Nature-Based Offsets in Russia: Key Challenges and Conditions for Success

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription Access

Abstract

The article discusses the key problems and conditions for the successful development of the nature-based offset projects (NBOPs) in Russia. The conditions for the successful entry of verified carbon units from Russian nature-based offset projects into the global market were determined considering the state and prospects for development of global carbon markets. The key limitations for the national carbon market for offsets are presented: the lack of internal economic incentives for companies to buy carbon units and to invest in Russian NBOPs; the lack of national methodologies for the NBOPs; legal restrictions for land-use; lack of available tools for assessing costs and profitability of NBOPs on given land plots; failures of carbon market regulation under the Sakhalin experiment. The limitations of the narrow agency-based approach to the development of NBOPs are shown. These limitations result in inconsistent decisions that do not fit real conditions in the global market. It is necessary to create a competence center to solve the issues of the NBOPs from specific methodologies of individual projects to science-based assessments of their total potential in Russia. Two scenarios of the use of NBOPs for decarbonization of the Russian economy are analyzed. Scenario 1 assumes large-scale sale of carbon units generated in Russian in foreign markets in order to maximize mid-term profit. Scenario 2 assumes the use of carbon units generated in Russian NBOPs mainly by Russian companies to achieve net zero by 2060. A realistic and balanced strategy assumes that the key buyers of carbon credits from Russian NBOPs in the first stage should be export-oriented Russian companies that can use these credits to reduce the carbon footprint of their products and implement corporate climate strategies.

About the authors

N. K. Kurichev

National Research University Higher School of Economics; Institute of Geography RAS

Author for correspondence.
Email: nkurichev@hse.ru
Russia, Moscow; Russia, Moscow

A. V. Ptichnikov

National Research University Higher School of Economics; Institute of Geography RAS

Email: nkurichev@hse.ru
Russia, Moscow; Russia, Moscow

E. A. Shvarts

National Research University Higher School of Economics; Institute of Geography RAS

Email: nkurichev@hse.ru
Russia, Moscow; Russia, Moscow

A. N. Krenke

National Research University Higher School of Economics; Institute of Geography RAS

Email: nkurichev@hse.ru
Russia, Moscow; Russia, Moscow

References

  1. Шварц Е.А., Кокорин А.О., Птичников А.В., Кренке А.Н. Трансграничное углеродное регулирование и леса России: от ожиданий и мифов к реализации интересов // Экономическая политика. 2022. Т. 17. № 5. С. 54–77. https://doi.org/10.18288/1994-5124-2022-5-54-77
  2. Шварц Е.А., Птичников А.В. Стратегия низкоуглеродного развития России и роль лесов в ее реализации // Научные труды Вольного экономического общества России. 2022. Т. 236. № 4. С. 399–426. https://doi.org/10.38197/2072-2060-2022-236-4-399-426
  3. Юлкин М.А., Дьячков В.А., Самородов А.В., Кокорин А.О. Добровольные системы и стандарты снижения выбросов парниковых газов. М.: Всемирный фонд дикой природы (WWF), 2013. 100 с.
  4. Arcusa S., Sprenkle-Hyppolite S. Snapshot of the Carbon Dioxide Removal certification and standards ecosystem (2021–2022) // Climate Policy. 2022. Vol. 22. № 9–10. P. 1319–1332.
  5. Blaufelder C., Levy C., Mannion P., Pinneret D. A blueprint for scaling voluntary carbon markets to meet the climate challenge // McKinsey Report, 2021.
  6. Buchner B., Clark A., Falconer A., Macquarie R., Meattle C., Tolentino R., Wetherbeeet C. Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2019. Climate Policy Initiative (CPI). 2019.
  7. Conant R.T. Sequestration through forestry and agriculture // Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. 2011. Vol. 2. № 2. P. 238–254.
  8. Fan L., Wigneron J.P., Ciais P. et al. Siberian carbon sink reduced by forest disturbances // Nature Geosci. 2023. Vol. 16. № 1. P. 56–62. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-022-01087-x
  9. Falkner R., Nasiritousi N., Reischl G. Climate clubs: politically feasible and desirable? // Climate Policy. 2022. Vol. 22. № 4. P. 480–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2021.1967717
  10. Girardin C.A., Jenkins S., Seddon N., Allen M., Lewis S.L., Wheeler C.E., Griscom B.W., Malhi V. Nature based solutions can help cool the planet – if we act now // Nature. 2021. Vol. 593. № 5878. P. 191–194. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01241-2
  11. Griscom B. Natural Climate Solutions. What are the natural sinks, what capacity they offer, how they can be maximized? // ECCB2018: 5th European Congress of Conservation Biology. 12th–15th of June 2018, Jyväskylä, Finland. https://doi.org/10.17011/conference/eccb2018/108188
  12. Guizar-Coutiño A., Jone J.P., Balmford A., Carmenta R., Coomes D.A. A global evaluation of the effectiveness of voluntary REDD+ projects at reducing deforestation and degradation in the moist tropics // Conservation Biology. 2022. Vol. 36. № 6. P. e13970.
  13. IUCN. Global Standard for Nature-Based Solutions: a user-friendly framework for the verification, design and scaling up of NbS // IUCN: Gland, Switzerland. 2020.
  14. Michaelowa A., Censkowsky P., Espelage A., Singh A., Betz R., Kotsch R., Dzukowski T. Volumes and types of unused Certified Emission Reductions (CERs): lessons learned from CDM transactions under the Kyoto Protocol, transparency gaps and implications for post-2020 international carbon markets. 2021.
  15. Müller B., Michaelowa A. How to operationalize accounting under Article 6 market mechanisms of the Paris Agreement // Climate Policy. 2019. Vol. 19. № 7. P. 812–819. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1599803
  16. Overland I., Huda M.S. Climate clubs and carbon border adjustments: a review // Environ. Res. Lett. 2022. Vol. 17. № 9. P. 093005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac8da8
  17. Pan C., Shrestha A., Innes J.L. et al. Key challenges and approaches to addressing barriers in forest carbon offset projects // J. of Forestry Research. 2022. Vol. 33. № 4. P. 1109–1122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-022-01488-z
  18. Paulsson E. A review of the CDM literature: from fine-tuning to critical scrutiny? // Int. Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. 2009. Vol. 9. № 1. P. 63–80.
  19. Pitman N. Social and Biodiversity Impact Assessment Manual for REDD+ Projects: Part 3 – Biodiversity Impact Assessment Toolbox // Forest Trends, Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance, Rainforest Alliance and Fauna & Flora Int. USA, Washington, DC. 2011.
  20. Qui K. The future of the Clean Development Mechanism under a new regime of higher climate ambition // Environmental Defense Fund. 2018.
  21. Rautio P., Lideskog H., Bergsten U., Karlberg M. Lean forestry–A paradigm shift from economies of scale to precise and sustainable use of ecosystem services in forests // Forest Ecology and Management. 2023. Vol. 530. P. 120 766.
  22. Richards M. Social and Biodiversity Impact Assessment (SBIA) Manual for REDD+ Projects: P. 2 – Social Impact Assessment Toolbox // Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance and Forest Trends with Rainforest Alliance and Fauna & Flora Int. Washington, DC. 2011.
  23. Richards M., Panfil S.N. Social and Biodiversity Impact Assessment (SBIA) Manual for REDD+ Projects: Part 1 – Core Guidance for Project Proponents // Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance, Forest Trends, Fauna & Flora Int., and Rainforest Alliance. Washington, DC. 2011.
  24. Schepaschenko D., Moltchanova E., Fedorov S. et al. Russian forest sequesters substantially more carbon than previously reported // Scientific Reports. 2021. Vol. 11. № 1. P. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-92152-9
  25. Schneider L., La Hoz Theuer S., Howard A., Kizzier K., Cames M. Outside in? Using international carbon markets for mitigation not covered by nationally determined contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement // Climate Policy. 2020. Vol. 20. № 1. P. 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1674628
  26. Scott N., Fitzgerald S., Keshav S. Cambridge Zero Policy Forum Discussion Paper: Carbon Offsetting and Nature-based Solutions to Climate Change // Cambridge Open Engage. WP. 2021. https://doi.org/10.33774/coe-2021-gwq9w
  27. Seddon N., Sengupta S., García-Espinosa M., Hauler I., Herr D., Rizvi A.R. Nature-based Solutions in Nationally Determined Contributions: Synthesis and recommendations for enhancing climate ambition and action by 2020. Gland, Switzerland and Oxford, UK: IUCN and Univ. of Oxford, 2019.
  28. Verkerk P.J., Costanza R., Hetemäki L., Kubiszewski I., Leskinen P., Nabuurs G.J., Potočnik J., Palahí M. Climate-smart forestry: the missing link // Forest Policy and Economics. 2020. Vol. 115. P. 102164.
  29. Walker W.S., Gorelik S.R., Cook-Patton S.C., Baccini A., Farina M.K., Solvik K.K., Ellis P.W., Sanderman J., Houghton R.A., Leavitt S.M., Schwalm C.R., Griscom B.W. The global potential for increased storage of carbon on land // Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2022. Vol. 119. № 23. P. e2111312119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2111312119
  30. Weatherall A., Nabuurs G.J., Velikova V. et al. Defining Climate-Smart Forestry. In: Climate-Smart Forestry in Mountain Regions. 2022. P. 35–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80767-2_2
  31. West T.A., Börner J., Sills E.O., Kontoleon A. Overstated carbon emission reductions from voluntary REDD+ projects in the Brazilian Amazon // Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2020. Vol. 117. № 39. P. 24T188–24T194.
  32. West T.A., Wunder S., Sills E.O., Börner J., Rifai S.W., Neidermeier A.N., Kontoleon A. Action needed to make carbon offsets from tropical forest conservation work for climate change mitigation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.03354. 2023.

Copyright (c) 2023 Н.К. Куричев, А.В. Птичников, Е.А. Шварц, А.Н. Кренке

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies