and animals, as well as ecological disaster areas, where the result of economic or other activities have been profound changes in irreversibility of the environ- ment, resulting in a significant health of the population, the violation of the natural balance, the destruction of natural ecosystems, the degradation of flora and fauna5. Under emergency situations in the country often do not understand so much ecological disaster as extraordinary natural and man-made disasters associated with explosions of gas pipelines, trains, fires, earthquakes, droughts, liquidation involving Emergencies Ministry. Giving special legal status of the territory as a zone of the ecological disaster should occur through the adoption of normative legal act of the federal government body with the establishment of boundaries and features of the legal regime on the basis of the conclusion of the state ecological expertise [4, Anisimov A. P.]. The criteria for environmental disasters are indicators of the environment and public health, which are the basis for giving the status of certain territories of the Russian Federation of ecological disaster. The health risks associated with the likelihood of danger to life or health, or future generations posed by environmental factors [30]. Mentioned concepts so most adequate to the content of the concept of ‘trouble spots’.

I also note that in the Climatic Doctrine of the Russian Federation, approved by the President of the Russian Federation from December 17, 2009 № 861-rp used similar in the meaning to the concepts of trouble spots: the most vulnerable areas, facilities, and social groups, threats to sustainable development and security of the Russian Federation, the life and health, conflict of interests of the climate change policy. [15] Population, natural objects, and objects of the economy, public infrastructure, and defense differ on the nature and extent of their vulnerability to the adverse effects of climate change. This is the subject of the special attention in the evaluation of their vulnerability, development and implementation of proactive measures to prevent and neutralize the adverse effects of climatic change or reducing them to the lowest possible level (paragraph 15). Early identification, assessment of climatic change threats to sustainable development and security of the Russian Federation, including the threat defense, economy, environment, life and health of the population, are among the priorities of the climate policy.

Used ecological regulations specifically define the limits of human impacts on the environment include environmental hygiene and environmental protection standards, and limits the regulatory burden on the environment. The economic standards include technological, urban, recreational, and other restrictions and tolerances. This emission limit values (ELVs) of harmful substances into the atmosphere, the maximum permissible discharge (MPD) of pollutants into water bodies, the maximum allowable amount of fuel (MVP), rules for using natural systems, etc. All of this information is freely available. Published annually by the state reports on the status and protection of the environment, the use of water and mineral resources. Thus, the official site Ministry of Russia February 4, 2013 published the state report ‘On the state and Environmental Protection of the Russian Federation in 2011’ [7]. The list of the hundred most polluted cities in the Russian Federation with a population of 100,000 or more people on the API – is a comprehensive air pollution index that is used to assess the overall pollution in the whole city, is only three cities of the Russian Arctic: Archangelsk (7.0) Vorkuta ( 6.3), Salekhard (11.0). Archangelsk is also included in the list of Russian cities, which were reported in 2011, eight cases of high air pollution mixture of benzo (a) pyrene with the maximum concentration of a single MAC 23.0. In Nickel registered 13 cases of high air pollution admixture of sulfur dioxide (MPC 12.8). Norilsk is on the list of cities with the highest levels of air pollution emissions of SO2 and NO2 [7]. Thus, Arkhangelsk, Vorkuta, Nickel, Norilsk, Salekhard, are the members of the Russian Arctic, with the high level of air pollution, but their share in the list of the most polluted cities in Russia is very low. The result is that the fresh arctic air ventilates good atmosphere in high-latitudes, with all the sharpness of their high pollution.

The problem of the financing rehabilitation projects areas of the concern in the state, regional and municipal government solves the creation of the public policy, federal and regional programs, and social protection of the citizens’ rights (compensation and benefits). Although taken to document is not a formal definition of environmental hot spots, but the aperture, are regulatory mechanisms to protect the environment and ecological safety, sources of funding. President of Russia April 30, 2012, for example, approved the basis of state policy in the field of ecological development of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2030, which noted that ‘the environmental situation in Russia is characterized by a high level of human impact on the natural environment and the significant environmental impacts of the economic activity’ [25]. This document points out that in dealing with the problem of improving the regulatory environmental protection and ecological safety, the following mechanisms: a) the adoption of legislative and other regulatory legal acts b) the creation of structurally coherent, comprehensive and consistent system of legislation of the Russian Federation in the field of environment, environmental security and natural resource management c) the creation of the legal framework and the implementation of the strategic environmental assessment in making plans and programs which may have an impact on the environment. Along with the other as one of the tasks allocated a separate item ‘environmental problems of Baikal natural territory, the North and the Arctic regions, areas of the traditional use of indigenous people of the North, Siberia and the Far East’. Also focused attention on the devel- opment of information sharing and participation in the international projects in the priority areas of the science, engineering and technology in the field of environmental protection and environmental safety, including in the Arctic [25]. According to Deputy Minister of Natural Resources and Environment Rinat Gizatulin: ‘In This Document was attended by all stakeholders – from government to conservation organizations, academia, and business associations. This is the first policy document in modern Russia in the field of ecology, creating a balance between economic development and preservation of the environment’6. However, as you know, in Russia from the strategy to put something into the practice is often a huge distance from perverse manifestations of bureaucracy and corruption at all levels of the government.

The government of the Russian Federation on the December 27, 2012 was also approved the state program ‘The Protection of the Environment for the period up to 2020’ [33], which includes five sub-programs: ‘Regulation of the environment’, ‘Biodiversity of Russia’; ‘Hydrometeorology and Monitoring environment’, ‘Organization and maintenance of the works and the research in the Antarctic’, ‘Making the state program of the Russian Federation ‘Environmental Protection in 2012–2020’ and the federal Target Program ‘Protection of Lake Baikal and the socioeconomic development of the Baikal natural area for 2012–2020’. In the government documents incorporated benchmarks and funding the work of environmental protection, the elimination of losses due to human activities7. In addition, 2013 was declared the year of the environment [32].

In Russia, are quite achievable opportunities to reduce the adverse impact on the environment, conservation and restoration of the unique natural complexes, better control and monitoring, strengthen enforcement of environmental safety. However, there are real threats. Environmental risks are quite tangible and really complemented the prevailing far social attitudes and mentality of people. In the management of the implementation of all kinds of government programs often manifest conflicts of interest is the so-called ‘Cut’ the budget. ‘Fines and criminal responsibility of the whole cannot be resolved, but fine, and sometimes it is necessary to plant, because that is what is happening in our country, it is absolutely impossible to imagine in any other country. Maybe there are a few countries, I will not name them, so as not to offend, but, in principle, no developed country can often barbaric treatment of the nature itself does not, and I mean, of course, not only the company, enterprise, I am referring to the household level. Maybe it's even more importantly, because the companies are working in management positions are the same people’ – a tough assessment of the situation in this scope, Dmitry Medvedev, in his speech 09.01.2013 [21].

Targets (indicators) of the State program of the Russian Federation ‘Environmental Protection for the period up to 2020’ are:

emissions of harmful substances (pollutants) from stationary sources per unit of GDP;

The number of cities with high and very high levels of air pollution;

The number of people living in adverse environmental conditions (in cities with high and very high levels of air pollution (air pollution index of more than 7);

the volume of waste generated all hazard classes per unit of GDP;

the number of people living in areas with unfavorable ecological situation, exposed to negative impacts associated with past economic and other activities;

the fraction of the area of Russia occupied by protected areas at all levels.

The SAP-Arctic (2009) on the results of a detailed diagnostic analysis of the current environmental situation in the Russian Arctic and forecast possible changes in the environment identified the following priority environmental issues:

• •    Environmental pollution (transboundary transport of pollutants of water and atmospheric currents, chemical, oil and radioactive contamination), and the deterioration of the quality of surface water and groundwater in the coastal territories of the Russian Arctic;

• •    Land degradation and violation of land use;

• •    Changes in biodiversity and decline of biological resources;

• •    Deterioration of the habitat of the indigenous population of the Russian Arctic and the conditions of their traditional land;

• •    Negative impacts and threats to global change [36].

For the first time in this document at such a high level of officially legalized the concept of environmental ‘trouble spots’ [SAP-Arctic, 2009. P. 3], is given in a footnote definition of what ‘trouble spot’, says that in the Russian Arctic revealed more than a hundred trouble spots, with 30 identified as priorities, is a ranked list of priority trouble spots in the Russian Arctic. It is noted continuity that has been prepared within the framework of the UNEP/GEF Project ‘Russian Federation – Support to the National Plan of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment’ (Wiley, 2008).

100 ecological trouble spots in the Russian Arctic

Priorities in the cleaning of the ecological trouble spots are not accidentally given to the Arctic and the North of Russia, given the fragile vulnerability of important geopolitical and economic role in the development of the country and its future. Leading researchers A. V. Evseev and

T. M. Krasovskaya in his writings emphasize that the growth centers of the environmental crisis in the Arctic threatens to destabilize the climate, geo-chemical, krio-litological and ecological processes in the large parts of the northern hemisphere. The environmental conflict is often irrational socio-economic development of natural resources and pollution of the environment, leading to its degradation. In the Russian Arctic highlighted 30 key ‘trouble spots’ of the 100 that have the most negative impact on the environment and human health, the four main ‘source of tension’ related primarily to the chemical contamination of the environment: the Murmansk region, the Norilsk area, areas of development hydrocarbon deposits in the north of the Western Siberia and ETP [12].

As noted above, the characteristic of a hundred trouble spots of the land in the Russian Arctic and the main areas of the impact as of 2003-2006. given in the work carried out within the framework of the UNEP/GEF Project ‘Russian Federation – is the Support to the National Plan of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment’ [30]. In this project allocates 12 impacted areas. Under the area of impact is understood area within the territorial-industrial complex, which as a result of human impact has been an adverse change in the environment, leading to the emergence and the development of critical environmental situations.

Table 1

12 impact regions of the Russian Arctic (2008)

№	Impact region	The reason of the pollution	Priority pollutants	The estimation of the level of the ecological situation
1	Western-Kolskiy	Non-ferrous metallurgy, mining	Nitrogen dioxide, dust, heavy metals (Cu, Ni, Co), fluoride, carbon	Crisis
2	Central-Kolskiy	Non-ferrous metallurgy, mining, nuclear power, transportation	Sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, heavy metals (Cu, Ni, Co, Pb, Cr), dust, strontium, phosphorus, radio nuclides	Critical (in case of a catastrophic accident at the nuclear power plant)
3	Karelskiy8	Pulp and paper industry, timber industry	Carbon dioxide, nitrogen, sulfur, methyl mercaptan, ligno sulfate, methanol, mercury, furfural, phenol	The tense situation
4	Arkhangelsk9	Pulp and paper industry, engeneering, forestry, power system, transportation	Carbon dioxide, nitrogen, sulfur, heavy metals, ligno sulfate, methyl mercaptan, phenol, formaldehyde, PAHs, methanol	Critical
5	Timano-Pechorskiy	Production and transportation	Petroleum,  carbon,  nitrogen,	Critical

8 The Republic of Karelia is not completely in the Russian Arctic, but only three municipalities on the coast of the White Sea. So it would be more correct to designate this area as a White Sea Karelia.

9 Arkhangelsk impact region represents the metropolitan area, which includes three cities: Arkhangelsk, Severodvinsk and Novodvinsk, including two PPM and defense enterprises.

		of hydrocarbons	sulfur, heavy metals, PAHs
6	Vorkutinskiy	Mining, power engineering, construction industry	Dust, heavy metals, PAHs, soot, hydrocarbons	Critical
7	Novozemelskiy	Dining out (DRC), the flooding of nuclear facilities and other radioactive waste	Radio nuclides, heavy metals	Critical (Potential crisis)
8	Nijne-Obskiy	Production and transportation of hydrocarbons	Petroleum hydrocarbons, PAHs, heavy metals, radio nuclides, soluble salts	Critical
9	Norilskiy	Non-ferrous      metallurgy, mining	Sulfur and nitrogen oxides, heavy metals, dust, arsenic, formaldehyde, carbon	Crisis
10	Yano-Indigirskiy	Mining	Dust, heavy metals, mechanical	The tense situa-
			disturbances geo systems	tion
				The tense situa-
11	Western- Chukotskiy	Mining, Nuclear power	Heavy metals, dust, radio nuclides	tion in case of a catastrophic accident at the nuclear power plant
12	Eastern-Chukotskiy	Mining	Heavy metals, dust, PAHs, hydrocarbons, soot	The tense situation

Characteristics of the impact areas are detailed in the works of A. V. Evseev and T. M. Kra-sovskaya (1996, 1997, 2004, 2008), the monograph ‘Russian Arctic: on the threshold-made disasters’ (1996), a monograph ‘Environmental Trouble spots and impact zones of the Russian Arctic’ (2000) and others [11]. Indicators of the severity of environmental situations are the presence of trouble spots and high levels of certain diseases ecologically dependent and low of indicators of life expectancy in these places.

In impacted areas highlighted areas of pollution and environmental change depending on the amount and concentration of the sources of exposure (hot spots), the degree of hazard environmental and sanitary standards, as well as emissions and discharges of pollutants by different sources of exposure. Catastrophic environmental situation assessment is based on the permanent degradation of all components of the environment, multiple air pollution, groundwater, surface water, soil, various pollutants on the development of other negative consequences that threaten the lives and health of the population. In crisis situations, there is a destruction of the individual components of the environment, pollution of air, water and soil, damaged landscapes, where the threat to the population, the nature and the socium are not yet large, and can be successfully minimize the risks involved. In addition to the above there are other interpretations of the list of impacted regions of the Russian Arctic [45].

Geographical distribution of impacted areas is extremely uneven. Several main foci of environmental stress in the Russian Arctic: 1) Murmansk region (16 environmental trouble spots, short-EGT); 2) Arkhangelsk, Severodvinsk agglomeration with a polygon in the New Earth and the

Plesetsk launch site; 3) the Krasnoyarsk Territory (Norilsk, etc.); 4) Yamal, areas of oil and gas fields in Western Siberia; 5) the Chukotka Autonomous District (two impacted area, 11 EGT). Among the industries of the Arctic Zone, with which the formation of the impacted areas, the first place is a metals and mining major centers in Norilsk, Monchegorsk, Pechenga, Polar, Olenegorsk Kandalaksha Talnakh, Kovdor, MPs, Bilibino etc.

Of the one hundred environmental Trouble points by 2008 on land was 77, including the subjects of the Russian Arctic:

• >    in Karelia republic - 4 (Belomorsk, Kem, Nadvoitsy, Segezha);

• >    in Murmansk - 16 (Nickel, Polar, Pechenga, Murmansk, Kola, Teriber-ka, Apatity, Kirovsk, Kovdor, Ena, Polar Zory, Kandalaksha, the White Sea (the village), Umba Olenegorsk Monchegorsk);

• >    in Arkhangelsk - 8 (Mezen and village of Kamenka, Arkhangelsk, Severodvinsk, Novodvinsk, Solombala, Koryazhma, Onega, Lower Zolotitsa);

• >    in the NAO - 8 (oil and gas Vasilkovsky fishing Kumzhinskoye field, Naryan-Mar, Amderma, Kharyaga, Toraveyskoe deposit Varandey field, Peschanoozerskoye field);

• >    in the Komi Republic - 5 (Vorkuta, Inta, Verhnevozeyskoe deposit Vozeyskoe deposit Usinsk deposit);

• >    in Yamal - 10 (Urengoy field, Yamburg field, Bear Jubilee Yamsoveyskoye deposit;

• >    Bovanenkovskoye, Kharasaveyskoye deposit; Zapolyarnoye, Nakhodka, Yurkharovskoye deposit; Salekhard, Labytnangi, Nadim, New Urengoy);

• >    in the north of the Krasnoyarsk Territory - 7 (Norilsk, Talnakh, Kayerkan, Dudinka, Dixon, Kayaköy, Khatanga);

• >    in the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) - 8 (Tiksi Kulary, MPs, Tenkeli, ECE-Haya, the factory was closed, Nizhneyansk, Chokurdakh, Cherskiy);

• >    in Chukotka - 11 (Iultin, Bilibin complex Bilibino NPP Baranikha, Komsomol, Pevek Valkumey, closed; Krasnoarmeisky, Polar, Cape Schmidt, Anadyr).

In the coastal parts of the Russian Arctic seas of the Arctic Ocean was allocated 23 impact zones grouped by seas:

Barents Sea

• 1.    Kola Bay. 2. Motovsky bay. 3. Pechora Bay. 4. Varandey zone.

• 5.    Prirazlomnaya zone. 6. Shtokman area.

• 7.    Dvina Bay. 8. Onega Bay. 9. Kandalakshky bay. 10. Mezen Bay. Kara Sea

• 11.    Novozemelskaya zone. 12. Amederminskaya zone. 13. Baidarata Bay.

• 14.    Ob Bay. 15. Yenisei Bay. 16. Pyasinskaya bay. 17. Taz bay.

• 18.    Khatanga Bay. 19. Buor Khaya. 20.Yang Bay.

• 21.    Kolyma area. 22. Chaunsky bay.

• 23.    Shmidtovs zone.

The White Sea

Laptev Sea

East Siberian Sea

Chukchi Sea

Each of these marine areas of the impact analysis of the nature of Trouble spots, geographic location, the cause, the level of pollution created by the nature of adverse effects, their magnitude, severity, loss and community groups, bearing the losses.

The Strategic Action Programm for the Protection of the Environment of the Russian Arctic (SAP-Arctic), developed by the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia and approved by the Marine Board of the Government of Russia June 19, 2009, is a ranked list of 30 priority hot spots in the Russian Arctic. Data on priority hot spots are the objects of planning and pre-investment studies targeted interventions to reduce levels of accumulated environmental damage and implementation of protective and compensatory environmental measures.

Table 2

The list of the prioritical Trouble Spots of AZRF in SPD-Arctic (2009)
№	Priority Trouble Spots of AZRD горячие точки АЗРФ	Modern influence	Potential influence	Subjects of AZRF
1	Norilsk	38.0	42.0	Krasnoyarsk region
2	Nikel	37.2	41.2	Murmansk region
3	Zapolarniy	37.2	41.2	Murmansk region
4	Monchegorsk	31.4	34.4	Murmansk region
5	Kaerkan	31.0	33.0	Krasnoyarsk region
6	Vorkuta	30.4	34.4	Komi Republic
7	Murmansk	29.2	32.2	Murmansk region
8	Talnah	27.8	29.8	Krasnoyarsk region
9	Kolskiy Bay	26.8	28.8	Murmansk region
10	Arkhangelsk	26.2	29.2	Arkhangelsk region
11	Levek	26.2	28.2	CHAO
12	Bilibinskiy Complex	25.8	27.8	CHAO
13	Dvinskaya Guba	25.8	27.8	Arkhangelsk region
14	Anadir	25.4	27.4	CHAO
15	Kirovsk	25.4	27.4	Murmansk region
16	Kandalaksha bay	25.4	27.4	Murmansk region
17	Onejkskaya Guba	25.4	27.4	Arkhangelsk region
18	Obskayua Guba	25.2	27.2	YANAO
19	Eniseiskiy Zaliv	25.2	27.2	Krasnoyarskiy Region
20	Pechorskaya Guba	24.4	26.4	NAO
21	Olenegorsk	24.4	26.4	Murmansk region
22	Kola	24.2	25.2	Murmansk region
23	Yrengoisk	24.0	26.0	YANAO
24	Kandalksha	23.8	25.8	Murmansk region
25	Solombala	23.8	25.8	Arkhangelsk region
26	Koryajma	23.8	25.8	Arkhangelsk region
27	Dudinka	23.8	25.8	Krasnoyarskiy Region
28	Severodvinsk	23.6	25.6	Arkhangelsk region
29	Yambusk district	23.4	25.4	YANAO
30	Inta	23.2	25.2	Komi Republic

When ranking the SAP-Arctic takes the following parameters: distance from the coast, the population in the zone of influence, the level of air pollution and surface water risk assessment associated with the mining industry and the transportation of hazardous materials, ecosystems, kind of economic activity that caused the hot point. The top five most dangerous hot spots on the ground on the above parameters include 1) Norilsk, 2) Nickel, 3) Polar, 4) and 5 Monchegorsk) Kayerkan. The priority hotspots included seven marine areas: 1) the Kola Bay, 2) Dvina Bay, 3) Kandalaksha Bay, 4), the Onega Bay, 5) Ob Bay, 6) Yenisei Bay, 7) Pechora Bay. Distribution of the 30 priority hot spots on the subjects of the Russian Arctic is as follows:

• 1.    Murmansk region – 10 .

• 2.    Arkhangelsk region – 6.

• 3.    NAO – 1.

• 4.    Republic Komi – 2.

• 5.    YANAO – 3.

• 6.    Krasnoyarskiy Region – 5.

• 7.    Chykotskiy Auonomous District – 3.

It is interesting to note that in the Arctic zone of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) absent priority environmental Trouble spots. In the republican target new program ‘Environmental Protection of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) for 2009–2011’. Noted that Yakutia is today one of the most prosperous in the ecological aspect of Russian regions, with the exception of environmental stress in urban areas and industrial zones10. However, in the same program, emphasized that obtained by traditional methods of environmental information on the state and dynamics of the environment in general is controversial and not credible. Apparently, the problems of ecological safety and to minimize the negative effects of pollution on human health is still valid and in this country, especially since the implementation in the territory of industrial mega-projects.

A list of the Arctic environmental Trouble spots should certainly permanently, at least once a year, as specified and published on the website of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment , and in the regions of the Russian Arctic. In general, the successful implementation of the adopted in 2012, the state program for the protection of the environment and the foundations of the state policy in the field of environmental development will bring life in Russia to a new ecological level. 2.7-fold reduced the number of cities with high and very high levels of air pollution. For the 36 million Russians living in disadvantaged and crisis in terms of environmental regions will be improved living conditions11. One of the most pressing issues in this case is the elimination of the past environmental damage, and to minimize the risks and threats, which is very important for regions and municipalities of the Russian Arctic.

Liquidation of the last Ecological Damage

The strategy of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation and the national security for the period up to 2020, published on the website of the Government of the Russian Federation February 20, 2013, the main risks and threats in the sphere of nature and the environment is increasing technological and the human impact on the environment with an increased likelihood of achieving its limits in some areas adjacent to the Russian waters of the Arctic Ocean, as well as in certain regions of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation, are characterized by the presence of extremely vulnerable areas, potential sources of contamination, high levels of accumulated environmental damage [37]. Risks and threats are not the same as the Trouble spots, but they carry the potential of the local area extremely vulnerable, potential sources of contamination. For the Russian Arctic is really a serious risk of the past environmental damage as a long-term time bomb, which sooner or later will explode, bringing a potential threat to future generations of northerners. It is quite clear that the cleaning of the Arctic from the hazardous waste and requires time and resources that can be expected only in the federal and regional programs. Even after a meeting of the State Council of 09.06.2011 on environmental security in response to the request of President Ministry of Russia drafted the concept of FTP ‘Environmental Security of Russia (2013–2020)’, One of the areas which is a section of ‘The elimination of past environmental damage’ [23]. In Russia, according to Dmitry Medvedev has already gained 30 billion tons of hazardous waste [13]. VicePresident of Russian Academy of Sciences Nikolai Laverov, speaking at the same time at a meeting of the State Council (09.06.2011), based on calculations of space data, estimate raised to 80 billion, ‘The thing is, it is not clear at all that these dumps and that These emissions’, – he said [9].

Over the years, a list of objects of the environmental damage of 194 points, including 77 new facilities were built in the Soviet era and is the ‘past environmental damage’ [35]. This is the result of many years in the past human activity, which is expressed in high concentrations of contaminants in soil, water, and air, the presence of abandoned or orphaned storage of hazardous substances. Acting with the legal concept of harm to the environment reflects only the natural form of the damage, but not its value. That environmental damage can be understood as an index, expressed in monetary or in kind, indicating the results of the negative impact on the environ-

ment, obtained as a result of the economic procedures for environmental damage assessment or evaluation of the environmental impact, which is based on the approved methodology [26].

The costs of responding to the environmental damage, negative impacts, minimizing threats to the environmental hot spots translate into huge sums. Speaking on the Nevsky Ecological Congress in May 2012, the Acting Minister of Natural Resources and Environment Minister Yury Trutnev said that Russia 194 ‘hot spots’ on pollution garbage [38]. According to him, the cleaning was carried out three of these points – Lake Baikal, the Wrangel Island and Franz Josef Land. The cost of harvesting areas will cost 20 billion rubles. To assess the costs and amount of work on all the hot spots of the country, it is necessary to prepare the project for each of the points and approve a program of ‘general cleaning’ of the country. The results of this large-scale work can occur, according to Trutnev, only after 20 years.

In turn, the Minister of Natural Resources and Environment Minister S. Donskoi in January 2013 noted that it is planned to expand the list of applied projects that would address past environmental damage, including through the preparation and approval of this year's federal program to attract about 100 billion federal, state and private resources. Accordingly, the beginning of the implementation of these projects will help to clean the contaminated areas – all that has been accumulated and the Soviet period, and for a new period of time when a number of companies, not implementing the right technology, have a negative impact on the environment. So far 77 projects identified with the monitoring system, which is built and which captures just such areas that are environmentally hurt and, accordingly, where those trouble spots with the previous environmental damage, said S. Donskoy [24].

FTP ‘Liquidation of accumulated environmental damage’, the development of which ends in 2013, refers to the situations where the responsibility for the pollution cannot be found, as many companies went bankrupt or were liquidated. The ‘polluter pays’ is not working, and if not increase funding, can eliminate up to 15 ‘environmental hot spots’ and they, according to preliminary estimates, more than 100. At this rate, the cleaning of contaminated areas in the past, will take 80–100 years. In the optimistic version of Natural Resources expects to spend up to 230 billion rubles from the budget and eliminate at least 75 ‘hot spots’ by 2025 [19]. Road map of the stages of work is as follows: 1) to the 2016 Ministry of Russia finished inventory of pollution, will start working on priority or has worked for sewage treatment projects and the selection of the other; 2) in 2020 to appear base technologies recommended for use in the elimination of pollution and the capacity for the disposal of industrial and domestic waste; 3) to 2025 will be carried all treatment projects of the program [20]. In this case, to clean-up projects will attract business.

In 2012, the first major project of the cleaning of the Arctic was the cleaning of the contaminated islands of Franz Josef Land. By the end of 2012 the island was completely cleared land Aleksandrov, and work began on the island of Hooker. In 2013, the project will be continued in the acute Graham Bell and Rudolph, where the total amount of pollution exceeds 35,000 tons. Cleaning old fuel drums on Wrangel Island in the Russian Arctic could begin in 2014, after switching to the state budget of the federal target Programm on the Elimination of accumulated environmental damage. Naturally, the budgets of the subjects of the Russian Arctic have no financial resources to carry out such work. The cleaning of metal Amderma in the Nenets Autonomous District, for example, need 40–50 million rubles a year for a period of this project for 10 years. The total area of pollution in Amderma of about 8244 hectares, and the amount of scrap metal – about 114.3 thousand tons12. And there are points in the municipalities and regions of the Russian Arctic have more than a dozen. Because authorities and management seek other financial sources. Elimination of the past environmental damage, the implementation of energy-saving and other investment projects, environmental focus, including in Trouble spots, has become profitable modes of the international business.

The work of the Northern ecological financial corporation – NEFCO (Nordic Environment Finance Corporation)

In the field of environmental business operates a number of the international funds and organizations. Back in 1994, the governments of the five countries instructed Environment Finance Nordic – NEFCO's environmental program to initiate the Barents region, designed to assist the Russian authorities to improve the environmental situation and reduce the impact on the environment and human health. NEFCO's first report in collaboration with AMAP (Arctic Monitoring and Assessment) ‘Proposals for Environmentally Sound Investment Projects in the Russian part of the Barents Region’, was introduced in 1995, then in 2003, NEFCO-AMAP prepared a new report, ‘Update of the list of envi

ronmental ‘hot spots’ in the Russian part of the Barents Region: Proposal for Environmentally Sound Investment Projects’. Environmental ‘hot spots’ have become a key point of the Ministers declaration, which was adopted at the VIII Conference of Ministers in the environment of the Barents Euro-Arctic November 9, 2007 the Fund environmental trouble spots in the Barents Region (FEGT) included in the 2008 42 trouble spots, in some cases, coinciding with the NPA-Arctic13. Its primary aim was to provide a limit on the amount of grants to fund technical assistance, including feasibility studies, business plans and financing. NEFCO/FEGT works with various hot spots in the first place as a financial institution [40, Henrik G. Forsström]. This is essentially transparent to the business of environmental trouble spots, developing investment projects with potential funding them from several sources.

The report of NEFCO for 2012 indicated that it was approved and adopted by the administration, 65 new projects, and administered by the Corporation fund has 549 million [5]. For environmental projects in the Russian Arctic, the fund has access to SEK 2,55 million (300 thousand euros). In this case, if you look at the geography of the whole common investment business projects, most of all on the map NEFCO green dots in the Baltic, but not in Russia or Scandinavia.

For convenience NEFCO projects assigned to the specific categories: water supply and sewage, industry/cleaner production, environmental works and services; energy projects, consulting services. NEFCO, for example, funded the project of reconstruction of communal heating systems Novodvinsk on energy saving14.

The work takes into account the priority of NEFCO's environmental activities related to hazardous chemicals as defined by international conventions and agreements. First of all supported projects related to persistent organic pollutants such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), DDT (a dust) with heavy metals such as mercury, lead or cadmium, and their compounds in the form of aerosols , solutions, suspensions, eutrophication (nitrogen and phosphorus discharges), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), Acid Deposition (caused by emissions of SOx, NOx, HF, etc.), substances that deplete the ozone layer and contribute to climate change and a threat to the environment as a whole15. Addresses a wide range of activities, including manufacturing, forestry, agriculture, food processing, animal husbandry, fisheries, transportation, energy production and consumption, the utility sector, the treatment of waste-DAMI, issues of resource and energy efficiency. Special attention is given to small and medium enterprises as well as the most effective projects for large productions.

The main purpose of NEFCO is currently funding projects to reduce Russian SLCF emissions, including black carbon (black carbon), which may be the second or third leading cause of global warming after CO 2 and methane [2]. Actively promote the need for urgent action, UNEP launched the problem very seriously discussed Arctic countries. After that, the United States took the initiative to limit human impact on the climate system through the reduction of emissions of three substances: methane, ‘black carbon’ (black carbon) and HFCs (hydro fluorocarbons). It is now proposed scale of the Russian-American project to assess the emissions of ‘black carbon’ from forest fires in Siberia and the monitoring of its deposition on snow and ice in the Arctic. Have an idea of demonstration projects that show potential for reducing emissions, in particular, projects WWF Russia and US EPA – PNNL in the Murmansk region [43].

Ecological risks in the Arkhangelsk region

It should be noted that the problems of ecological problems in the regions of the Russian Arctic and Northern Russia, environmental risks have always attracted the attention not only of our neighbors (Norway, Finland, Sweden), international environmental organizations, but also the public in the field [16, 22, 44]. And yesterday, today and in the future, environmental issues are in the focus of public opinion. In the Arkhangelsk region, for example, the appearance of the first social movements in the late 80's and 90's. The twentieth century was connected with environmental issues. November 20, 1988 in Arkhangelsk held the founding conference of the association ‘Ecology of the North’, which led the fight to protect the environment in five areas, including cultural and moral. The pervasive nature of those years were actions against the construction of the nuclear power plant heat in Arkhangelsk, as many years later, by the way, sorry, when exacerbated problems with heating, electricity and growth rates. Worked to increase public awareness, formation of its environmental culture, to establish a regular environmental monitoring of the nature and operation of enterprises in the region, conduct an examination of a number of objects.

In a paper published in 1992, ‘Black Book in Pomorye’ were first collected and published in separate different materials while the tragedy of the White Sea and the Northern Dvina, the Plesetsk cosmodrome, defense and Severodvinsk nuclear test site in the New Earth [42]. The scientific revolution was introduced shaped emotionally colored concept fatal triangle, basically adequate concept hotspots. ‘We live in a fateful triangle, surrounded on all sides by rockets Plesetsk, Nenoksa, nuclear reactors, nuclear submarines, nuclear test site Novaya Zemlya. Military, scientists service them, assure the public that we are worried for nothing, everything is within tolerance. I'd love to believe it. But why did people get sick more often? Where and what is the limit of acceptable risk, beyond which begins the process of irreversible extinction of all life? What will be the last straw: another untreated water mill, the unsuccessful launch of the missile or the release of radioactive gases into the atmosphere?’ [42].

Trouble spots in the Arkhangelsk region in the late twentieth century were identified: Plesetsk Cosmodrome, the city of Severodvinsk and Novaya Zemlya. Such potentially dangerous to the public, they remain today, although much has been done to reduce risks. Moratorium on nuclear testing range in the Central Russia (New Earth). Centre for Nuclear Shipbuilding in Severodvinsk, Plesetsk, New Earth are currently the object of industrial production and tourism [27]. However, the continued contamination of land that occurs when the rocket launches. Began commercial cleaning areas falling exhaust launch vehicle in the NAO Mezenskogo area of ‘space debris’ cosmodrome Plesetsk evolved from environmental hot spots in the hot social-point and shame corrupt Russian Space Forces. Total Plesetsk, according to official data, the use of 21 districts falling total area of 140.7 thousand square km, including 16 on the ground, and the rest – is in the seas of the Arctic Ocean. Only on three main areas of incidence (Naryan-Mar, Koidu, Moseeva) by 2000 were dropped more than 7 tons of scrap metal – the first stages, shutters fairing, tail section of the missile [40]. In 2007 have been found and removed from the area by a large 148 metal fragments. In 2008, the Space Forces signed a government contract with companies engaged in search and removal of waste parts of carrier rockets, launched from the Plesetsk cosmodrome, the fall of the districts located in the Arkhangelsk Region and the Komi Republic in the amount of 15 million rubles [16].

However, the ecological problem of the clearing from the ‘space’ pollution on the European North of Russia was transformed into another trouble spot, connected with one of the main problems of thre modern Russia, including corruption. In 2005–2008 in violation of the established order and the organization of the competitions the winner is the same center – JSC NPITS ‘Armint’, who had the necessary resources to carry out the planned activities. With him were three state contract signed for a total of 56 million rubles. In turn, the center signed subcontracts with three other companies and pay them a total of 46 million rubles [19]. Officers of the Space Troops actually controlling the completeness and quality of public contracts, whereby the organizations involved finding and removal of fallen parts practically engaged. Former deputy cosmodrome ‘Plesetsk’ A. Okhlopkov in charge in 2007–2008. State contracts for cleaning parts of launch vehicles in the Arkhangelsk region and Komi Republic was accused, without the formation of the Special Commission and circled signed acts of acceptance, forging signatures chief cosmodrome for a fictitious cleaning debris. Experts said that bribery and kickbacks – is a common corruption scheme of the local military. Colonel A. Okhlopkova colleagues were then in court from 3.5 to 11 years in prison. In 2009, he was accused of taking bribes to 750 thousand rubles, and damage to the state of 15 million rubles, but the jury in the court acquitted the former colonel, transferred to this post with an increase of Deputy Commander of the space forces near Krasnoznamensk.

In an article published by the newspaper ‘Izvestia’ April 20, 2012, it was noted that several high-ranking military Plesetsk fall for these scams with cleaning debris. In 2011, seven years of the colony for a bribe of two million rubles was the former head of the spaceport, Lieutenant-General Anatoly Bashlakov who, occupying the post from 2003 to 2007, also sold bogus contracts for bribes utilizers of hazardous waste. In March of 2012 to 3.5 years in prison, was sentenced Lieutenant Colonel Dmitry Tolbukhin, which was the successor Okhlopkova in his post, and was also responsible for garbage collection. In April 2012 the Supreme Court upheld the harsh verdict Colonel Konstantin Petrischeva of FSUE ‘Central management of material resources and international relations’, which received 11 years in prison for taking bribes from businessmen, fictitiously removes debris from the northern territories. The damage was estimated at 16 million rubles. In addition, because of the machinations in the disposal of debris missiles budget lost another 20 million rubles. Most scams in Plesetsk were revealed after his arrest for fraud heads research and production testing center ‘Armint’ Anatoly Manin, acting as a contractor of this work [28].

Surely, we all admire the achievements of Russia in space exploration. Plesetsk – is the subject of our national pride. Currently, however, the consequences of missile launches from Plesetsk not only have negative environmental impacts, expressed in constant pollution of large parts of the Arctic and the North of Russia, but also are associated with corruption as heptyl, corroding everything alive and penetrating into Russian society, even in the military. Scraping environmental hot spots, or rather the budgetary resources allocated for this work, not only in space but also in other areas of the Russian state are, unfortunately, the corruption factor system, which eventually creates a ‘trouble point of corruption’, or even in conflict situations public administration, in business environment. Communication Ecology and corruption at the Plesetsk cosmodrome example – a prime example of the ‘hot spots’ that are harmful not only to nature and society, but also the souls of men. This is an absolute moral emergency with disastrous consequences.

Conclusions

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that when we speak and write about the hot spots associated with the quality of the environment, its protection, it is preferable to use in the environment is not just the concept of HS, namely the concept of environmental trouble spots (‘Environmental trouble spots’, abbreviated EHS) because of its interdisciplinary interpretations.

Russian legislation is long past time to give a clear legal definition of environmental htrou-bleot spots, as well as the concept of past environmental damage, etc.

Basic information, indicators of environmental pollution in trouble spots of the Russian Arctic, including potentially dangerous, to be updated annually and published in a special report on the image and likeness have worked in practice techniques in preparation of the national report ‘On the state and Environmental Protection of the Russian Federation in 2011’, etc. This can be a report on the state of all 194 environmental trouble spots Russia or only on the environmental trouble spots of the Russian Arctic (100, 80, 50... 30). They must be constant monitoring.

The problem of minimizing environmental risks, sustainable development of the society is determined not only in world forums, at the state level, but each regional social environment, each local community at the level of the municipal settlements. Their environmental trouble spots are available in each region, and municipality of the Russian Arctic (landfill waste, recycling waste, potentially dangerous to human production, air and water pollution, etc.). Minimizing the risk to life and the negative social and economic consequences in the Arctic hotspots clearly requires adequate policies and a system of governance not only at the state level, but also at the regional and local (local) levels.

In everyday reality, each person makes the choice, sometimes not particularly thinking about the consequences of their daily activities to save the environment. It is therefore essential to develop ecological awareness; revive the system of environmental education in pre-school, secondary and higher education institutions; everywhere build environmental awareness, using social networks, information and communication technology (ICT), Day of the Arctic and other features.

Certainly, there is its problematic, the critical field at national, regional and municipal government of the Russian Arctic. In the social sphere of the northern territories also can identify a number of ‘trouble’ social and political problems, which always attracted the attention of both government and civil society. Is corruption, the situation in the housing (ES Tiksi), the large gap in incomes, low levels of a large part of the population in the harsh climatic conditions of high latitudes, unemployment and others.

In the public management and the Arctic policy at the forefront of the twenty-first century. come not just narrowly environmental, and socio-political priorities related to the conservation and savings, increase human capital, the provision of decent by today's standards and quality of life of people in a supportive environment, their safety. The strategic goal of environmental policy in the Russian Arctic today is not just the conservation of ecosystems and biodiversity, and quality improvement of public health, quality of life in extreme Arctic conditions, increasing life expectancy, the formation of a positive environmental culture and behavior, including the subjects of economic , political and social activities at all levels, including regional and municipal, building on the positive experience of the indigenous peoples of the North. If you do not talk, of course, the development of the Arctic space exclusively in shifts, which has its own strengths and weaknesses. The scientific literature is proposed to introduce a ban on the Russian Arctic, the creation of new settlements with a permanent population, a low priority, directing investment to modernize existing Arctic settlements and extensive use of the watch [39, Fauzer V. V.]. Not everyone here is undeniable, especially from the standpoint of geopolitics, security of the Russian Arctic, but of course, this perspective requires the development of today suspended political decisions.

Trouble spots are constantly reproduced in the economy (crisis, recession, raiding, grinmeyl, taxes, loans, etc.). With the ongoing global financial crisis 2008–2013. there are whole countries where the crisis particularly hurts the welfare, employment, quality of life (Greece, Spain, Portugal). Worsening of the crisis in Cyprus in March 2013 in the press have been called ‘financial hot spot’ of Europe. The slowdown in growth, the crisis in the global economy is obviously an effect on the inflow of foreign investment for the development of the Arctic shelf and other projects. With reference to the Arctic is not the first topic discussed on the development of the special economic regime, which would absorb resources without depleting them and destroying nature of the region16. Urgent attention of the state and society demand issues of environmental safety in the development of hydrocarbon fields in the Arctic. We need new technologies, modern equipment with a large margin of safety, constant monitoring, control of the situation in the organization of the development of oil and gas on the Russian continental shelf. Not only experts, but society as a whole should have a clear and reasoned answers to questions about whether it is possible to start production of oil here and now. Do Rosneft, Gazprom, their foreign partners to eliminate the possibility of flooding in the event of its occurrence? Need constantly updated, approved at the state level, the list of potentially dangerous environmental trouble spots in the Russian Arctic, associated with the production, logistics, transportation, oil and gas (Prirazlomnaya, Shtokman, Varandey, Sabetta, etc.). Preventive measures to prevent emergencies and minimize risks can reduce the threat of the arctic trouble spots.

Hotspots concept is widely used not only in the environment, but also in international politics and government (hot spots associated with an armed conflict, in peace time, local wars). Un- der the trouble spots usually mean the military (armed) conflicts that take place in a peaceful nonmilitary time. In 2010, there were in the world, for example, 33 hot spots, which suffer most local people [6]. At present, the numbers of hot spots, where there are armed conflicts, include Afghanistan, Syria, Mali, etc. In Russia – this is the North Caucasus (Dagestan, Ingushetia and Chechnya). In the Arctic, there are currently no hot military points, but Arctic countries (United States, Norway, Canada, Russia) is actively arming, increasing their defensive capabilities, constantly carrying out military exercises. Obtained as in the theater, if the gun is hanging on the wall, it will necessarily ever shoot. In general, the entire Arctic could be designated as potentially dangerous hot spots, if there will be realized the worst, worst-case scenario of the geopolitical situation. It is no accident Vladimir Putin in his speech February 27, 2013 at the enlarged session of the Ministry of Defense said the danger of militarization of the Arctic, ‘At the same time made the methodical attempt in any way to undermine the strategic balance. Actually started the second phase of the US global missile defense system, probed the possibility for further expansion of NATO to the East, there is a danger of the militarization of the Arctic’ [46]. Particularly active, the process of militarization of Norway – nearest neighbor Russia.

Broad interpretation of the concept of ‘trouble spots’ (ecology, conflict, management, society, economy) allow for a comprehensive analysis not only conserve the Russian Arctic, but also to identify the interaction of the subject relationships between the studied sites, areas of society. Beyond the scope of this work are the problem of preservation of ethnic and cultural landscape, language and culture of the indigenous people of the North, both large and small. I think that this topic requires a separate analysis, and it can also indicate potentially dangerous hot spots of the Russian Arctic. Confirmed by the interdisciplinary study of the situation, hotspots on the level of regions, municipalities in the Russian Arctic. As you can see, the range of problems is extensive and it can be conducted not only on the environmental hot spots. Obviously, in a magazine article indicated only some ‘Arctic hot spots’. I hope that the Year of the Environment in the Russian Federation, the topic will be further developed and media coverage, as well as issues related to the operation of protected areas, the humanitarian dimension of the Russian Arctic.