Arnold Tulokhonov on how to protect Baikal

Today we will talk about the fate of Lake Baikal. There has been a lot of talk and writing about this lately. So what's in store for the great lake in the future? The guest in the studio is Arnold Tulokhonov, member of the Federation Council Committee on International Affairs, representative of the Republic of Buryatia in the Federation Council.

Arnold Kirillovich Tulokhonov - specialist in the field of physical and economic geography, doctor of geographical sciences,

corresponding member

RAN. From 1991 to 2013 he was the director of the Baikal Institute of Nature Management of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

I read that Baikal has been shrinking in recent years. What is the reason?

A. Tulokhonov: There are many reasons, as they usually say. But there are two main ones. One, it is the main one, is anthropogenic, the second is natural. Over the past three years, there has been a constant decrease in the amount of precipitation in the Baikal region. But this is a global process, which is associated with warming and other world climate changes. I can say for sure that in March—

April-May

In June of this year, we had practically no rain. Naturally, the rains determine a lot. We have rain - this is the main agronomist and climatologist. No rain - no water, and no water - the level of Baikal is falling.

Against this background, we have our own problems related to hydropower. In 1959, thanks to the construction of the Irkutsk hydroelectric power station, Lake Baikal was raised by one meter against natural fluctuations. From then until 2001, this process went on in an arbitrary mode. Then there were very heavy rains, there were floods, and we made a decision, first of all, the regions, substantiated by science that the level of Lake Baikal should be kept within one meter by regulating the discharge of water at the Irkutsk hydroelectric power station. And this is 456-457 meters. But today, due to the fact that Hydromet and the Russian Academy of Sciences issued an incorrect forecast three years ago, in April 2015 a large amount of water was dumped at the very minimum at the Irkutsk HPP, which could not be done.

That is, Baikal became even shallower?

A. Tulokhonov: Yes. Never before have water been discharged to a minimum, which falls just in April. And they dumped the water because a big flood was supposedly expected. But it did not happen, and now the consequences of this reset are still haunting us.

There are many solutions to this issue. First of all, we are obliged and must predict the situation with the weather. This, of course, requires high-precision machines, high-precision measurements, measurement frequency and much more. Unfortunately, we can't boast of much here. With us, everything is done, as usual, with a finger to the sky. If it rains, we'll dump it; if it doesn't rain, we'll accumulate it.

We don't have weather stations? There are no specialists who do this?

A. Tulokhonov: Unfortunately, today science, like earthquakes, cannot predict the weather accurately enough.

But there is another point. The cascade of the Angarsk hydroelectric power stations provides the cheapest electricity in the world. And it is beneficial for many of our statesmen, private entrepreneurs, owners of power plants, factories, steamships to dump Baikal water.

Firstly

, she is a gift.

Secondly

, provides the cheapest electricity. And this is aluminum, paper and much more.

In 2015, for the first time, Irkutsk residents raised another problem. When there is no water, the water lines in Irkutsk and in

Usolye-Sibirsky

. And they feed the population and factories with water. Even then, I warned the city authorities to lengthen the water lines, because this situation would last.

There is also such a thing as rent. Irkutsk residents receive huge water rent. Average

kilowatt-hour

in the Irkutsk region costs 50 kopecks. Rural residents there pay 54 kopecks for electricity.

kilowatt-hour

. They are to us in

Ulan-Ude

they come to visit and never turn off the light behind them, because it is given to them almost for free. And in

Ulan-Ude

the cost of one

kilowatt-hour

reaches 3 rubles.

Tangible difference.

A. Tulokhonov: Yes. But there is one more circumstance. Baikal today is not a lake. This is part of the Irkutsk reservoir, so this is already a technical object that the Irkutsk region and Buryatia have on an equal footing. Therefore, Buryatia, which has one part, tells the Irkutsk region that it is necessary to equalize the tariff system. Unfortunately, the same owners are not interested in this at all.

I know that there are laws regulating the level of Baikal. So right?

A. Tulokhonov: No, everything is a little

differently

. Baikal today is the only one in the country that has its own

regional-federal

law. This is the Law on the Protection of Lake Baikal. But this law has a lot of by-laws. The fact that it is impossible to carry out certain economic activities, that the level of fishing should be certain. And including the need to comply with the level regime is spelled out in it. So, this regime, which is protected by law, is violated. In particular, in 2015 it was violated.

Was it broken by accident?

Because of

wrong prediction?

A. Tulokhonov: Including. But in principle, the level could be adjusted if not 1500 cubic meters per second, but 1100-1200 were passed through the dam of the Irkutsk hydroelectric power station, as is usually done at a minimum. But the people of Irkutsk did not agree to this. And now, having released a huge amount of water, today they came to the conclusion that it is necessary to release 1,300 cubic meters per second. But that's a lot too. If they had made 1200 cubic meters per second, we would have kept the level of Baikal. And at 1100 cubic meters, the level of Baikal would be ideal.

But

somebody

decided on the spot

differently

?

A. Tulokhonov: Naturally. The government of the Irkutsk region asked the government of Medvedev, and Medvedev signed an order, to allow in 2015 to change the level with subsequent filling in 2016. But this year there was no filling. Therefore, today the government is thinking about what to do? Either regulate the situation by laws, or let it take its course, or come up with

some

third option.

And until a solution is found?

A. Tulokhonov: No decision has been made, but Baikal is sinking.

Recently it became known that Mongolia decided to build three large hydroelectric facilities on the Selenga in order to solve its

water and energy

Problems. And experts immediately started talking about the fact that this generally poses a direct threat to Baikal. What do you think about it? How real is this threat?

A. Tulokhonov: Actually, this story began 5-6 years ago. Therefore, it has a fairly long history. Mongolia, as a sovereign state located upstream, has every right to use its water resources, including the Selenga River, which supplies exactly half of the flow to Baikal. Just like China uses the headwaters of the Argun and the Black Irtysh without asking anyone. This is their sovereign right. International law on this matter is very weak or not developed at all. Just like we use the upper reaches of the Aral, which is in Kazakhstan, and do not add water to its western part. Therefore, whoever is higher is still the master. I'm not talking about Central Asia, where Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are building the Naryn and Rogun hydroelectric power stations, thereby blocking water access to the cotton fields of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.

For this reason, so-called "water" wars arose in history. You can live without gasoline and oil, you can live without bread, but no one has lived without water yet. And the reason for all the wars that since ancient times went on in the basins of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, as, indeed, today, was that people did not have enough food. And there is no food without water, especially in the system of arid landscapes.

Now about Mongolia. From my point of view, the roots of the problem are much deeper here. And its solution lies not in the plane of geography and hydrology, but in the plane of economics. In the early spring of 2016, Russia decided to increase the cost of electricity sold to Mongolia. Today, our Inter RAO sells electricity to Mongolia from 9 to 12 rubles per

kilowatt-hour

. The Mongols, it is quite understandable why, they say, since this is the situation, they cannot live by candlelight, then they will build a hydroelectric power station. Therefore, they propose to solve this problem comprehensively. Water is common, interests are common, the country of the Mongols is traditionally friendly to Russia, and if we talk about the SCO, BRICS and other things, then Russia is obliged to help Mongolia in resolving these issues. But she doesn't.

Moreover, five years ago I told Mr. Miller that Russia needed to build a gas pipeline to China through Mongolia. But then Mr. Miller and his team told me verbatim that the population there is too small and it is unprofitable for him to build a gas pipeline in this way. In response, I remarked to him, but then who will gasify that part of the country that provides the main gas? Irkutsk region - without gas, Chita - without gas, Buryatia - without gas, Mongolia - without gas. Instead, Mr. Miller, along with the owner of Transneft, Mr. Tokarev, is leading a gas pipeline through the northernmost uninhabited territories, it goes to Yakutia and then begins to go south to China, making a huge loop. And it would be worthwhile to lay a gas pipeline through the most populated areas of that part of the country. But there is no such solution.

Moreover, another project is now being proposed: to build a gas pipeline to the western part of China through the Ukok plateau. This is, in general, a madhouse from the point of view of science.

Why?

A. Tulokhonov:

Firstly

, these are huge heights.

Secondly

, protected area.

Third

, China in that part of it is less inhabited. It is clear that he needs gas for industrial areas. A Chinese Western

Xinjiang-Uyghur

the autonomous region receives gas from Turkmenistan. The Chinese have no problems with gas there. The question is, why should we pull another string of the gas pipeline, again through uninhabited areas of the country?

If we resolved the issue with gas, and in winter around

Ulaanbaatar

there are tens of thousands of yurts that are heated with rubber, plastic, any combustible material, the stench and smog spread throughout the capital, so if we gave Mongolia gas, we would save the environment, solve the problems of Darkhan, Erdenet and

Ulaanbaatar

, and then the pipeline would go to China. There are no problems with this. But

for some reason

to all my attempts to reach out at the highest level on this issue, moreover, this idea is supported by the heads of the three Baikal territories, Moscow does not react in any way. And this would be the main solution to the Baikal problem. After all, the main thing here is not in the dam, not in Baikal itself. Russia would put Mongolia on a gas pipeline, and the issue of building a hydroelectric power station by the Mongolian side would be postponed.

Radio of Russia, June 8, 2016