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

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.

1. Arcusa S., Sprenkle-Hyppolite S. Snapshot of the Carbon Dioxide Removal certification and standards ecosystem (2021–2022). Clim. Policy, 2022, vol. 22, no. 9–10, pp. 1319–1332.

2. Blaufelder C., Levy C., Mannion P., Pinneret D. A blueprint for scaling voluntary carbon markets to meet the climate challenge. McKinsey Rep., 2021.

3. Buchner B., Clark A., Falconer A., Macquarie R., Meattle C., Tolentino R., Wetherbee C. Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2019. CPI, 2019.

4. Conant R.T. Sequestration through forestry and agriculture. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change, 2011, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 238–254.

5. Fan L., Wigneron J.P., Ciais P., Chave J., Brandt M., Sitch S., Yue Ch., Bastos A., Li X., Qin Yu., Yuan W., Schepaschenko D., Mukhortova L., Li X., Liu X., Wang M., Frappart F., Xiao X., Chen J., Ma M., Wen J., Chen X., Yang H., van Wees D., Fensholt R. Siberian carbon sink reduced by forest disturbances. Nat. Geosci., 2023, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 56–62. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-022-01087-x

6. Falkner R., Nasiritousi N., Reischl G. Climate clubs: politically feasible and desirable? Clim. Policy, 2022, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 480–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2021.1967717

7. 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, no. 7858, pp. 191–194. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01241-2

8. Griscom B. Natural Climate Solutions. What are the natural sinks, what capacity they offer, how they can be maximized? In ECCB2018: 5th European Congress of Conservation Biology. Jyväskylä: Open Science Centre Publ., 2018. https://doi.org/10.17011/conference/eccb2018/108188

9. Guizar-Coutiño A., Jones 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. Conserv. Biol., 2022, vol. 36, no. 6, p. e13970.

10. IUCN. Global Standard for Nature-Based Solutions: a userfriendly framework for the verification, design and scaling up of NbS. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Publ., 2020.

11. Julkin M.A., D’jachkov V.A., Samorodov A.V., Kokorin A.O. Dobrovol’nye sistemy i standarty snizheniya vybrosov parnikovykh gazov [Voluntary Systems and Standards for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions]. Moscow: WWF Publ., 2013. 100 p.

12. 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. Freiburg: Perspectives Climate Group Publ., 2021.

13. Müller B., Michaelowa A. How to operationalize accounting under Article 6 market mechanisms of the Paris Agreement. Clim. Policy, 2019, vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 812– 819. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1599803

14. Overland I., Huda M.S. Climate clubs and carbon border adjustments: a review. Environ. Res. Lett., 2022, vol. 17, no. 9, p. 093T005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac8da8

15. Pan C., Shrestha A., Innes J.L., Zhou G., Li N., Li J., He Y., Sheng Ch., Niles J.-O., Wang G. Key challenges and approaches to addressing barriers in forest carbon offset projects. J. For. Res., 2022, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 1109–1122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-022-01488-z

16. Paulsson E. A review of the CDM literature: from fine-tuning to critical scrutiny? Int. Environ. Agreem.: Politics Law Econ., 2009, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 63–80.

17. Pitman N. Social and Biodiversity Impact Assessment Manual for REDD+ Projects: Part 3 – Biodiversity Impact Assessment Toolbox. Washington, DC: Forest Trends, Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance, Rainforest Alliance and Fauna & Flora International, 2011. 50 p.

18. Qui K. The future of the Clean Development Mechanism under a new regime of higher climate ambition. New York: EDF, 2018. 27 p.

19. 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. For. Ecol. Manag., 2023, vol. 530, p. 120766.

20. Richards M. Social and Biodiversity Impact Assessment (SBIA) Manual for REDD+ Projects: Part 2 – Social Impact Assessment Toolbox. Washington, DC: Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance and Forest Trends with Rainforest Alliance and Fauna & Flora International, 2011. 71 p.

21. Richards M., Panfil S.N. Social and Biodiversity Impact Assessment (SBIA) Manual for REDD+ Projects: Part 1 Version 2 – Core Guidance for Project Proponents. Washington, DC: Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance, Forest Trends, Fauna & Flora International, and Rainforest Alliance, 2011. 89 p.

22. Schepaschenko D., Moltchanova E., Fedorov S., Karminov V., Ontikov P., Santoro M., See L., Kositsyn V., Shvidenko A., Romanovskaya A., Korotkov V., Lesiv M., Bartalev S., Fritz S., Shchepashchenko M., Kraxner F. Russian forest sequesters substantially more carbon than previously reported. Sci. Rep., 2021, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-92152-9

23. 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. Clim. Policy, 2020, vol. 20, no. 1. pp. 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1674628

24. Scott N., Fitzgerald S., Keshav S. Cambridge Zero Policy Forum Discussion Paper: Carbon Offsetting and Naturebased Solutions to Climate Change. Cambridge Open Engage, 2021. https://doi.org/10.33774/coe-2021-gwq9w

25. 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: IUCN Publ.; Oxford, UK: OUP, 2019.

26. Shvarts E.A., Kokorin A.O., Ptichnikov A.V., Krenke A.N. Cross-Border Carbon Regulation and Forests in Russia: From Expectations and Myth to Realization of Interests. Ekonom. Politika, 2022, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 54–77. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.18288/1994-5124-2022-5-54-77

27. Shvarts E.A., Ptichnikov A.V. Low-carbon development strategy of Russia and the role of forests in its implementation. Nauch. Tr. Vol’n. Ekonom. Obshch. Rossii, 2022, vol. 236, no. 4, pp. 399–426. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.38197/2072-2060-2022-236-4-399-426

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. For. Policy Econ., 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.,

30. Griscom B.W. The global potential for increased storage of carbon on land. PNAS, 2022, vol. 119, no. 23, p. e2111312119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2111312119

31. Weatherall A., Nabuurs G.J., Velikova V., Santopuoli G., Neroj B., Bowditch E., Temperli Ch., Binder F., Ditmarová L., Jamnická G., Lesinski J., La Porta N., Pach M., Panzacchi P., Sarginci M., Serengil Yu., Tognetti R. Defining Climate-Smart Forestry. In Climate-Smart Forestry in Mountain Regions. Tognetti R., Smith M., Panzacchi P., Eds. New York, Cham: Springer, 2022, pp. 35–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80767-2_2

32. West T.A., Börner J., Sills E.O., Kontoleon A. Overstated carbon emission reductions from voluntary REDD+ projects in the Brazilian Amazon. PNAS, 2020, vol. 117, no. 39, pp. 24188–24194. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2004334117

33. 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. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2301.03354