home > Maths > The environmental coefficient of water is equal. Tests on the course "Ecology and nature management


The environmental coefficient of water is equal. Tests on the course "Ecology and nature management




Conventions

OS - environment

pollutant

API – air pollution index: low (<5), повышенный (5-6), высокий (7-13), очень высокий (>13)

PG - combustion products

PCDC/PCDF - polychlorinated dibenzo(p)chlorodioxins / polychlorinated dibenzochlorofurans

Emergency - emergency

EB - environmental safety

- coefficient of the ecological situation and the ecological significance of the state of atmospheric air

and – average annual gross emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere from stationary and mobile sources, respectively, t/year

– total mass of pollutant emissions into the atmosphere from stationary and mobile sources, t/year

is the mass of the release of the i-th pollutant into the atmosphere from stationary and mobile sources, t/year

, , - specific indicators of air pollution by stationary and mobile sources, separately and together (mass of emissions into the atmospheric air per person and per hectare), t/person, t/ha

– mass of emissions of combustion products, t (kg, mg)

is the annual mass of all emissions of combustion products from fires in housing, t pg / year

- specific emission of combustion products per person per year, t pg / person.

– specific emission of combustion products per 1 ha of pollution zone during fires, t pg/ha

– specific gravity of the i-th combustion product in the composition of emissions from fires, t pg / t h (Table 6 of the Appendix)

and - maximum allowable concentrations of the i-th pollutant in the atmospheric air: average daily and maximum one-time, respectively, mg / m 3 (Table 1 of the Appendix)

- background concentration of the i-th pollutant in the atmospheric air of the settlement, mg/m 3 or units. MPC

- concentration of the i-th combustion product in the composition of emissions from fires, mg / m 3

- mass of the j-th material (substance) in the composition of the combustible load, kg gn / m 2 (t gn / ha)

- specific gravity of the entire combustible load, kg gn / m 2 (t gn / ha)

μ - the proportion of materials and substances in the composition of the combustible load

- specific gravity of the entire burnt load, kg gn / m 2 (t gn / ha)

- the amount of all materials burned in one fire in the residential sector, t h / fire.

- the volume of combustion products formed during the combustion of 1 t of combustible load, m 3 / t h

η - coefficient of completeness of combustion

c – population density, person/ha

n all 10 -3 - the number of all fires per 10 3 people in the Nth settlement

n victims all amp. 10 -5 - the number of victims in the calculation of 10 5 people in the N-th settlement, (10.1-12.4) / 10 5, per victim / person. year)

- the estimated number of all fires in the settlement, fire / year (Table 2 "Tasks")

– estimated number of house fires, fire/year

- the actual number of all fires in the settlement, fire / year (Table 2 "Tasks")

- the actual number of fires in housing, fire / year

S - area of ​​​​the settlement, km 2 (ha)

- average fire area, m 2

is the average area of ​​the contamination zone around the fire, ha

- the area of ​​the pollution zone during fires in housing per year, ha / fire year

Z - the number of inhabitants of the settlement, people / year

- the absolute number of deaths from all types of diseases, people / year

- the relative number of deaths per 10 3 people from all types of diseases, people / year

- the relative incidence of residents of the settlement per 10 3 people. (including ), person/year

- the actual number of victims (dead) in fires, people / year

– estimated number of victims (dead) in fires, people/year

- the estimated number of victims of fires in housing, people / year

- the number of deaths in fires in the residential sector due to environmental reasons people / year

- the number of people who found themselves in the zone of pollution by combustion products during fires in housing per year people / year

- the potential number of people who fell ill from poisoning during fires in housing per year, people / year

- the risk of death from all diseases of residents per year

– the risk of human death due to environmental causes from all diseases

- the risk of all diseases per year

– the risk of all diseases due to environmental reasons per year

– risk of respiratory diseases for environmental reasons per year

– risk of death from all causes in fires per year

– risk of death due to environmental causes in fires per year

- the risk of diseases for environmental reasons during fires per year

– risk of respiratory diseases for environmental reasons during fires per year

– environmental and economic damage from atmospheric pollution by emissions from stationary sources and / or transport in normal situations

- environmental and economic damage from air pollution by emissions from fires

Specific economic damage from emissions of pollutants into the air, rub./t

K a - accident rate equal to 25

The coefficient of the ecological situation and the state of the atmosphere

Glossary

Favorable OS– environment, the quality of which ensures the sustainable functioning of natural ecological systems, natural and natural-anthropogenic objects.

harmful substance- a chemical compound that, upon contact with the human body, causes deviations in the state of health, diseases in the process of work and in the long term (GOST 12.1.007-76).

Harm to the environment- a negative change in the environment as a result of its pollution, which entailed the degradation of natural ecological systems and the depletion of natural resources.

toxic substance- a chemical compound that causes disturbances in metabolic processes.

OS pollution- the supply of matter and (or) energy, the properties, location or quantity of which have a negative impact on the environment (Federal Law of the Russian Federation of January 10, 2002 No. 7-FZ "On Environmental Protection").

Pollutant- a substance or mixture of substances, the amount and (or) concentration of which exceed the standards established for chemicals, including radioactive, other substances and microorganisms, and have a negative impact on the environment (Federal Law of the Russian Federation of January 10, 2002 No. 7-FZ "On Environmental Protection").

OS quality- the state of the environment, which is characterized by physical, chemical, biological and other indicators and (or) their combination (Federal Law of the Russian Federation of January 10, 2002 No. 7-FZ "On Environmental Protection").

- concentration that does not have a direct or indirect harmful effect on a person indefinitely (throughout life), mg / m 3.

The injured, the dead. The number of dead and injured is understood as the number of people who died or suffered damage to their health as a result of an emergency (Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of May 21, 2007 No. 2640).

health risk- the probability of development of a threat to human life or health or a threat to the life or health of future generations, due to the impact of environmental factors.

The risk is individual– assessment of the probability of developing an adverse effect in the exposed individual; for example, the risk of developing cancer in one individual in 1000 exposed to a carcinogen (risk of 1 in 1000 or 1 x 10 -3). When assessing risk, as a rule, the number of cases of health disorders that are additional to the background is estimated. most diseases associated with environmental exposure occur in the population even in the absence of the analyzed impact (eg cancer).

Environmental Safety(EB) - a set of actions, states, processes that do not directly or indirectly lead to vital damage (or threats of such damage) inflicted on the natural environment, individuals, humanity (Reimers N.F. Nature management: a reference dictionary).

Environmental Safety- the state of protection of the natural environment and vital human interests from the possible negative impact of economic and other activities, natural and man-made emergencies, and their consequences.

Environmental standards:

medical (sanitary and hygienic) - characterize the level of threats to human health (MPC, MPC, LC, LD, size of the SPZ);

technological - set limits on the impact on the environment and must ensure the safety of life during the normal operation of technical facilities (PDS, MPE, EVS, VSS);

scientific and technical - characterize the ability of control tools to detect the actual level of physical and chemical contamination of biological objects and environment.

Consequences of an accident or fire- the number of victims from among those living or working in the territory adjacent to the facility where activities are carried out using fire-explosive substances and hazardous chemicals or transportation of these substances by pipeline transport.

Classification of risk levels ("Sanitary and epidemiological rules and regulations" (SanPiN of the Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow, 2003) *

Coefficient of environmental situation and environmental significance

atmospheric air conditions ( To e a)

Region of the Russian Federation Name of republics, regions, territories
Northern Rep. Karelia, Komi; Arkhangelsk, Vologda, Murmansk region, Nenets Autonomous Okrug 1,4
Northwestern Leningrad, Novgorod, Pskov, Kaliningrad regions; St. Petersburg 1,5
Central Bryansk, Belgorod, Vladimir, Voronezh, Ivanovo, Kaluga, Kostroma, Kursk, Lipetsk, Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod, Orel, Ryazan, Smolensk, Tambov, Tver, Tula, Yaroslavl regions. 1,9
Moscow and cities of the Moscow region* 2,28
Volga-Vyatka Nizhny Novgorod, Kirov region; Rep. Mari El, Mordovia, Chuvash Republic 1,1
Central Black Earth Belgorod, Voronezh, Kursk, Lipetsk, Tambov regions. 1,5
Volga region Ulyanovsk, Samara, Saratov, Volgograd, Astrakhan, Penza regions; Rep. Tatarstan, Kalmykia, 1,9
North Caucasian Krasnodar Territory, Stavropol Territory, Astrakhan, Volgograd, Rostov Regions; Rep. Adygea, Dagestan, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachay-Cherkessia, North Ossetia-Alania; Ingush, Chechen 1,6
Ural Sverdlovsk, Tomsk, Chelyabinsk, Tyumen region, Khanty-Mansiysk, Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug 2,0
West Siberian Kemerovo, Kurgan Novosibirsk, Omsk, Tomsk regions; Altai Territory, Republic of Altai 1,2
East Siberian R. Buryatia, Tyva, Khakassia, Irkutsk, Chita region, Krasnoyarsk Territory, Buryat Autonomous District, Taimyr Autonomous District, 1,4
Far Eastern R. Sakha (Yakutia), Primorsky, Khabarovsk Territory, Amur, Kamchatka, Magadan, Sakhalin Regions; Jewish Autonomous Region, Koryaksky, Chukotka Autonomous Regions 1,0

Note.When pollutants are released into the atmospheric air of cities, it is applied with an additional coefficient of 1.2.

Specific economic damage (U sp., rub./t) from environmental pollution

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Economic mechanism of protection of waters from pollution (part 2). Adjustment factors

annotation

The issues of the validity of the multiplying coefficients introduced to the charge for pollution and to the amount of damage caused to water bodies are considered. The features of the sizes and names of the coefficients provided for by the relevant regulatory documents are noted. Considerations are made about the possibility of reducing the number of coefficients and establishing more reasonable adjustments to the amount of payment or harm, taking into account specific conditions.

Keywords:

When calculating fees for emissions and discharges of pollutants into the environment and assessing the damage caused to the environment, various coefficients are used. There is one “coefficient of the environmental situation and environmental significance of the state of water bodies” in the payment standards, there are several coefficients in the Methodology that take into account:

K in– environmental factors (state of water bodies);

K out- the intensity of the negative impact of harmful (polluting) substances on the water body;

K vg- natural and climatic conditions depending on the season;

K dl- the duration of the negative impact if no measures are taken to eliminate it;

K in is the inflation rate.

All these coefficients are increasing, with the exception of some established for the seas.

Odds « ecologicalsituationsandecologicalsignificancestateswaterobjects"and "taking into accountecobrain teaserfactors (conditionwaterobjects)", judging by the closeness of their values, most likely they are similar in meaning, although this is not obvious from their names.

Government Decrees on payment set the coefficients for the subjects of the Federation within the basins, the Methodology - only for the basins of rivers, seas and some additional water bodies. The first of the coefficients makes us assume that in some subjects of the Federation the significance of the “ecological state” is greater, in others it is less. At the same time, it remains unclear what determines the significance - the value of water bodies for some types of use or the degree of their pollution, what characteristics of the "ecological state" are taken into account in both cases, what gradation is used in determining the values ​​of the coefficients.

A characteristic feature of the coefficients is the equalization of liability for the flow of the same mass of matter into a more or less abundant river of the same basin or region. This is unacceptable from the point of view of environmental protection and softens the requirements for discharge into the tributaries of large rivers, which is most common, in particular in cities. At the same time, to calculate fees and damages in different subjects of the Federation for the same business entity, different values ​​of the coefficients will have to be applied. For example, when calculating pollution charges in the Republic of Karelia, a coefficient of 1.13 was adopted, while when calculating harm - 1.51 or 1.51 2 = 3.02 (for water bodies in the catchment area of ​​the Baltic Sea under the international convention). In the Stavropol Territory, when calculating the fee, a coefficient of 1.53 will be applied, and when calculating the harm - 2.2.

In addition, when calculating the harm to water users located in ecological disaster zones, regions of the Far North, etc. (notes to Table 2 of the Methodology), the user of the Methodology, following its instructions, is placed in a difficult position: what coefficients should be increased? From government decrees or from the Methodology, since it establishes that “coefficients of the environmental situation and environmental significance” may increase, i.e. not those “coefficients that take into account environmental factors (the state of water bodies)”, which are given in the corresponding table of the Methodology.

Let's try to analyze the logic of establishing the mentioned coefficients.

Oddsecologicalcoysituationsandecologicalsignificancestateswaterobjects are in the range from 1 (for some rivers of the basins of the Arctic and Pacific Oceans) to 2.2 (for the basin of the Kuban River in the Krasnodar Territory).

So, if, according to the "Instructive and Methodological Instructions ...", these coefficients are actually calculated "on the basis of data on the amount of discharged polluted wastewater in the basins of the main rivers in the context of the republics, territories, regions and the volume of runoff in the basins of the main rivers in the context of the economic regions of the Russian Federation”, then it becomes obvious that this coefficient for the Oka River basin and for the Moscow Region in particular should be one of the largest. Thus, according to estimates, the “dilution factor” of polluted wastewater within the Oka basin as a whole is more than 0.1 (i.e., there are 10 liters of polluted wastewater per 100 liters of runoff - this figure can only be used to guess about the degree of load on individual small rivers for the entire basin). The coefficient of dilution of polluted wastewater by local runoff for the Moscow region is more than 0.4. For the Moscow region, the coefficient of the environmental situation and the environmental significance of the state of water bodies is 1.2, which is inconsistent with the intensity of impact on water bodies in this subject of the Federation.

In the Rostov region, this figure is close to 0.2, while the multiplying factor, according to Decree No. 344, is 1.56. For comparison: for the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), the "dilution factor" of polluted wastewater is 0.00013, while the multiplying factor for this subject is set at 1.22. Taking into account the double additional multiplying factor for the regions of the Far North and equated territories, such disproportions become even more obvious, since in fact the liability for pollution is considered to be greater in those regions where the intensity of impact on water bodies is orders of magnitude lower than in the central industrialized regions. subjects of the Federation.

The artificiality of setting the coefficients is aggravated by the fact that the volume of polluted wastewater discharge is practically not related to the mass of pollutant discharge: with a constant volume of wastewater disposal, it will remain the same, despite an increase or decrease in the content of substances in wastewater, provided that this content is higher than VAT. Either the logic is wrong, and the coefficients for “lightly loaded” rivers should be maximum (as a precaution for their further use in wastewater discharges), or the logic is so vague that it cannot be comprehended.

OddsK in, listed in Table 2 of Annex No. 1 to the Methodology, as the name implies, should reflect environmentalfactors (conditionwaterobjects). It is practically impossible to unambiguously understand what factors and what state determine their values. One can only speculate.

If we assume that a higher coefficient is introduced for objects that are already significantly polluted, then the difference between the coefficients for Baikal (K coefficient of 2.8) and other water bodies convinces that the assumption is wrong. If we assume the opposite, then what is the basis for almost equal coefficients, for example, the Don and Lena rivers, the first of which is much more polluted and less abundant. If we assume that the coefficients reflect the special value of water bodies (but this is not the “state of water bodies”), then the high coefficient for Lake Baikal, Ladoga and Onega lakes is understandable, but there is no reason to consider the “salmon” rivers of the North or the same Don and Lena less valuable .

From the standpoint of environmental protection, it is not clear on what basis the amount of harm is reduced (the only coefficients that are not increasing) with identical pollution of the seas at a distance of more than 10 km, i.e. within the territorial sea of ​​the Russian Federation.

And it is quite puzzling, in addition to the "basin" increase in the amount of damage caused to such peculiar objects as springs, geysers, ponds, flooded quarries, canals, glaciers and snowfields. One has only to think: what impact can they actually have and how much more socially and environmentally valuable are these objects, or what is their “ecological state”.

What “environmental factors” are more significant for canals as opposed to rivers of the same basin; for flooded quarries; for ponds (it doesn’t matter if they are fish-breeding or storage ponds, coolers, post-treatment ponds?); for swamps, regardless of their value as wetlands? When calculating the damage from pollution of "inter-basin" canals (for example, the Volga-Don) - what is the coefficient? What impact can a person and his activity generally have on geysers?! (Apparently, the situation in Kamchatka in the Valley of Geysers influenced the developers of the Methodology).

It is no less interesting to analyze the validity of attributing to harm the extent of complete or partial depletion of water bodies and the Kw coefficient. Depletion is recognized not only as physical depletion (presumably - water consumption in excess of established limits or irretrievable withdrawal), but also unauthorized water consumption, regardless of volumes (paragraph 20 of the Methodology). That is, the latter is not an assessment of harm, but penalties? And on the basis of ordinary common sense, taxes for recovery from depletion of such water bodies as the seas unexpectedly look, since K in! is applied in formula (8).

CoefficientK out, consideringintensitynegativeimpactharmful (pollutants)substanceson thewateran object, only applies to waste water. In the current version of the Methodology, the determination of its value is associated with the degree of excess of the content of a substance in wastewater over the background, in contrast to the previous version, when the excess over MPC was estimated. This approach seems to be more "sparing", although from an environmental point of view it is rather doubtful.

So, the more “dirty” the background, the less responsibility for the reset. With a 10-fold excess, the coefficient is 1. Starting from a 50-fold excess, the coefficient is the same. As the saying goes, “the river doesn’t care anymore”? Further, the Methodology does not indicate what “background” concentration is taken into account over: either natural, or accepted when setting the VAT, or actual for a particular outlet during the period of increased discharge, or in water withdrawn for use from the same water body - average or high reset period?

In general, this approach seems artificial, since the assessment harm it would be more appropriate to establish a coefficient based on the consequences of pollution, namely, at a minimum, on the basis of the degree of excess of quality standards inin oneobjectunderinfluencereset. It should be noted that exceeding the discharge standard established, as is known, based on the minimum water content (which happens once every 20 years) may not lead to water pollution at real water content, which is proved by practice. If we turn to the Methodology, we can see that when calculating the losses, the concentration at the control point of the water body was taken into account [p. 2.2.1 and formula (6)]. It is not clear why this rather reasonable and fair method was rejected, while many provisions of this old methodology were transferred to the new one.

All examples given in the Methodology consider only situations when MPCs are not exceeded in the background site, which is not true for specific water bodies.

CoefficientK vg,consideringnaturalclimatictermsindependenciesfromtimemeof the year, applies to all cases provided for by the Methodology, with the exception of waste disposal and decommissioned ships.

Establishing the dependence of determining the amount of harm caused by the discharge of the same mass of a pollutant on the time of year is practically absurd and unacceptable from an environmental point of view, especially since the coefficient in question is applied toeveryonesubstances and for any water bodies is universal. Let's try to trace the logic of setting the values ​​of the coefficients.

In accordance with the Methodology, harm caused by the discharge of the same mass of any substance spring, is considered the largest, and at the same time the smallest coefficient is introduced for floods and floods, which usually occur in spring, which makes it possible to arbitrarily choose the coefficient when calculating the amount of damage and does not exclude “agreements”.

In summer, the same discharge, according to the Methodology, is harmful less than in winter and autumn. However, if we take into account the processes actually taking place in nature, then such an approach is not justified. In particular, in summer, dilution conditions in most rivers are worse than in spring, and the consequences of the discharge of certain substances do not fit into the logic of liability adjustment established by the Methodology.

If we are talking, for example, about nutrients, then the adopted approach may take into account the supposed reduction of harm in summer due to their consumption during photosynthesis. However, their discharge in summer during intense illumination and photosynthesis leads to an undesirable increase in phytoplankton biomass, deterioration of the organoleptic and aesthetic properties of water (blooming, deterioration in taste, etc.) and the subsequent risk of oxygen deficiency and secondary pollution, and under certain conditions - to the formation of toxic compounds as a result of the abundant development of a certain type of algae. Therefore, artificial adjustment of the amount of harm in this case reduces the responsibility of the culprit, despite the threat of subsequent negative changes in the ecosystem and deterioration of water quality for human use.

Another example: Wastewater from rice farms was used to discharge pesticides into a water body, which usually occurs in summer. The use of the Kvg coefficient established by the Methodology reduces the responsibility of the farm, despite the fact that the discharge of toxic substances can have a significant adverse effect on the biological objects of the aquatic ecosystem, the peak of which is in the summer period. The question arises: does the methodology try to assess the damage to aquatic ecosystems or, to a certain extent, meet the financial interests of water users?

Further, the smallest coefficient is applied for discharge into high water and high water. However, it is known that during floods and floods, for example, the content of oil products, suspended solids, fertilizers and substances of aerogenic origin (“former” emissions into the atmospheric air accumulated in snow) usually increases under the influence of melt and rainwater runoff along slopes and shallow temporary streams through storm sewer systems. What is the reason for the application of the lowest coefficient for the discharge of substances with a greater total load on the water body?

In winter and autumn, the release of the same amount of substance is recognized as equal and less harmful than in spring (but not in high water!). However, during the ice period, pollutants can be more harmful, since the deterioration of mixing conditions, the exclusion of oxygen and low temperatures in winter prevent the biological decomposition of substances and other self-purification processes. The presence of autumn floods can serve as a basis for disagreements and “agreements”.

The introduction of this coefficient for other cases is just as unreasonable. Interestingly, in one of the examples, the average coefficient Kvg (winter-spring) is used, and the possibilities of such averaging are not indicated in the text.

CoefficientK dl,consideringingdurationimpactharmful (pollutants)veentitieson thewateran objectatnotacceptancemeasuresonhisliquidation. It should be noted that in the new edition of Methodology K for notapplied when calculating the harm for the discharge of substances with wastewater, and thus this version of the Methodology removed the issue of double accounting for the time of discharge, which was in the previous edition (once - when calculating the mass of the discharge according to formula (10), the second time - by introducing a coefficient based on the same time T, equal to the time from the beginning of the increased discharge to its elimination and already taken into account when calculating the mass).

For emergency situations, the coefficient K dl is set in Table 4 of Appendix 1 of the Methodology, and to a certain extent it is clear that the tabular value is used for cases where measures to eliminate the consequences of pollution can actually be taken (collection of garbage, oil from the surface, etc.) . However, for soluble substances, it is taken equal to 5, regardless of the duration, which contradicts the name of the coefficient itself, but arbitrarily increases the amount of harm by a factor of five. Thus, ACTUALLY ALL TAXES FOR SOLUBLE SUBSTANCES HAVE BEEN INCREASED 5 TIMES.

The question involuntarily arises, is it possible to get rid of far-fetched, highly contradictory coefficients? It seems that it is possible. So, if we apply the approach that we have already used in calculating the “price of water” through the norms of fees and taxes. It consists in estimating the volume of water that would be required to dilute the mass of a substance to MPC. This approach can be used even within the framework of existing legislation, one has only to read the definition of the concept of “water depletion” in the Water Code of the Russian Federation (No. 74-FZ dated June 3, 2006).

The method of expressing pollution through the required volumes of diluting water was proposed for a long time - in the "Methodological guidelines ..." of the State Planning Committee of the USSR, in the dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Economics, was used in practice in water-balance calculations in the "AskVod Yenisei" system in the 1970–1980s years. The same approach is used in the European Union to assess the "environmental friendliness" of technology when choosing the best available. . For unknown reasons, most likely psychological, this was not included in domestic practice: for some reason, many experts thought that we were talking about artificial dilution of wastewater with fresh water, and not about a conditional value similar, for example, to money as a universal equivalent.

The amount of payment for a "conditional ton" is actually an estimate of the cost of 1 million m in the Methodology for Harm Assessment). With this approach, comparing the amount of depletion with the actual runoff of a particular river over a certain period can be a reasonable multiplication factor for a particular source of pollution. Indeed, if there is a lot of water in the river, but it is unsuitable for drinking or for the habitation of hydrobionts, then there can be no talk of the presence of water resources, i.e., there is depletion. At the same time, it does not matter at what time of the year the pollution occurred, how long the increased discharge takes place, how many times the background concentrations are exceeded, etc. Perhaps additional multiplying factors for specially protected areas can be introduced.

It is also reasonable to apply the inflation coefficient and K dl. only for emergency spills of oil and other similar substances and dumping of garbage? Additionally, a factor related to the resistance of the substances to biodegradation and based on the value of the COD/BOD 5 ratio can be set. With a COD / BOD ratio of 5 ≤ 2 (or 2.5), it is equal to 1, and at large values ​​it should be increasing. This ratio is already taken into account when controlling the supply of water for biological treatment (the ratio is 2.5) and when assessing the environmental hazard of substances according to international criteria (the ratio is 2).

(To be continued)

Bibliography

  1. Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of June 12, 2003 No. 344 "On the standards of payment for emissions of pollutants into the atmospheric air by stationary and mobile sources, discharges of pollutants into surface and underground water bodies, disposal of production and consumption waste."
  2. Methodology for calculating the amount of damage caused to water bodies as a result of violation of water legislation: Approved. By order of the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation of April 13, 2009 No. 87, reg. Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation May 25, 2009 No. 13989.
  3. Guidelines for the collection of fees for environmental pollution: Approved. Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation on January 26, 1993 (as amended on February 15, 2000), reg. Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation March 24, 1993 No. 19067.
  4. Kravets E. A. Comparative cartographic-analytical method for assessing the intensity of anthropogenic impacts on surface water bodies: Abstract of the thesis. diss. … cand. tech. Sciences. - M., 2005.
  5. Methodology for calculating losses caused to the state by violation of water legislation. - M., 1983.
  6. Guidelines for the development of norms and standards for water consumption and sanitation, taking into account the quality of consumed and discharged water in industry. - M., Gosplan of the USSR, 1979.
  7. Papisov VK Socio-economic assessment of water use in the planning of industrial production: Abstract of the thesis. diss. … Dr. Econ. Sciences. - M., 1985.
  8. Znamensky V. A. On the assessment of the possibility of using water objects for wastewater discharge // Water Resources. 1980. No. 3.
  9. Economic aspects and issues of impact on various components of the environment: Institute for Advanced Technologies Research; Division of Competitiveness and Sustainable Development of the European Bureau for Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control. (An unofficial translation of the document into Russian was carried out by the Project “Harmonization of environmental standards of HPP II, Russia” within the framework of the EU-Russia Cooperation Program in agreement with the European Commission, 2009).
  10. Order of the Gosstroy of the Russian Federation of April 6, 2001 No. 75. Methodological recommendations for calculating the quantity and quality of wastewater and pollutants received into the sewerage systems of settlements (MDK 3-01.01).

atmospheric air conditions (TO, I ) and soil (TO")

Region of the Russian Federation

Name of republics, regions, territories

Northern

Rep. Karelia, Komi; Arkhangelsk, Vologda, Murmansk regions

Northwestern

Leningrad, Novgorod, Pskov, Kaliningrad regions.

Central

Bryansk, Vladimir, Ivanovo, Kaluga, Kostroma, Oryol, Ryazan, Smolensk, Tver, Tula, Yaroslavl regions, Moscow region

Volga-Vyatka

Nizhny Novgorod, Kirov region; Rep. Mari El, Mordovia, Chuvash Republic

Central Black Earth

Belgorod, Voronezh, Kursk, Lipetsk, Tambov regions.

Volga region

Ulyanovsk, Samara, Saratov, Volgograd, Astrakhan, Penza regions; Rep. Tatarstan, Kalmykia

Ural

Kurgan, Orenburg, Perm, Sverdlovsk, Chelyabinsk regions; Rep. Bashkortostan, Udmurt Republic

The coefficients K e a, K e p can increase for cities and large industrial centers by 20%. For example, for Moscow, K e a \u003d 1.9-1.2. In the case of emissions from fires at landfills located in ecological disaster zones, regions of the Far North, in national parks, specially protected and protected areas, as well as in areas subject to international conventions, K e a, K e p P increase by 2 times.

Since the specific economic damage in the regulatory documents is given in rubles / conv. t, it is advisable to express the mass of the i-th pollutant in tons per ton of fuel (t/tgor). As a rule, the concentration of pollutants in the air during fires is expressed in a different dimension: in% vol., mg/m, ppm, etc. In this case, the known concentration of the i-th pollutant is converted into the desired t/tfuel (tons per ton of fuel). If the concentration of the pollutant in the combustion products is given in mg/m, then this is done by multiplying the mass of the burnt material (t) by the concentration of the -th pollutant per unit volume of air (t/m) and by the total volume of combustion products (m/t) emitted unit mass of combustible material. Data on the volume of combustion products released during the combustion of a ton of fuel can be found in Table. 2.12, as well as in the reference literature or calculated using formulas if the elemental composition or chemical formula of the combustible material is known.

If the concentration of pollutants in the combustion products is given in g/kg or in mg/kg, then the task is simplified, and data on the volume of combustion products are not required. It is only necessary to convert the concentration into the required dimension (t/tfuel) and take into account the mass of the burnt material.

The total amount of harmful substances, taking into account their toxicity, is determined as the sum of the products of the mass of the burnt material, the specific gravity of the i-th pollutant and the relative hazard index.

The mass of the burnt material O g, t, is found according to the actual data indicated in the relevant documents. If such data are not available, then reference data is used that regulates the conditions for storage, handling and transportation of combustible materials at technosphere facilities.

Damage from pollution of water bodies as a result of the ingress of AHOV (emergency chemical hazardous substances), unburned materials, fire extinguishers and other chemicals used to eliminate the consequences of fires and accidents is determined by the formula

U e-e in \u003d K a K e in ∑ y beats in (1 / MPC rhi M i)

where K a - accident rate equal to 10;

K e in - the coefficient of the ecological situation and the ecological significance of the state of the water basin in the region where the fire or accident occurred (Volga River Basin 1.16);

у ud a - specific economic damage from emissions of pollutants into water bodies, rub./std. t (see below). Its change is associated with inflationary processes in the country and is adjusted annually;

MPC px is the maximum permissible concentration of a pollutant in a water body used for fishery purposes, mg/l; M i - mass of the i-th pollutant, t

When the land surface is contaminated as a result of spills of gaseous liquids, flammable liquids and hazardous chemicals, the amount of damage is determined by multiplying the corresponding specific damages by the mass of each type of pollutant, taking into account its hazard class (Table 6) and summing the products obtained by types of pollutants, taking into account the coefficient of the environmental situation and environmental significance soil at the accident site ( K e p) and accident rate ( To a=10):

At n uh = 10 К e p ∑ у ud n М i (2.11)

where у sp n - specific economic damage from soil pollution, rub./t (taking into account the toxicity class of the pollutant), (see below); M i - the actual mass of the i-th pollutant, t. If the actual amount of the pollutant is indicated in cubic meters, then its mass is calculated taking into account the density of the substance.

Compensation for damages, calculated according to the above methodology, allows you to compensate for the costs of returning the fixed assets to the pre-accident state. For example, when water bodies are contaminated with oil, payment for the damage caused is used to carry out work to contain the spill, collect oil from the surface, clean up the coastline, rescue animals, etc.

The term AHOV was introduced instead of the previously used SDYAV (potent poisonous substances).

Specific economic damage at oud taking into account the price indexation coefficient. For air - 2.12, for water bodies - 265.7; soil - 444.

Annex 8 Coefficients of the environmental situation and environmental significance of the state of atmospheric air and soil in the territories of economic regions of the Russian Federation Economic region of the Russian Federation Coefficients of the environmental situation and environmental significance of soil atmospheric air Northern 1.4 1.4 North-West 1.5 1.3 Central 1.9 1.6 Volga-Vyatka 1.1 1.5 Central Black Earth 1.5 2.0 Volga 1.5 1.9 North Caucasian 1.6 1.9 Ural 2.0 1.7 West Siberia 1.2 1.2 East Siberian 1.4 1.1 Far East 1.0 1.1

The coefficient of environmental significance of the region

Adygea, Dagestan, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachay-Cherkessia, North Ossetia-Alania; Ingush, Chechen 1.6 Ural Sverdlovsk, Tomsk, Chelyabinsk, Tyumen regions, Khanty-Mansiysk, Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug 2.0 West Siberian Kemerovo, Kurgan Novosibirsk, Omsk, Tomsk regions; Altai Territory, Republic of Altai 1.2 East Siberian R. Buryatia, Tyva, Khakassia, Irkutsk, Chita region, Krasnoyarsk Territory, Buryat Autonomous Okrug, Taimyr Autonomous Okrug, 1.4 Far Eastern R.


Sakha (Yakutia), Primorsky, Khabarovsk Territory, Amur, Kamchatka, Magadan, Sakhalin regions; Jewish AO, Koryak, Chukotka AO 1.0 Note. When pollutants are released into the atmospheric air of cities, it is applied with an additional coefficient of 1.2.

Ecological significance factor

Coefficient of environmental significance (each region has its own in terms of atmosphere, soil and water);

  • An additional coefficient for special natural zones is equal to 2 (which zones are: regions of the Far North and equivalent areas, protected reserves, national parks, resorts, sanatoriums, natural disaster zones, zones under international conventions);
  • The additional coefficient for emissions into the atmosphere of cities is 1.2 (if the object is registered in the city);
  • The inflation coefficients are equal: in 2016 2.56, and in 2017 - 2.67.

In order to encourage organizations to take measures for the efficient use of waste and protect the environment, since January 1, 2016, coefficients have been introduced that reduce the payment rate: Waste hazard class Environmental measures Coefficient 5 Creation of cavities in the soil by mining enterprises for waste disposal.

Coefficient of environmental situation and environmental significance

ES - emergency situation ES - environmental safety - coefficient of the environmental situation and environmental significance of the state of atmospheric air and - average annual gross emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere from stationary and mobile sources, respectively, t/year - total mass of emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere from stationary and mobile sources, t /year is the mass of the emission of the i-th pollutant into the atmosphere from stationary and mobile sources, t/year, is the specific indicators of atmospheric pollution by stationary and mobile sources, separately and together (the mass of emissions into the atmospheric air per person and per hectare), t/person, t/ha – mass of emissions of combustion products, t (kg, mg) – annual mass of all emissions of combustion products from fires in housing, tpg/year – specific emission of combustion products per person per year, tpg/person.

Ecological significance factor for 2018

The coefficient of environmental significance of the region - until recently, a mandatory coefficient taken into account when calculating environmental payments. Its value depended on the federal district in which the enterprise operates, as well as on the place of waste disposal.
If the enterprise was located on the shore of a reservoir (river, sea), and waste was dumped into the water, then when calculating environmental payments, the coefficient of significance of the region depended on the territorial location relative to the water. If the enterprise used soil or air as a place to store waste, then it was necessary to apply the indicator for this environment.


The norms by which the coefficients of the ecological significance of the region were determined (these are the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of June 12, 2003 N 344 and the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of November 19, 2014 N 1219) were canceled from September 22, 2016.

Environmental payments

Calculation with the budget in case of negative impact of companies and individual entrepreneurs on nature establishes the need to transfer advance payments to the treasury after each quarter. The deadline is set no later than the 20th day of the month following the end of the reporting period (quarter).
The calculation of the advance payment is based on the amounts transferred to Rosprirodnadzor during the past year and amounts to 0.25% of the annual amount quarterly. At the same time, the final amount of payment for adverse environmental impact must be transferred no later than March 1 of the year following the end of the reporting calendar year.

Forum for ecologists

The injured, the dead. The number of dead and injured is understood as the number of people who died or suffered damage to their health as a result of an emergency (Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of May 21, 2007 No. 2640). Health risk is the probability of developing a threat to human life or health, or a threat to the life or health of future generations, due to the impact of environmental factors.
Individual risk - assessment of the probability of developing an adverse effect in an exposed individual; for example, the risk of developing cancer in one individual in 1000 exposed to a carcinogen (risk of 1 in 1000 or 1 x 10-3). When assessing risk, as a rule, the number of cases of health disorders that are additional to the background is estimated.

Now entrepreneurs must use the provisions of Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of September 13, 2016 N 913. This document sets out specific rates of payment for negative environmental impact and an additional coefficient to them, which is applied only in exceptional cases.

Info

The annex to the resolution indicates the rates of payment for 1 ton of pollutants (production and consumption waste) for the next three years - 2016 - 2018. At the same time, they differ depending on where the waste is discharged - into the atmosphere or into the water.


In addition, the rates of payment for the disposal of production and consumption wastes according to their hazard class are additionally specified.

What is the fee for environmental pollution: calculation

Reporting on payment By March 10 of the year following the reporting year, the form “Declaration on payment for negative environmental impact” must be submitted to the territorial body of Rosprirodnadzor. In addition to the Declaration, it is necessary to submit a technical report confirming the invariability of production and raw materials.

Attention

The technical report is submitted one year after the approval of the standards and within 10 days. For example, the standards were approved on March 15, 2016, which means that the report must be submitted before March 25, 2017.


And so every year. The report is also submitted both in paper and electronic form. If it is not provided, then the payment will be calculated as over-limit pollution. If the organization has hazardous waste, then it is necessary to provide passports for each type of waste confirming the hazard class (with the exception of hazard class 5).
Losses of agricultural production in the event of the withdrawal of land plots used for growing crops and for perennial plantings on lands provided for personal subsidiary farming, horticulture, horticulture, animal husbandry, individual housing construction, summer cottage construction, as well as allocated for service land plots, are determined in the amount standard cost of development of new lands for arable land, and in the event of withdrawal of land plots used for haymaking and grazing on these lands - in the amount of the standard cost of development for hayfields and pastures. 2.

1 option

1. The totality of organisms of various species living together and the conditions for their existence, which are in a regular dependence on each other -:

A. Population

B. Ecological system

B. Consortium

2. The ability of organisms to endure deviations of environmental factors from their optimal values:

A. Adaptation

B. Acclimatization

B. Tolerance

3. Organisms producing new organic matter from ready organic matter:

A. Consumers

B. Reducers

B. Producers

4. Insert the missing words: "The concept of" nature management "and" nature protection "....:

A. Identical;

B. Close, but not identical;

5. The totality of all types of relationships between organisms with each other is called:

A. Ecomorphs

B. Co-shares

B. Cohabitation

6. Exhaustible natural resources:

A. Energy of the Sun;

B. Climate resources;

B. Ores of ferrous metals;

7. The composition of the biosphere includes:

A. Mantle, hydrosphere, atmosphere, lithosphere.

B. Hydrosphere, atmosphere, stratosphere.

B. Lithosphere, atmosphere, hydrosphere.

8. Non-renewable natural resources:

A. Forest resources;

B. Animal resources;

B. Ores of ferrous metals;

9. Space role on Earth is performed by:

A. Animals

B. Plants

B. Microorganisms.

10. Part of the earth's crust, below the soil layer, extending to the depths accessible for geological study, is called:

B. Mining allotment;

B. Lithosphere;

11. The State Land Fund is subdivided into…:

12. A systematic set of data, including the environmental and economic assessment of an object or resource, is called:

B. Cadastre;

13. The vertical structure of biogeocenosis is represented by:

A. Tiered

B. Sinusia

A. E. Haeckel;

B. V. N. Sukachev;

V. V. I. Vernadsky;

15. "Any environmental factor has certain limits of its positive impact on the body." This is the law...

A. B. Commoner;

B. Optimum;

V. Yu. Liebikh;

16 . The reserve in the Republic of Tatarstan is called:

A. Volzhsko-Kamsky;

B. Lower Kama;

V. Kzyl - Tau;

17. Complete the sentence: "Assimilation capacity of the environment ....":

A. Is a constant value for all regions;

B. Increases from north to south;

B. Decreases from north to south;

18. The point of economic optimum is called:

A. The point at which marginal environmental damage equals marginal environmental cost;

B. The point at which marginal environmental damage exceeds marginal environmental cost;

B. The point at which marginal environmental damage is less than marginal environmental cost;

19. The object of use and protection under the Federal Law on the Animal World (1995) are:

A. Farm and domestic animals;

B. Wild animals living in captivity;

B. Wild animals living in natural freedom;

20. Stenothermophile is:

A. An animal with a wide tolerance for heat;

B. An animal with a narrow tolerance for heat;

B. A plant with a narrow tolerance for heat;

21. Itai-Itai disease is a chronic poisoning:

A. Cadmium;

B. Strontium;

B. methylmercury;

22. Lower limit of life in soils:

A. About 4 km.;

23. According to the Forest Code of the Russian Federation, free is:

A. Wood felling;

B. Resin extraction;

B. Secondary forest use;

24. The Water Fund of the Russian Federation does not include:

A. Glaciers;

B. Closed stagnant reservoirs in areas owned by legal entities and individuals;

V. Swamps;

25. The following activities are allowed on the territory of the reserves:

A. Recreational;

B. Scientific;

B. Production;

26. Payment for environmental pollution is charged in the Republic of Tatarstan:

A. Quarterly;

B. Annually;

V. “once a year;

27. Select the substances included in the car wash payment:

28. Part of the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, the most active biologically:

A. Optical;

B. Infrared;

B. Ultraviolet;

29. The totality of factors of the inorganic environment that affect the life and distribution of animals and plants is called:

A. Physical factors;

B. Anthropogenic factors;

B. Abiotic factors;

30. The environmental coefficient of water is:

31. Founder of ecology:

A. V. I. Vernadsky;

B. Ch. Darwin;

V. E. Haeckel;

32. The main reason for the appearance of smog:

A. Emissions from thermal power plants;

B. Emissions from metallurgical enterprises;

B. Vehicle emissions;

33. MPC is:

A. The amount of pollutant that does not adversely affect organisms

B. Amount of pollutant leading to chronic disease

B. The amount of pollutant that causes changes in reproductive functions

34. The noise standard in residential premises during the day is no more than:

35. Margarines contain:

A. Trans fatty acids;

B. Cholesterol;

B. Dioxins;

Option 2

1. Sequential change in time of biogeocenoses in the same place:

A. Succession

B. Fluctuation

B. Dynamics

2. The upper limit of life on Earth:

B. 100 - 150 km.

B. 20-25 km.

3. Tatarstan is located at the junction of 2 natural zones:

A. Forest and forest-steppe

B. Forest and steppe

V. Steppe and forest-steppe.

4. The economic optimum of environmental pollution is the point at which ...:

A. The amount of damage is minimal;

B. Marginal environmental cost is minimal;

B. The value of marginal damage and marginal environmental cost are equal;

5. Recreational resources are part of the natural and cultural resources that provide ...:

B. Industrial production;

B. Agricultural production.

6. The environmental coefficient of air is:

7. The following activities are not allowed in the reserves:

A. Recreational

B. Forestry

V. Scientific

8. Acid precipitation is called, the pH of which is:

A. More than 5

B. Less than 4

B. equals 7

9. Ecology studies:

A. Environment

B. Nature

B. The relationship of organisms with the environment.

10. Select the substances included in the payment for surface runoff:

A. Suspended solids, oil products, BOD;

B. Petroleum products, suspended solids, carbon monoxide;

B. Suspended solids, petroleum products, tetraethyl lead;

11. Forest use is prohibited without carrying out ...:

A. Mapping;

B. Monitoring;

V. Forest management;

12. Evaluation of a natural resource through lost revenues that could be obtained by using this resource for other purposes:

A. Alternative;

B. Market;

B. Expensive;

13. High environmental intensity is typical for ...:

A. Extensive type of development;

B. Intensive type of development;

14. Euryhalophyte is:

A. A plant with broad tolerance to soil salinity

B An animal with a wide tolerance for salinity

B. A plant with a narrow tolerance to soil salinity

15. Minamata disease is a chronic poisoning:

A. Cadmium

B. Strontium

B. Methylmercury

16. Adaptation of an organism or species to the new conditions of existence, in which he got by artificial resettlement:

A. Acclimatization

B. Adaptation

17. Adaptation of the organism to the environment by changing the structure of the body:

A. Physiological adaptation

B. Morphological adaptation

B. Behavioral adaptation.

A. E. Haeckel;

B. V. N. Sukachev;

V. V. I. Vernadsky

19. The national park in the Republic of Tatarstan is called:

A. Lower Kama;

B. Volzhsko-Kamsky;

V. Kzyl - Tau;

20. A systematized set of data, including the environmental and economic assessment of an object or resource, is called:

A. Cadastre;

21. The ability of the environment to process a certain amount of pollution without harming itself is called:

A. Recreation;

B. Assimilation potential;

B. Reclamation;

22. The forests of the forest fund of the Russian Federation are divided into:

A. 3 groups;

B. 4 groups;

B. 5 groups;

23. Organisms producing organic substances from inorganic:

A. Consumers;

B. Reducers;

B. Producers;

24. The relationship in which one organism acts on another chemical substance is called:

A. Amensalism;

B. Allelopathy;

B. Commensalism;

25. Response of the environment to negative human impact:

A. Ecological boomerang;

B. Environmental impact;

B. Environmental response;

26. Pumping oil through pipes leads to:

A. Mechanical pollution;

B. Radiation pollution;

B. Chemical pollution;

27. Life forms of organisms, depending on environmental factors:

A. Ecomorphs;

B. Co-shares;

B. Consortia;

28. Environment richest in life:

A. Water;

B. Ground-air;

29. Select a non-geome component:

To the air;

30. The use of washing powders leads to the appearance in surface waters of:

A. Phosphates;

B. Nitrates;

V. Sulfatov;

31. Hygienic norm of noise at night in residential premises:

32. The multiplying factor in the calculation of pollution charges is equal to:

33. Protection of land from pollution includes ...:

A. Erosion control;

B. Fighting the orphan attitude;

B. Clogging control;

34. Without a mining allotment, development is carried out ...:

B. Iron ore;

35. Violation by individual citizens of the rules for the development of subsoil, and the rules for the delivery of mined gold, precious stones and precious metals to the state, entails ...:

A. Administrative responsibility;

B. Disciplinary responsibility;

B. Criminal liability;

Independent work of students

No. p / p Topic The content of the work
Historical development of ecology. Nature management as a science. 1. Read Introduction to the textbook "Ecology" Korobkin V.I., Peredelsky L.V., 2001. 2. Read chapter 1 of the textbook Ryabchikov A.K. "Economics of nature management", M., 2002. 3. Study the lecture material on this topic and answer the following questions: · The subject of nature management. · Object of nature management. · The structure of nature management as a science. · Communication of nature management with other sciences.
Basic concepts and laws of ecology. 1. Read chapters 1, 2 4, 5 to the textbook "Ecology" Korobkin V.I., Peredelsky L.V., 2001.
Ecological possibilities of the environment. Natural resources as the most important objects of environmental protection. 1. Read chapter 4 of the textbook Ryabchikov A.K. "Economics of nature management", M., 2002. 2. Read chapter 3, section 1 of the textbook Bobylev S.N., Khodzhaeva A.Sh. "Economics of nature management", M.: Teis, 1997. 3. Read section 4 of the textbook "Nature management" edited by Arustamov E.G., M., 1999. 4. Read chapter 7 (7.1; 7.2) of the textbook "Ecology and economics of environmental management / ed. Prof. E.V. Girusova.-M.: Law and Law, Unity, 1998. and answer questions on p.198.
The interaction of society and the natural environment in the production process. 1. Read chapter 1 of section 1 of the textbook Bobylev S.N., Khodjaev A.Sh. "Economics of nature management", M.: Teis, 1997. 2. Read chapter 12 of the textbook by Korobkin V.I., Peredelsky L.V. "Ecology". Rostov n / D .: Phoenix, 2001. and answer questions - p. 284. 3. Read chapters 2 and 4 of the textbook "Ecology and economics of environmental management / ed. Prof. E.V. Girusova.-M.: Law and Law, Unity, 1998. -455 p. and answer the questions on pages 79 and 135.
Trends in the joint development of natural and technogenic systems. 1. Read chapter 3 of the textbook "Ecology and economics of environmental management" ed. Girusova E.V., 1998.
Economic efficiency of the implementation of environmental measures. 1. Read chapter 6 of the textbook Ryabchikov A.K. “Economics of nature management”, M., 2002. 2. Read section 8 of the textbook “Nature management”, edited by Arustamov E.G., M., 1999. 3. Read chapter 13 of the textbook “Ecology and economics of nature management / ed. Prof. E.V. Girusova.-M.: Law and Law, Unity, 1998. and answer questions on pages 345-346.
Planning for rational use of natural resources and environmental protection. 1. Read section 8 of the textbook "Nature management" edited by Arustamov E.G., M., 1999. 2. Read chapters 5 and 8 of the textbook Ryabchikov A.K. "Economics of nature management", M., 2002. 3. Study the section "Economic mechanism of environmental protection and nature management" in the Federal Law "On Environmental Protection", 2001. 4. Read the state report on the state of the environment in the Republic of Tajikistan for 2003, 2004 (Section - Activities of the Ecofund of the Republic of Tajikistan».
Fundamentals of environmental regulation. 1. Read section 5 of the textbook "Nature Management" edited by Arustamov E.G., M., 1999. 2. Read chapter 20 of the textbook Korobkin V.I., Peredelsky L.V. "Ecology". Rostov n / D .: Phoenix, 2001.
Social aspects of environmental economics. 1. Read chapter 5 (5.5) of the textbook “Ecology and economics of environmental management / ed. Prof. E.V. Girusova.-M.: Law and Law, Unity, 1998. and answer the questions: · The structure of general and social costs and expenses. · Accounting for external and social costs in the price.
Nature management and legal protection of the natural environment. 1. Read chapters 10, 14, 15 of the textbook “Ecology and economics of environmental management / ed. Prof. E.V. Girusova.-M.: Law and Law, Unity, 1998. and answer the questions on pp. 272-273, 384, 412. 2. Read sections 8, 9 of the textbook "Nature Management" edited by Arustamov E .G., M., 1999. 3. Read chapter 13, section 5 of the textbook Bobylev S.N., Khodzhaeva A.Sh. "Economics of nature management", M.: Teis, 1997. 4. Read chapter 10 of the textbook Ryabchikov A.K. "Economics of nature management", M., 2002.
Scientific and technological revolution and directions for improving nature management. 1. Read section 7 of the textbook "Nature Management" edited by Arustamov E.G., M., 1999.
Regional environmental and economic problems of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Tatarstan. 1. Read section 10 of the textbook "Nature management" edited by Arustamov E.G., M., 1999. 2. Read chapter 16, section 6 of the textbook Bobylev S.N., Khodjaev A.Sh. "Economics of nature management", M.: Teis, 1997.

Requirements for the performance of examinations of students of the correspondence department

The control work is carried out handwritten in a notebook or using a computer on sheets of A-4 format. Font design - Times New Romen No. 14, paragraph indentation - 1.25; line spacing - 1.5; page parameters: on the left -3 cm, on the right - 1 cm, top and bottom margins - 2 cm. Making references to the literature used in the text in square brackets, for example -.

The maximum amount of control work is 15 sheets. A bibliography list is required.