Regulations on the flaring and utilisation of associated petroleum gas (APG) have been in place since the early 1980s. Their purpose is environmental conservation and the effective use of limited natural resources. The formation on international frameworks, such as the World Bank’s Global Gas Flaring Reduction, which was launched in the 2000s, and the raising of environmental awareness in emerging and developing countries have also decreased the amount of APG flaring around the world. In Russia, however, the situation on APG utilization and flaring is entirely different. Here, the utilisation of APG has not improved since the 1990s. Even now, Russia remains the world’s largest APG-flaring country. This means that it is now explicitly confronted with problems on APG flaring and utilisation, while it struggles to adapt to global environmental protection trends and to modernise its economy.

President Putin regards this problem as one of Russia’s most urgent tasks. On the 26 April 2007, at the Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly, he ordered his government to design solutions to achieve a more than 95% effective APG-usage level (less than 5 % flaring). In addition, the 7th government decision was selected, a policy that can enforce a fine for flaring over 5% of all APG and also for the use of infrastructure in oil fields that does not meet standards of approval. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of this fine policy remains limited. This situation suggests that the APG-flaring-and-utilisation problem in Russia has its own specificity and that it should not only be analysed from the current situation, but from the perspective of the continuity or incoherence of the Soviet Union actors, policies and institutions surrounding it, during this country’s transition to a market economy.

As mentioned above, the APG utilisation and flaring in Russia is one of the most urgent environmental and economic problems among this country’s hydrocarbon industries. This study attempts to give some explanation on this situation. First, it analyses long-term APG-utilisation trends in Russia. Then, actors, policies and institutions involved in Russia’s APG utilization and flaring are traced. Finally, through the above-mentioned analysis, this paper tries to explain the situation and factors of Russia currently being the largest flaring country.

JEL classification codes: L71, P28, Q35, Q40

抄録全体を表示

The main purpose of this paper is to analyze U. S. policy toward Russia and the post-Soviet region along with Russia's response from the September 11, 2001 attacks through the July 2007 U. S. -Russian summit talks. First of all, I will illustrate the key features of President George W. Bush's foreign policy toward Russia, and then will argue the evolving US-Russian relationship in three phrases.
The first phase, characterized as the period of President Vladimir Putin's “one-sided love, ” covers the period from the advent of the Bush administration in January 2001 to May of the same year. The second phase, “the period of the U. S. -Russo honeymoon, ” extends from May 2001 through 9/11 of the same year to around the outbreak of the Iraq War in March of 2003. Contrary to the prevailing view, Washington's relationship with Moscow had begun to improve prior to 9/11 after President Bush's May 2001 at the War College. It was against this backdrop that the 9/11 attacks took place and the two nations closely cooperated with the Islamic radicalism as their common adversary. The third phase, i. e., “the period of the Cold Peace, ” started in the fall, 2003 after the end of the Iraq War. In 2006, the bilateral relationship deteriorated sharply after the rise of Russia's clout and the implementation of Moscow's high-handed diplomacy, particularly in its neighboring states. The United States has been apprehensive of Russia steadfastly tilting toward an authoritarian regime. Interestingly, President Bush's stance vis-à-vis Russia appears to be not as tough as the U. S. Congress wants.
U. S. policy toward the Baltic States, Ukraine, South Caucasus, Central Asia and Russia's response after 9/11 will also be discussed in details. A special reference is made to illustrate the U. S. efforts to enhance its influence in Central Asia after the 2005 Andijan uprising in Uzbekistan; since then, Washington has tried to enhance its influence in Central Asia without pressing hard for the democratization of the existing regimes.
Since the disintegration of the USSR, the United States has been pursuing a policy to consolidate the independence of the states in the post-Soviet space. In contrast, the Russian side continuously regards it as its own sphere of influence. Russia contends that the United States has been trying to secure its own hegemony in the post-Soviet space. Although the Cold War is over, mutual suspicion remains.
There is no question that the U. S. -Russian relationship is at the lowest point in the past 20 years. Yet it is an exaggeration to insist that a new Cold War has arrived. For example, a selective partnership between the U. S. and Russia exists in the war on terrorism, the diplomatic settlement of the nuclear issue of Iran and North Korea as well as the proliferation of the weapons of mass destruction.

抄録全体を表示

本稿は，2015年第4四半期に実施された企業調査の結果に基づき，対ロシア経済制裁が企業経営に与える影響を検証した．分析は主に次の点を明らかにしている．第1に，企業経営幹部は，経済制裁が自社の経営に与える負の影響を，世界金融危機や欧州ソブリン危機と同程度において深刻な問題として評価している．第2に，金融危機の影響とは異なり，経済制裁の影響の評価には地域差が認められない．

抄録全体を表示

In this paper, firstly, I have shed light on Russia's economic revival, and the rise in the standard of living of the general public, the political stability and the energy diplomacy, etc., which it has brought about.
In particular, I have expounded in detail on the “Federal Target Program for the Economic and Social Development of the Far East and Zabaikal Region”—the development program for the Russian Far East and East Siberia, with their profound relationships with the Northeast Asian region—and the redevelopment in Vladivostok for the 2012 APEC summit.
Then I have touched upon the perception of Russia as seen from East Asia, a comparison of the economies of each of the countries concerned, and the trends for trade vis-à-vis Russia for the countries of Northeast Asia. Additionally I have analyzed the history of economic interchange between Russia and the nations of Northeast Asia, the current state of affairs and problem areas.
Next I have covered the mutual interdependence of Russia and the Northeast Asian region for the following; mutual cooperation through international organizations cooperating internationally, such as, the Greater Tumen Initiative Consultative Commission, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the six-party talks on the DPRK's problems, plus the cooperative relationships in the areas of energy, environmental protection, transportation corridors, investment and trade, and finance.
Within such a format I have comprehensively discussed the economic relationships between Russia and Northeast Asia, and have endeavored to illuminate the future path of the Northeast Asia Economic Subregion.
This is a lecture of 20 October 2007, with additions and amendments.

抄録全体を表示