The Role of Russian Forests in the Implementation of the Paris Climate Agreement: Opportunities or Risks?

ABSTRACT

As part of the UN Framework on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement of 2015 specifies a new format for international coordination of efforts to manage greenhouse gas emissions, taking into account national interests and the imperative for a general transition to low-carbon energy. This article examines the opportunity to use the Russian forests’ carbon sequestration potential in relation to the formulation and implementation of Russia’s commitments under the 2015 Paris climate agreement. It also analyzes the economic consequences of uncertainty in assessments of the carbon budget of Russian forests. It is shown that taking into account the interests of national economic development, a reduction in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions requires development of an information base and assessment methodologies for evaluation of the carbon budget of Russian forests. It is proposed that work begin on a comprehensive strategy for the country’s participation in the implementation of the Paris Agreement. This implementation should take into account the following goals: technological modernization of the energy sector and an increase in the area of the forests. It should also consider the completeness and reliability of information about the quality of these forests.

KEYWORDS:

• economics of climate change
• Paris climate agreement
• economics of forestry
• carbon sequestration
• greenhouse gases

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

This study was carried out under a grant from the Russian Science Foundation (project no. 19-18-00145). The authors express their appreciation to the reviewer whose comments helped to substantially expand and clarify the material in the article and improve its structure. They also extend their gratitude to R.V. Gordeev and D.V. Andriushchenko.

1. IPCC, Climate change 2014: Synthesis Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014 (available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_ru.pdf, date accessed: April 23, 2017).

2. The intense debate about the causes of global warming led to the publication of a number of studies to determine the extent to which the general pool of climate change experts supported the hypothesis that this phenomenon is anthropogenic. Assessments of this support varied from 90 to 100 percent of experts. In this case, the most recent and most influential of these studies analyzed more than 11,000 relevant articles indexed in the Web of Science bibliometric database and confirmed that the consensus was no less than 97 percent [Cook and others, 2016].

3. “Tramp nazval ‘strategicheski interesnoi’ ideiu pokupki Grenlandii,” Vedomosti, August 19, 2019 (available at https://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/2019/08/19/809078-trampgrenlandii).

4. Developed European countries and the United States have had concrete successes in this direction. In the past decades, these countries have seen the development of, in a sense, a “green” cult. However, most of the planet’s population still does not share such values. This does not give any reason to hope for a global reduction in greenhouse gases. In the future, apparently, the theoretical bases for these mechanisms will be designed based on game theory, in particular, stochastic and evolutionary games. These bases will assume that cooperative behavior can achieve greater benefits in the long-term perspective [Hilbe and others, 2018].

5. “Kiotskii protokol k Ramochnoi konventsii Organizatsii Ob”edinennykh Natsii ob izmenenii kilmata,” adopted December 11, 1997 (available at http://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/kyoto.shtml, date accessed: May 25, 2019).

6. It must be noted that unlike the successful introduction of environmental taxation (taxes on air, soil, and water pollution), current taxation on greenhouse gas emissions offers few examples that could have a substantial independent effect on the reduction of anthropogenic emissions [Motosova, Potravnyii, 2014].

7. United Nations, “Parizhskoe soglashenie,” adopted December 12, 2015 (available at https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/russian_paris_agreement.pdf, date accessed: June 23, 2019).

8. In 2017, Russia’s greenhouse gas emissions were 67.6 percent of their 1990 level, not taking into account land use, land use change, and forestry (LULUCF), and 50.7 percent if these are taken into account. Source: Rosgidromet, Natsional’nyi doklad o kadastre antropogennykh vybrosov iz istochnikov i absorpbtsii poglotiteliami parnikovykh gazov, ne reguliruemykh Monreal’skim protokolom, za 1990–2017 gg., Moscow, 2019.

9. Here and below, carbon sink is the volume of carbon dioxide gas (CO₂) in plant tissues.

10. The established classification classifies forests as tropical, temperate, or boreal. Boreal forests are taiga northern forests that, as a rule, are located at 50–70° of northern latitude. Boreal forests account for 272 ± 23 trillion tonnes of the carbon stock, whereas tropical forests account for 471 ± 93 trillion tonnes [Pan and others, 2011].

11. The land use, land use change, and forestry sector is acknowledged as the most important source of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions; therefore, efforts to assess the carbon budget are concentrated specifically on this sector.

12. Approved by Instruction of the Russian Ministry of Nature of June 30, 2017, No. 20-r.

13. S. Kudiiarov, “Idite vy lesom,” Ekspert, 2017, no. 43 (1049) (available at https://expert.ru/expert/2017/43/idite-vyi-lesom).

14. Ia. Tikhomirova, “Chem rossiiskie lesa khuzhe zarubezhnykh,” gazeta.ru, August 8, 2017 (available at https://www.gazeta.ru/science/2017/08/07_a_10822279.shtml?updated).

15. According to RIA Reiting, at the end of 2018, AO RUSAL’s capitalization was $6.7 billion; PAO Magnitogorskii metallurgicheskii kombinat’s capitalization was $6.9 billion; and OOO EvrazKholding’s capitalization was $8.8 billion. “Reiting samykh dorogikh publichnykh rossiiskikh kompanii—2019” (available at http://riarating.ru/infografika/20190129/630115992.html, date accessed: August 10, 2019).

16. PAO NK Rosneft—$65.3 billion; PAO Lukoil—$53.8 billion; and NOVATEK—$49.4 billion. [Ibid.]

17. UNFCCC, “Green Economy Overtaking Fossil Fuel Industry – FTSE Russel Report” (available at https://unfccc.int/news/green-economy-overtaking-fossil-fuel-industry-ftse-russel-report, date accessed: August 13, 2019).

18. Ministerstvo prirodnykh resursov i ekologii Rossii, “Rosleskhoz, ‘RUSAL’ i pravitel’stvo Irkutskoi oblasti dogovorilis’ o realizatsii na territorii regiona proektov v oblasti pogloshcheniia parnikovykh gazov,” June 6, 2019 (http://www.mnr.gov.ru/press/news/rosleskhoz_rusal_i_pravitelstvo_irkutskoy_oblasti_dogovorilis_o_realizatsii_na_territorii_regiona_pr/?special_version=Y, date accessed: June 22, 2019).

19. TASS, “‘RUSAL’ posadit 1 mln derev’ev v lesakh Rossii,” March 30, 2019 (available at https://tass.ru/obschestvo/6276758, date accessed: June 22, 2019).

20. “‘RUSAL’ zapustil masshtabnyi proekt po lesovosstanovleniiu v Krasnoiarskom krae,” Argumenty i fakty, May 21, 2019 (available at https://krsk.aif.ru/society/rusal_zapustil_masshtabnyy_proekt_po_lesovosstanovleniyu_v_krasnoyarskom_krae, date accessed: August 17, 2019).