post-soviet transformation of natural resource utilization in eastern russia

ISSN 2079�9705, Regional Research of Russia, 2011, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 217–227. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2011.Original Russian Text © T.V. Litvinenko, 2010, published in Izvestiya RAN. Seriya Geograficheskaya, 2010, No. 4, pp. 28–39.

217

The topic of natural resources has not lost itsimportance in the postindustrial era. The awarding ofthe 2009 Nobel Prize in Economics to the AmericanElinor Ostrom for substantiating the efficiency ofcommunity administration of land [30] evidences thedemand for new approaches to solving social problemsof resource utilization and the need to deepen ourunderstanding of its spatial structures at the local scaleand at the institutional microlevel of industry. This isespecially important for countries and regions rich innatural resources, the economies of which developprimarily according to the resource model.

Such is the eastern part of Russia: the Eastern Sibe�rian and Far East regions. It is not traditional to high�light eastern Russia in this combination, althoughI.M. Maegroiz wrote: “the eastern part of the SovietUnion (more specifically, 2/5 of its territory east of theYenisei) differs in its unique complex of complex geo�graphical conditions” [7, p. 90]. And he specified thatit is the coldest in the country and the world, on thewhole mountainous, covered by tundra and sparselyforested taiga, remote from the main economic cen�ters of the country; here, natural riches frequentlyhave not been discovered or have been prospectedapproximately.

In eastern Russia, 60% of RF territory is responsi�ble for 10% of its citizens, 10% of GDP, and entities ofthe national infrastructure, as well as primary reservesof renewable and nonrenewable natural resources.Among these are the largest, in the former SovietUnion, reserves of gold, platinum, and diamonds;

90% of prospected Russian reserves of uranium andlead, 82% of molybdenum, 60% of nickel, 52% oftungsten (Table 1); nearly 100% of fluorite and anti�nomy; 63% of timber; vast biological marine resources;and natural recreation resources [10, 27, 29]. In the next25 years, the economy of eastern Russia, in addition toenterprises of a small number of large centers capableof switching to other developmental paradigms,according to available predictions, will be based onresource utilization [9, 29].

Of greatest interest are the shifts in its spatial struc�tures within the post�Soviet period. When there is adeep transformation of society, spatial structures aresubject to changes at all levels. As well, macro� andmesostructural approaches are important for strategicplanning and determining the most important propor�tion of the economy. However, spatial structuresshould also be studied at the microlevel, where, in thewords of P.Ya. Baklanov, “they are established andexist in the most specific form” [3, p. 8]. Rigidly local�ized elements of the natural resources developmentsector are related to other links of the economy of spa�tial structures, the social sphere, and the natural envi�ronment. Changes in them caused by transformationof such primary microstructural production units alsoneed to be studied.

Spatial shifts in the post�Soviet economy and itsraw materials sector, including eastern Russia, havebeen widely studied in the work of domestic econo�mists and economist�geographers [1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, 15,23, 27, etc.]. However, they are usually based on stan�

SPATIAL FEATURES OF SECTRORAL DEVELOPMENT

Post�Soviet Transformation of Natural Resource Utilization in Eastern Russia

T. V. LitvinenkoInstitute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow

e�mail: [email protected] November 20, 2009

Abstract—This article examines the tendencies of natural resource utlization in eastern Russia (EasternSiberia and the Far East) in comparison with the overall national situation.Types of post�Soviet transforma�tion of the spatial structure of natural resource utilization at the micro� and macrolevels are presented, whichhave been revealed by fieldwork. It has been established that the spatial structure of natural resource utiliza�tion at the microlevel in the most dynamic and primarily the first one subject to changes. Against the back�ground of general tendences in the national economy and eastern Russia as a whole, differently targetedchanges in the spatial structure of natural resource utilization at the local level in the post�Soviet period canbe observed.

Keywords: natural resource utilization, Eastern Siberia, the Far East, transformation of the spatial�economicstructure.

DOI: 10.1134/S2079970511030075

218

REGIONAL RESEARCH OF RUSSIA Vol. 1 No. 3 2011

LITVINENKO

dard statistics data and studies in an individual region.This article augments them with the typology of trans�formation of production units of the natural resourcesdevelopment sector at the micro� and mesolevels,investigated during field studies in 2001–2009 in a

majority of regions in eastern Russia1. Production

units of the spatial�economic structure have beenstudied: enterprises, firms, and companies of all typesof ownership utilizing mineral, biological (forest, fish�ing) and recreational resources. Enterprises were con�sidered with their natural�resource bases of variousspatial configuration: disperse, areal, point, and linear.The initial materials, in addition to statistical, wereinterviews with the population and representatives ofregional and local administrative organs and eco�nomic entities, as well as the library materials of enter�prises and local archives. The preliminary results ofinvestigations have been published [28, 29]; the task ofthis paper is a more in�depth analysis of the obtainedempirical data and their theoretical interpretation.

THE POST�SOVIET TRANSFORMATION OF THE RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT SECTOR:

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The initial stage of these studies was an analysis ofofficial statistics reflecting the shifts in utilization of anumber of natural resources (information on recre�ational flow was disembodied and incomplete). Dataon the dynamics of the physical volumes of extractionand processing of certain types of raw materialresources primarily pinpointed a declinein the countryand in the studied regions for the period of 1990–1998, which was replaced by stabilization and growth(Table 2). However, there are exceptions.

1 Namely, in Sakhalin oblast (2001, 2002); Primor’e krai (2001,2008); Khabarovsk krai, Kamchatka krai, and Magadan oblast(2003); Taimyr (Dolgan–Nenetsk) Autonomous District (2003,2005); Irkutsk oblast (2002, 2004); the Buryat Republic (2002,2004, 2006); the Republic of Khakasiya (2005); the Republic ofTyva (2005, 2009); the Republic of Sakha�Yakutia (2005); andAmur oblast, the Jewish Autonomous oblast, and the ChukotkaAutonomous District (2007).

The dynamics of certain raw material branches ineastern Russia differ from Russia as a whole. So, com�pared to the drop in oil extraction all over Russia in1990–2006, a more than threefold growth was notedin eastern Russia, in all four regions where oil wasextracted: Krasnoyarsk krai, Irkutsk oblast (extractionsince 1998), the Sakha Republic (Yakutia), and Sakhalinoblast. The fraction of studied regions in Russian oilextraction also increased by more than three times (from0.4% in 1990 to 1.4% in 2006) (Table 3).

Whereas natural gas extraction in Russiandecreased by 8% in 1990–1998 and then began toincrease, in the east, growth was observed throughoutthe entire post�Soviet period. In addition to Yakutiaand Sakhalin, where gas had been extracted in Soviettimes, development began in Krasnoyarsk krai (since1998), and Kamchatka krai and Irkutsk oblast (since2000). In truth, their contribution to national extrac�tion increased from only 0.5 to 0.7% (see Table 3).

Thus, with a relatively low share in the establishedRussian oil�and�gas reserves and in their extraction,eastern regions after the fall of the Soviet Union beganto actively develop their resources and the circle ofregions involved continually expanded.

According to present notions, eastern Russia issubstantially richer in coal, but the dynamics of itsextraction has looked different. Both the decline in1990–1998 and the growth in 1999–2006 were lower. Asa result, the share of studied regions in Russian extractionof this fuel decreased, although insignificantly: from37.6% in 1990 to 34.6% in 2006 (see Table 3).

The output of steel and finished ferrous metals(products with a higher cost) in eastern Russia in thepost�Soviet period fell steeply. The production ofindustrial timber, catching of fish, and production ofseafood in the studied regions decreased less than inRussia as a whole in 1990–2006. The drop in con�verted timber (the first�stage products of in�depthlumber processing) and other high�cost wood prod�ucts in the East, in contrast, was also more significant(see Table 2).

So, statistics have pinpointed the following: (1) theactive development of oil�and�gas resources;

Table 1. Share of eastern Russia in overall Russian prospected reserves of certain types of mineral resources (%)

RegionOil (incl. conden�

sate)

Natural gas Coal Uranium Iron ore Nickel Tungsten Molybde�

num Diamonds

Eastern Russia overall

4.4 5.8 43.9 no data 17 no data 52.1 no data no data

incl. Eastern Siberia

2.1 2.2 33.7 94.5 9.2 60 no data 82 no data

Far East 2.3 3.6 10.2 no data 7.8 no data no data no data 69 Sakha Republic (Yakutia)

Source: Compiled from [10].


POST�SOVIET TRANSFORMATION OF NATURAL RESOURCE 219

Table 2. Change in physcial production volumes of extraction and processing of certain types of raw material resources inRussia and its eastern regions, 1990–2006 (%)

Type of production 1990–1998 1999–2006 1990–2006

Mineral resource utilization

Oil extraction (incl. condensate)

Russian Federation –41 +34 –7

Eastern Sibera and Far East –3.6 +214.2 +236.8

Natural gas extraction

Russian Federation –8 +10 +2

Eastern Sibera and Far East +19.9 +34.9 +51.7

Coal mining


Eastern Sibera and Far East –36.1 +3.4 –28

Gold mining

Russian Federation –20.9 (1991–1998) +30.3 +9.9 (1991–2006)

Eastern Sibera and Far East –35.1 (1991–1998) +45.7 –3.2 (1991–2006)

(Far East) (Far East)

Steel production


Eastern Sibera and Far East 96.1 +7.4 –88.6

Production of finished ferrous metals


Eastern Sibera and Far East –84.5 +32.5 –51.7

Biological resource utilization

Industrial timber production

Russian Federation –75 +31.7 –61.7

Eastern Sibera and Far East –78 +17.7 –55

Converted timber production

Russian Federation –77 +7.4 –71.1


Paper production

Russian Federation –67.6 –1.5 –57.6

Eastern Sibera and Far East –89 –3.3 –85.6

Plywood production


Eastern Sibera and Far East –68 +30.4 –32.5

Cardboard production



Fish and seafood

Russian Federation –48 –9.6 –58.6

Eastern Sibera and Far East –43.3 (1990–1999) –13.5 –56.8

Source: Calculated from [4, 13, 14, 16–22].

220


LITVINENKO

(2) intensification of the raw materials orientation ofthe economy and a decrease in the in�depth process�ing of raw material resources. The resource orienta�tion of eastern Russia’s economy, which had notchanged for centuries, only increased in the post�Soviet period and was influenced primarily by theproduct market. Analysis of product export from theraw materials sector in a number of works [1, 2, 6, 27]is evidence of its geographic reorientation. Whereas inthe times of the Soviet Union Russia’s eastern regionsdelivered raw materials to processing enterprises in thewestern Soviet Union, the Urals, and southern Sibe�ria, in the post�Soviet period, this delivery vectorshifted to countries in the Asian Pacific region.

In individual regions (RF subjects), these trendshave their own specifics. So, in the Sakha Republic(Yakutia) from as far back as 1991 growth in oil and nat�ural gas extraction has been observed (Fig. 1, Table 4). By

2000, oil extraction had increased more than eight�fold. However, one of the deepest drops in lumber pro�duction was noted here in comparison to all othereastern regions: industrial timber output in 1996–2003 was only 10–18% of the 1990 level, and con�verted timber, 13–24%.

In the far northeast, in the Chukotka AutonomousDistrict in 1990–1998, there was a considerably strongdecline in raw materials extraction than on average ineastern Russia: a more than twofold drop in coalextraction and a 1.8�fold drop in fish catches. On theother hand, in 1999–2006, production increased morerapidly: coal extraction by 80% (instead of 3.4%throughout eastern Russia) and fish catches by anorder of magnitude (on average, throughout easternRussia, it fell by 13.5%). The situation was differentwith gold: gold mining in the years of the economiccrisis decreased to a far greater extent, and the growth

Table 3. Share of Eastern Siberian and Far Eastern economic regions in Russia’s overall extraction of certain types of energyrecourses, 1990–2006 (%)

Economic regionYears

1990 1995 2000 2005 2006

Oil extraction (with condensate)Eastern Siberia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Far East 0.4 0.6 1.2 0.9 1.4Eastern Siberia and Far East 0.4 0.6 1.2 0.9 1.4

Natural gas extractionEastern Siberia – – 0.1 0.1 0.1Far East 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6Eastern Siberia and Far East 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.7

Coal miningEastern Siberia 25.0 27.2 30.3 24.9 24.3Far East 12.6 12.8 10.9 10.9 10.3Eastern Siberia and Far East 37.6 40.0 41.2 35.8 34.6

Source: Calculated from [16–19].

Table 4. Change in physical volumes of extraction and processing of certain types of raw material resources in the SakhaRepublic (Yakutia), 1990–2006 (%)


Natural resource utilizationOil extraction (incl. condensate) +312 +233 +689

Natural gas extraction +11 +2 +16

Coal mining –31 +8 –33

Gold mining –62 +24 –32

Diamond mining –15 +12 (1999–2004) +2 (1990–2004)

Biological resource utilizationIndustrial timber production –90 +14 –75

Coverted timber production –86 +12 –75

Fish and seafood –61 +22 –54

Source: Calculated from [4, 12, 24].



in 1999–2006 was significantly less than on averagethroughout the Far East and Russia (Table 5).

TYPES OF POST�SOVIET TRANSFORMATION OF PRODUCTION UNITS

OF THE SPATIAL�ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF NATURAL RESOURCE UTILIZATION AT

THE MICRO –AND MESOLEVELS

In the course of field studies, it was necessary toexplain what was happening with the spatial�eco�nomic structure of resource utilization at the micro�and mesolevels and how this influenced the men�tioned shifts in raw materials extraction and process�ing. Correspondingly, the key features of changes inthe studied spatial structure were the dynamics of itsindividual production units and their entire network

and the change in the character (direction) of theirrelationships or dislocation (gravitation). As a result,the studies revealed five main types of post�Soviettransformation of production units of the spatial�eco�nomic structure of natural resource utilization at themicrolevel (Fig. 2).

1. Complete elimination of a production unit.2. Downsizing of a production unit.

2a. Simple.2b. Predominant orientation toward export orattracting foreign tourists.

3. Emergence of a new production unit.3a. Simple.3b. Predominant orientation toward export orattracting foreign tourists.

4. Enlargement (strengthening) of a production unit.4a. Simple.

1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 20060

Gold mining Diamond miningNatural gas extraction Coal miningIndustrial timber production Converted timber production

Oil extractionFish and seafood

Fig. 1. Indices of physical volumes of extraction and processing of certain types of raw material resources in the Sakha Republic(Yakutia), 1990–2006, % (1990 = 100%).

Table 5. Change in physical volumes of extraction of certain types of raw material resources in the Chukotka AutonomousOkrug, 1990–2006 (%)


Mineral resource productionCoal mining –73 +80 –55Gold mining –65 +8.5 –70Biological resource production Fish and seafood

–80 (1990–1995) 15 times (2000–2006) +812

Calculated from [25].

222


LITVINENKO

1. Complete elimination

5.

Foreign market

Foreign market

Foreign market

Foreign market

2. Downsizing of a production unit

2a. Simple

2b. With predominant orientation

foreign tourists

3. Emergence of a new production unit

3a. Simple

3b. With predominant

foreign tourists

4. Enlargement (strenghtening) of a production unit

4a. Simple

of a production unit

toward export or attracting

rientation toward export or attracting

4b. With predominant orientation toward export or attracting foreign tourists

Insignificant change in a production unit with reorientation primarily toward export

Fig. 2. Types of post�Soviet transformation of production units of the spatial�economic structure of natural resource utilizationat the microlevel. Note: � is a production unit of the spatial�economic structure of natural resource utilization. A change in the size of the markcorresponds to a change (increase or decrease) in physical production volumes at enterprises exploiting mineral and biologicalresources or the number of people served at tourist and recreation establishments.



4b. Predominant orientation toward export orattracting foreign tourists.

5. Insignificant change in a production unit withreorientation primarily toward export.

We examine each of these types.

1. Complete Elimination of a Production Unit of the Spatial�economic Structure

of Natural Resource Utilization

This form of transformation was the most wide�spread in the period of economic decline of 1990–1998, when many enterprises of the natural resourcesdevelopment sector were liquidated. Mainly, they didnot correspond to market conditions due to the dropin demand for natural resource production on thedomestic market or too high a unit cost of production.

The studies noted cases of the closing of enterprisesfor nonferrous metal ore extraction and concentrateproduction: the Tuvakobal’t cobalt refinery in Khovu�Aksy (Tyva Republic) in 1992, the Iul’tinsk StateLead–Tungsten Combine in Chukotka in 1994, andthe Dzhidinsk Tungsten–Molybdenum Combine inZakamensk (Buryat Republic) in 1997. In the 1990s,mass closings of gold�extraction companies took placein Magadan oblast and Chukotka. The same manufac�turers were completely liquidated in northeast Yakutia,in particular, in Oimyakon ulus and Aldan raion. Ourinvestigations in Aldan in 2005 revealed the followingclosings in the post�Soviet period: the Lebedinyi GoldExtraction Refinery in the village of Lebedynyi, theAldanslyuda enterprise and eight mica mines, anduranium mine construction enterprises close to thevillage of Zarechnyi.

Another motive for dissolving the production unitsof the studied spatial structure was the exhaustion ofnatural resources. For instance, the exhaustion ofreserves at the Ust’�Vilyusk ore deposit in the mid�1990s led to closing of a gas extraction enterprise inKobyaisk ulus of the Sakha Republic (Yakutia). In theyears of economic growth (beginning from the end ofthe 1990s) enterprises of the natural resources devel�opment sector in the majority of cases disappearedprecisely for this reason. From June 2001 throughSeptember 2009, diamond mining was temporarilyhalted in the famous Mir pipe in the city of Mirnyi dueto development of the pit and the construction along�side it of a mine for closed mining of diamonds.

As a whole, this type of transformation can becalled northern. Although there is no lack of examplesof closed enterprises in the south, is in the north andthe northeast (in Yakutia, Magadan oblast, andChukotka) that they became massive in the years ofeconomic decline. The reason for mass liquidation ofnorthern enterprises of the natural resources develop�ment sector, especially those linked to the mining ofgold and other nonferrous metals, was their own prof�itability for the market economy in harsh climatic condi�tions, with their remoteness and socioeconomic margin�

ality, week transportation infrastructure, and the lack ofan influx of capital and frontier cooperation.

The most widespread scenario after the liquidationof an enterprise was the complete termination of itsuse as a resource base, but not everywhere. Forinstance, after the closing of the Dzhidisnk Tungsten–Molybdenum Combine, the population of Zakamenskmined tungsten illegally, delivering it to nonferrousmetal receiving centers in Ulan�Ude. After closing ofthe Azas tourist base in Tyva in the 1990s, natural rec�reational resources of the eponymous lake and itsshores were used by the local population for their rec�reational needs and by outsiders as a form of unorga�nized (amateur) tourism. Timber from closed timberfarms frequently continue to be exploited, subjected toillegal cutting, etc.

2. Downsizing of a Production Unit of the Spatial�economic Structure of the Natural Resources

Development Sector

We understand downsizing (or breaking up) of aproduction unit to mean a reduction in physical vol�umes of production at enterprises that exploit mineraland biological resources or the inflow of tourists andvacationers, which occurred at a majority of enter�prises of the natural resources development sector ineastern Russia in 1990–1998.

2b. Downsizing of a production unit with predomi�nant orientation toward export or attracting foreign tour�ists. With the compression of domestic solvent demandfor production of the raw materials sector, enterprises,reducing production, also frequently reoriented them�selves toward export. This became the singular meansof survival for many timber enterprises in eastern Rus�sia. By the end of the 1990s, as compared to the dropin output of all types of lumber production, the spe�cific weight of export in the production of industrialtimber reached 82%; converted timber, 58% (Krasno�yarsk krai); and cellulose, 61% (Irkutsk oblast). Theirexport from the Far East to other Russian regionsceased or decreased by a factor of 10 or higher [27]. Atthe local level, this usually meant both a decline inproduction and reassignment of deliveries for export.A visit to fish�processing enterprises in the Sakhalinoblast capital and in the city of Korsakovo showed thatin the 1990s they had almost completely reorientedthemselves toward Asian Pacific countries. A similarpicture could be observed in the recreation branch. Thedrop in the quality of life for Russian citizens in the post�Soviet period reduced the influx of tourists even in suchfamous places as Geyser Valley in Kamchatka and theLena River (cruises) in Yakutia. Foreigners became themain visitors.

In studying the downsizing of production units ofthe spatial�economic structure, it is important to takeinto account the wide variety of changes in theresource base: reduction of its area, a decrease in per�

224


LITVINENKO

manent territory, use of selective deposits or areas intimes of neglect or temporary conservation of others.

3. Emergence of a New Production Unit of the Spatial�economic Structure of the Natural

Resources Development Sector

New production units in the studied spatial struc�tures have emerged since the beginning of the 1990s.After 1998, when mass liquidation of enterprises washalted, the appearance of new ones contributed to thegrowth in the volume of extraction and processing ofraw materials (see Table 2) and the flow of tourists andvacationers. The emergence of a new production unitusually expands the resource base: development of anew resource begins or use of the old one is activated.

Among the branches of the natural resources devel�opment sector that have been developing dynamicallyin eastern Russia since 1997 and marketing productsmainly in Russia, gold mining should be highlighted.Recall that unprofitable enterprises of this branch,mainly northern ones, were closed in the first half ofthe 1990s. However, since the middle of the samedecade, the creation of new ones has begun, primarilyin the southern part of the studied economic regions:the Tyva Republic, the Buryat Republic, Irkutskoblast, and Yakutia’s Aldan raion. New gold�miningareas in the latter are the Samolazovskii, Garbu�zovskii, and Mezhsopochnyi mines of the prospectingartel Selegdar. Diversely targeted types of territorialrestructuring (liquidation of production units andtheir appearance) differ sharply geographically alongthe north–south axis, which increases the sweep ofterritorial shifts.

This type can be augmented by the implementationof oil�and�gas extraction projects for the domesticmarket. In an interview in 2005, representatives of theTaimyr Autonomous Okrug named them: develop�ment of the Vankoz gas�and�oil deposit with the con�struction of the Vankor–Dixon oil pipeline, and thePelyatkin gas deposit, belonging to Taimyrgaz andcalled upon to satisfy the requirements of Norilsk andDudinka. The Sakha Republic’s Ministry of Industryin turn was also counting on the development of theSrednebotuobinsk and Tas�Yuryakh oil–gas�conden�sate deposits, Talakan oil deposit, Chayand gas depositin Lena district and Mirny district.

3b. Emergence of new production units with predom�inant orientation toward export or attracting foreigntourists. A well�known example of the emergence ofnew enterprises of the natural resources developmentsector oriented toward export is the development ofoil�and�gas resources on the shelf of the Sea ofOkhotsk near the island of Sakhalin. The majority ofdiamond�mining facilities that appeared in the post�Soviet period were also export�oriented. In Yakutia,these were new limited liability organizations for min�ing placer diamonds (Nizhnelenskii, Almazy Ana�bara) in Anabar ulus, Bulun ulus, and Olenek ulus, as

well as diamond ores (Nyurbinsk State Lead – Tung�sten Combine, the ALROSA diamond company) inNyurbinsk ulus. According to the Ministry of Enter�prise, Tourism Development, and Employment of theSakha Republic, the tourist business that emerged inthe post�Soviet period was mainly oriented towardforeign tourists. New Yakutian firms organize tours tothe “Cold Pole” in Oimyakon ulus and Verkhoyanskulus, educational tours of the world�renown Mir kim�berlite pipe (after closing of the open mine there in2001), and hunting tours in the Zyryanka region.

4. Enlargement (Strengthening) of a Production Unit of the Spatial�economic Structure of the Natural

Resources Development Sector

This type of transformation is coupled with growthin physical production volumes at raw materials enter�prises using mineral and biological resources, or intourism�recreation service. It can take place both inenterprises that emerged in the post�Soviet period andthose that have existed since the time of the SovietUnion.

New gold�mining enterprises that emerged in thepost�Soviet period and usually operating on thedomestic market have intensively increased produc�tion volumes. Gold�mining at the limited liabilitycompany Zakamensk, which emerged in Zakamenskraion in the Buryat Repubic in the second half of the1990s, grew by more than a factor of 4, from 80 to350 kg for the period of 1996–2004 (from data of aninterview with representatives of this enterprise inAugust 2004). The director of the Selegdar prospect�ing artel, one of the most successful gold�miningenterprises in Aldan raion, Yakutia, noted in August2005 growth in mining at the new Samolazovskii andMezhsopochnyi mines.

4b. Enlargement of a production unit with predomi�nant orientation toward export or attracting foreign tour�ists. The starkest example is the increase in ore miningand production of nickel, copper, cobalt, and plati�num metals concentrated at Norilsk Nickel in theNorilsk industrial region since 1997 with a reductionin the sale of the combine production on the domesticmarket and growth in its distribution on the foreignmarket. This conclusion was made based on an inter�view with representatives of the Norilsk city adminis�tration in February 2005 and an analysis of statisticaldata of the Zapolyarnyi office of Norilsk Nickellocated on the company’s official website in 2001 [8].

Enlargement of a production unit of the spatial�economic structure is, for reasons that are clear,accompanied by changes in its resource base directlyopposite of those that accompany a decrease in pro�duction units: expansion of area, growth in utilizationintensity at the same sizes and configurations, and uti�lization of new deposits or areas.



5. Insignificant Change in a Production Unit with Reorientation Primarily Toward Export

In this type, the size of a production unit (an enter�prise’s physical production volume) has changedinsignificantly in comparison to the Soviet period, butthe production and delivery directions change.Whereas in the time of the Soviet Union, an enter�prise’s production was primarily delivered to thedomestic market, in the post�Soviet period, it is pri�marily delivered to the foreign market. An example isthe aluminum industry enterprises of Eastern Siberia.Not being mining companies (they work primarilywith imported raw materials), they are naturalresource consumers (they consume cheap electricityand water resources). According to data of the She�likov raion administration of Irkutsk oblast (2004), thealuminum production volumes at the Irkutsk alumi�num factory, presently belonging to the united com�pany RUSAL, changed insignificantly in comparisonto Soviet times. Analogous estimates were given for themunicipal creation of Sayanogorsk City of the Repub�lic of Khakasia about the work of the aluminum fac�tory constructed in Sayanogorsk in 1985. There,annual smelting of aluminum by the beginning of mar�ket reforms was 350 tons and in the post�Soviet period,it changed insignificantly (in 2004, nearly 400 tons).However, the directions of production and deliverychanged. Whereas during the time of the Soviet Unionit was primarily to the domestic market (the aviationindustry and the military industrial complex), in thepost�Soviet period (in connection with the drop indemand for production in Russia and stable demandon the world market), reorientation predominantlytoward export occurred. The aluminum industryenterprises under investigation proved stable to socio�economic changes due to both production profitabil�ity (owing to cheap electricity, a comparatively conve�nient transport situation, delivery from abroad of rawmaterials not available in Russia, etc.) and reorienta�tion toward export.

At the mesolevel, two main types of post�Soviettransformation of production units of the spatial�eco�nomic structure of natural resource utilization havebeen revealed: (1) a decrease in the number of produc�tion units and (2) an increase in the number of pro�duction units (Fig. 3).

1. Decrease in the Number of Production Units

A decrease in the number of production units is areduction in the number of enterprises, firms, andcompanies. The sharp decline in lumber products andtimber output in the 1990s (as well as in comparison toother forms of raw materials production) was causedprecisely by the decrease in the number of enterpriseswith this profile. For instance, according to the data ofthe administration of Nizhneilimsk raion, Irkutskoblast, out of 26 timber industry enterprises thatexisted there in the Soviet period, only one remained

in 2004. The decrease in the number of productionunits in particular cases reduces to the closing of anumber of them, i.e., to the first type of transforma�tion at the microlevel.

2. Increase in the Number of Production Units

This type means an increase in the number ofenterprises, firms, and companies in a certain territory.For instance, the recreational territories of LakeBaikal in the first half of the 1990s had a strong reduc�tion in client base in regards several large Soviet recre�ational facilities. However, the same places attractedsmall business, new vacation and tourism enterprises.At the local level, Kaban raion, Buryat Republic,serves as an example. At the beginning of the 1990s,the number of visitors to the tourist base BaikalskiiPriboi (Baikal Surf), well known in the Soviet period,decreased, but nearby, a significant number of newsmall bureaucratic and private tourism�recreationenterprises appeared. The decrease in the number ofproduction units in the above�mentioned case at themicrolevel reduces to a decrease in one productionunit and the appearance of new ones next to it.

The general tendency of post�Soviet transforma�tion of production units of the spatial�economic struc�ture of natural resource utilization was the contractionof production units to the richest natural resources.Under such contraction, enterprises compete and suc�cessfully develop at the most promising and largestresource bases. This implies their consolidation and“reproduction” next to such bases with a decrease inremoteness from them. An example is contraction oftimber enterprises to Irkutsk oblast’s richest timberregions. Analysis of the spatial transformation of the

1.

2.

Decrease in number of production units

Increase in number of production units

Fig. 3. Types of post�Soviet transformation of productionunits of the spatial�economic structure of natural resourceutilization at the mesolevel.Note: � is a production unit of the spatial�economic struc�ture of natural resource utilization. A change in the size ofthe mark corresponds to a change (increase or decrease) inphysical production volumes at enterprises exploiting min�eral and biological resources or the number of peopleserved at tourist and recreation establishments.

226


LITVINENKO

recreation sphere has also revealed a contraction of itsfacilities and client base toward the best recreationresources. So, in the Buryat Republic, tourism andrecreation enterprises in the post�Soviet period com�pete with one another primarily in seven areas of themost intensive development of this activity: Kultush�naya ⎯ Baikalskii priboi; Enkheluk ⎯ Sukhaya, Arshan,Goryachinsk, Maksimikha, Khakusy, and TransbaikalNational Park [26].

CONCLUSIONS

The post�Soviet transformation of society led tochanges in the spatial structure of natural resource uti�lization (as in the economy as a whole) at all levels ofit. However, at the microstructural level, it is the mostdynamic and primarily the first one subject to particu�lar changes.

In the period of economic decline, the most wide�spread were such types of transformation of produc�tion units of the spatial�economic structure of naturalresource utilization as their liquidation and downsiz�ing; in the period of economic growth, an enlargementof production units and an increase in their number.This influenced the overall situation in the studiedeconomic regions reflected in official statistics.

In comparison to the general trends in the coun�try’s economy and eastern Russia as a whole—declinein 1990–1998 and growth in 1999–2006—multidi�rectional changes could be observed in the spatial�economic structure of natural resource utilization atthe local level over the course of the entire post�Sovietperiod. A production unit taken individually changedinsignificantly in the post�Soviet period in comparisonto Soviet times (although such examples are very few);it may have changed only once and existed afterwardsin a relatively stable state or switched several timesfrom one type of transformation to another. For oneand the same type, a variety of changes can be notedthat occurred with an enterprise’s resource base.

The types of transformation presented in this paperwere revealed via investigation of branches of the nat�ural resources development sector in two macrore�gions of eastern Russia, but they are likely also charac�teristic of different parts of the country and branchesof the economy. It is true that in eastern regions incomparison to western ones, examples of differenttypes of this transformation can probably be observedmore simply, so to speak, in pure form (downsizing,enlargement, appearance of new production units ori�ented toward the foreign or domestic market, etc.).This is explained by the less dense development ofeastern regions, where each enterprise and its relation�ships are more noticeable to a known degree, as well asby their location close to rapidly developing China,South Korea, and other large energy resource con�sumers like Japan.

Field studies have confirmed the earlier conclusionthat eastern Russia has become a raw materials

appendage of Asian Pacific countries. At the sametime, they have revealed processes, taking place at themesolevel, of diversification and deepening of certaintypes of raw materials processing: in Yakutia, from dia�mond mining to lapidary production; in Magadanoblast, from gold mining to refining production; andin Khakasiya, from aluminum smelting to foil produc�tion. Such examples are few, and they have hardly beenpinpointed at all by official statistics.

Typological study of the transformation of produc�tion units of the spatial�economic structure of naturalresource utilization in and of itself does not solve prac�tical problems, but it can serve as a basis for analyzingsocioecological consequences of this transformationand scientific substantiation of ways to mitigate itsnegative effects, which is extremely important for amodern Russia.

The results of studying microstructural shifts inbranches of the material resources development sectorof the economy will likely be required in the transitionof Russian regions to sustainable (economically, soci�etally, and ecologically balanced) development.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Field studies were carried out with financial sup�port from the Academic Frontier Project for PrivateUniversity Matching Fund Subsidy from MEXT(Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Sciences,and Technology, Japanese Government).

REFERENCES

1. Baklanov, P.Ya., Dal’nevostochnyi region Rossii: prob�lemy i predposylki ustoichivogo razvitiya (Far EastRegion of Russia: Problems and Prerequisites of Sus�tainable Development), Vladivostok: Dal’nauka, 2001,p. 144.

2. Baklanov, P.Ya., Integration and Disintegration Pro�cesses on Far East of Russia, in Regional’nye issledo�vaniya (Regional Investigations), Smolensk, 2002,no. 1.

3. Baklanov, P.Ya., Territorial’nye struktury khozyaistva vregional’nom upravlenii (Territorial Structures of Econ�omy), Minakir, M., Ed., Moscow: Nauka, 2007, p. 339.

4. Braiko, V.N. and Ivanov, V.N., Annual Results of GoldMining Industry of Russia in 2006 and Perspective forNext Years, Mineral’nye Resursy Rossii. Ekonomika iUpravlenie, 2007, no. 2, pp. 29–42.

5. Khantashkeeva, T.V., Intensive Development of Tour�ism in Eastern Regions of Russia: Possible negativeConsequences for Environment, in Ustoychivoe razvitieturizma: napravleniya, tendentsii, tekhnologii (Sustain�able Development of Tourism: Directions, Tendencies,Technologies), Ulan�Ude: Izd. BNTs SO RAN, 2005,pp. 209–215.

6. Khantashkeeva, T.V., Timber Industry Complex in EastSiberian and Far East Regions: General Tendencies ofDevelopment in 1990s, Geografiyz i Prirodye Resursy,2004, no. 2, pp. 34–39.



7. Khantashkeeva, T.V., Modification Types of RegionalOrganizational Structure of Resource Consuming andTheir Social and Ecological Consequences in EasternRegions of Russia, in Prostranstvennaya organizatsiyakhozyaistva: TPK ili klastery? (Spatial Organization ofEconomy: Territorial Industrial Complex or Clusters?),Moscow: IG RAN, 2006, pp. 153–162.

8. Klyuev, N.N., Ecologo�economy Transformation ofPost�Soviet Russia an Its Regions, Izvestiya RAN, Ser.Geograph., 2004, no. 1, pp. 37–45.

9. Lamakina, N.V., Mineral’no�Syr’evoi kompleks vekonomike Dal’nego Vostoka (Mineral and Raw mate�rial Complex in Economy of Far East), Vladivostok:Dal’nauka, 2002, p. 135.

10. Litvinenko, T. and Murota, T., Natural ResourcesDevelopment in East Siberia and Far East of Russia: AField Study from Social and Ecological Viewpoint, inDoshisha University Worldwide Business Review, 2009,vol. 10, special issue, Kyoto, Japan, p. 118.

11. Maergoiz, I.M., Territorial’naya struktura khozyaistva(Territorial Economy Structure), Novosibirsk: Nauka,1986, p. 300.

12. Official Site of Joint Stock Mining and Smelting Com�pany Norilsk Nickel. www.nornik.ru.

13. Ostrom, E., Walker, J., and Gardner, R., Rules, Games,and Common�Pool Resources, Ann Arbor: University ofMichigan Press, 1994.

14. Privalovskaya, G.A., Consumption of Resources inContemporary Economic Space of Russia, Izv. RAN.Ser. Geograph., 2002, no. 2, pp. 5–14.

15. Prirodnye resursy i okruzhaushchaya sreda Rossii. Anal�iticheskii otchet (Nature Resources and Environment inRussia. Analytical Report), Yatskevich, V.A., Paka,N.G. and Rybal’skii, M., Eds., Moscow: NIA�Priroda,2001.

16. Prirodopol’zovanie Dal’nego Vostoka Rossii i Severo�Vostochnoi Azii: potencial integratsii I ustoichevogo raz�vitiya (Nature Management on Far East of Russia andNorth�East Asia: Potential of Integration and Sustain�able Development), Sheingauz, A.S., Ed., Vladivostok�Khabarovsk: DVO RAN, 2005, p. 528.

17. Promyshlennost’ Respubliki Sakha (Yakutiya), yanvar’�dekabr’, 2004 (Industry of Republic of Sakha (Yakutia),January�December, 2004), Yakutsk, 2005.

18. Promyshlennost’ Rossii: Stat. Sbornik (Industry of Rus�sia: Stat. Bulletin), Moscow: Goskomstat Rossii, 1996.

19. Promyshlennost’ Rossii: Stat. Sbornik (Industry of Rus�sia: Stat. Bulletin), Moscow: Goskomstat Rossii, 2000.

20. Prostranstvennye transformatsii v rossiyskoy ekonomike(Spatial Transformations in Russian Economy), Mina�kir, P.A., Ed., Moscow: Ekonomika, 2002, p. 424.

21. Regiony Rossii v 1999 godu (Regions of Russia in 1999),Moscow: Goskomstat Rossii, 2000.

22. Regiony Rossii v 1999 godu (Regions of Russia in 1999),Moscow: Goskomstat Rossii, 2002.

23. Regiony Rossii. Osnovnye kharakteristiki sub’’ektovRossiiskoi Federatsii (Regions of Russia. General Char�acteristics of Structures of Russian Federation), Mos�cow: Statistika Rossii, 2002.

24. Regiony Rossii. Sotsial’no�ekonomicheskie pokazateli.Statisticheskii sbornik (Regions of Russia. Social�Eco�nomical Indexes. Bulletin of Statistics), Moscow:Rosstat, 2007.

25. Rossiiskii statisticheskii ezhegodnik, 2000 (RussianAnnual Statistic Bulletin, 2000), Moscow: GoskomstatRosii, 2001.



28. Savel’eva, I.L., Mineral’no�syr’evye tsikly proizvodstvAziatskoy Rossii: regional’nye cherty stanovleniya I raz�vitiya (Mineral�Raw Material Cycles of Industries ofAsian Russia: Regional Peculiarities of Establishmentand Development), Novosibirsk: Nauka, 2007.

29. Statisticheskii ezhegodnik Respubliki Sakha (Yakutiya)2004 (Statistical Annual Bulletin of Republic of Sakha(Yakutiya) 2004), Yakutsk, 2005, p. 504.

30. Territorial’nyi organ federal’noy sluzhby gosudarstvennoistatistiki po Chukotskomu avtonomnomu okrugu. Statis�ticheskie dannye 1990–2006 (Regional Authority of theFederal State Statistic Service of the Chukotka Auton�omous District. Statistical Data of 1990–2006),Anadyr’, 2007.

post-soviet transformation of natural resource utilization in eastern russia

Documents