527 
To be sure, the inhabitants of Baku or Riga resent the film 
of oil that covers them when they emerge from a dip in the 
sea, but they would not dream of manifesting their resentment 
with acts of ‘“‘ecotage’’ directed against the offending derricks 
or tankers. Instead, this anger is channeled into the docile “‘public 
nature protection committees,’ or oily bathers are asked to 
telephone their complaints to, say, the Riga Zonal Water Inspec- 
tion of the Ministry of Land Improvement and Water Resources 
of the Latvian SSR.'8 
More than one writer has alluded to the abundance of legislation 
in the U.S.S.R. to conserve resources and control environmental 
deterioration. But the effectiveness of such legislation appears to be 
no more impressive than in many Western countries. Indeed, there 
are many instances in which new legislation covers the same ground 
as an earlier act. “‘Frequently,’’ says Bush, “the impotence of earlier 
legislation is merely implied by the passing of new laws covering 
much of the same ground.” 
Recent Soviet literature indicates that, although the country’s record 
on environmental protection in general, and the coastal environment 
in particular, has been mixed, and though there appears to be no 
single focal point in law or government organization concentrating 
on the coastal zone, there is growing pressure for a comprehensive 
approach. A report by Tass in late 1973 gives an optimistic picture 
of measures to reduce oil pollution in harbors and coastal areas 
throughout the country.!? A 1974 article describes the “‘Second Inter- 
departmental Scientific-technical Conference on problems of complete 
use of the water resources and protection of nature along the lower 
Dnieper and in the Dnieper-Bug Bay.”° Several articles concentrate 
on efforts to clean up the Volga and Ural river basins, and an interna- 
tional effort by Baltic nations to improve conditions of that sea. A 
recent decision by the government to close the Kerchenskiy Channel 
between the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov has received attention 
in the current literature.21 That plan was devised to reduce excess 
salinity and reduced water levels in the Sea of Azov, both of which 
threaten valuable species of fish. 
Soviet policy on coastal areas, in spite of difficulties noted by several 
observers, appears to be moving toward a unified approach. While 
much of its current effort appears to focus on commitments under 
international oil pollution conventions,” a Kiev publication in August 
1974 describes the tasks of geology organizations in preventing further 
pollution of underground waters adjacent to the Black and Azov Seas, 
problems associated with irrigation in the Crimea, and measures (both 
18 Bush, op. cit. pp. 25-26. 
19 The drive to keep the ocean pure. TASS (Moscow) Nov. 26, 1973. (JPRS No. 61009; Transla- 
tions of Environmental Quality No. 6). 
20T_N. Atkarskaya. Conference on Problems of Complete Use of Water Resources and Protection 
of Nature Along Lower Dnieper and in Dnieper-Bug Bay. Vodnyye Resursy No. 4 (Moscow) 1974. 
(JPRS No. 64748; Translations of Environmental Quality No. 82). 
21 Measures taken in the Azov Sea. Moskovskaya Pravda- (Moscow) July 7, 1974. (JPRS No. 
62793; Translations of Environmental Quality No. 49). 
22N.S. Goryunov and V. M. Shklovskiy, in an article “For the sea to be clean” (Rybnoye 
Khozyaystvo, No. 2; Moscow, February 1975) describe a decree of the U.S.S.R. Ministerial Council 
of Feb. 14, 1974 and a U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet Presidium ukase of Feb. 26, 1975 which “instructed 
ministries and agencies to take measures to prevent the pollution of internal sea and territorial waters 
of the U.S.S.R. . . . by petroleum, petroleum products, and other substances harmful to people’s 
health or to living resources of the sea . . . ” (JPRS No. 64588; Translations of Environmental 
Quality No. 81). 
