Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Russia’s role in UNFCCC negotiations since the exit of the United States in 2001

  • Original paper
  • Published:
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The unexpected exit of the United States from the Kyoto Protocol in 2001 signaled the exponential increase in the importance of the Russian Federation as a key player in international climate change politics. Until then a relatively minor player, Russia’s active participation in the evolution of the climate change regime is now considered a paramount and immediate necessity. A longitudinal study of Russian climate policy over the years is therefore a highly useful exercise as it allows for the better understanding of current developments and provides some basis for prediction of its future actions. The primary aim of this article is threefold: First, to offer a comprehensive account of Russian involvement in international climate negotiations. Secondly, to clarify the actual reasons behind Russia’s decision to delay its ratification of the Protocol for almost three long years, and finally, to try and map out the post-2012 positions of Russia on the road to the 2009 Copenhagen Conference of the Parties.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The AGBM was a subsidiary body created by COP-1 to conduct the talks that led to the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol; the AGBM concluded its work on 30 November 1997.

  2. The Russian proposal stated that ‘Parties included in Annex I shall ensure that their collective net aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the [greenhouse gases] … do not exceed [__] tonnes’ (see Earth Negotiations Bulletin 1997: 2).

  3. Note that these countries did not act as a unified block. They were united in obstructing the negotiations for different altogether reasons. Canada and Russia put more emphasis on maximizing the use of sinks, while Japan and Australia on reducing the consequences of noncompliance.

  4. Like the EU, the G-77/China faced a similar dilemma. Without a Protocol there would be no funds under the Protocol for sustainable development projects. It was only natural, therefore, for an EU/G-77/China alliance to emerge.

  5. The USA in The Hague had argued that Parties should get credits for carbon absorption from all managed lands (meaning even existing forests), under the “catch all” land use Article 3.4. This amounted to approximately 300 million tones of carbon a year (300 Mt. C/year). Doing so, however, would almost eliminate at a stroke most of the US requirement to reduce emissions and would have been contrary to the agreed principle in the Protocol that sinks should be credited only for specific, human induced and additional activities undertaken since 1990.

  6. A sink is an element of the natural and world that will remove carbon from the atmosphere and store it for some time. Trees and vegetation of all types act as carbon sinks. Under the Kyoto Protocol, when reporting progress in making the reduction targets, nations may include reductions achieved through changes in forests’ sinks since 1990.

  7. The Bonn agreement would lead to reductions in emissions of only about 2.5%. As a result of EU generosity, Japan’s 6% emissions reduction under the Kyoto Protocol shrunk to only 1%. Canada, instead of reducing its emissions by 6%, was allowed to actually increase them by 5% (Benedick 2001, p. 72).

  8. These are the subsidiary body for implementation (SBI) and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA). The SBI makes recommendations on policy and implementation issues to the COP and, if requested, to other bodies, while the SBSTA serves as a link between information and assessments provided by expert sources (such as the IPCC) and the COP, which focuses on setting policy.

  9. Until 2007, the country to hold the EU Presidency could be assisted in its duties by the previous and next Member State to hold that position (the ‘troika’). Following 2007, a new enhanced ‘troika-like’ system, known as the ‘triple presidency, is in operation. Every 18 months, the three Presidencies due to hold office negotiate a common agenda and work together over this one and half year period to accomplish its objectives, always led by the Member State holding the presidency at the time.

  10. For information on Russia’s voluntary target proposal see UNFCCC (2007), Korppoo (2007).

  11. Both AWGs are set to complete their work in Copenhagen in 2009. The first is the ad hoc Working Group on further commitments for Annex I parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP), established in Montreal in 2005 to consider further commitments of industrialized countries under the Kyoto Protocol for the period beyond 2012. The second is the ad hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA), established in Bali in 2007 in order for all UNFCCC Parties to consider avenues of further strengthening international cooperation on climate change mitigation under the Convention.

  12. Saving a country’s Assigned Amount Units (AAUs) or Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs) for future use in anticipation that these will accrue value over time.

Abbreviations

AGBM:

Ad hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate

CG-11:

Group of Eleven Central and East European countries

COP:

Conference of the Parties

COP/MOP:

Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties

EIT:

Economy in transition

G-77/China:

Group of 77 plus China

IPCC:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

JI:

Joint Implementation

JUSCANZ:

Japan, United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand

LULUCF:

Land use, land-use change and forestry

OPEC:

Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries

SAR:

Second Assessment Report (IPCC)

SB:

Subsidiary Bodies (to the UNFCCC)

SBI:

Subsidiary Body for Implementation

SBSTA:

Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice

UNFCCC:

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

WCCC:

World Conference on Climate Change (Moscow 2003)

WSSD:

World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg 2002)

WTO:

World Trade Organization

References

  • Avdeeva, T. G. (2005). Russia and the Kyoto Protocol: Challenges ahead. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 14(3), 293–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baer, P., & Athanasiou, T. (2001). Climate change after Marrakesh: Should environmentalists still support the Kyoto protocol? Discussion Paper, December. Foreign policy in focus. http://www.fpif.org/pdf/papers/DPmarrakesh.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2009.

  • Benedick, R. E. (2001). Striking a new deal on climate change. Issues in Science and Technology, 18(1), 71–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bretherton, C., & Vogler, J. (2006). The European union as a global actor. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchner, B., & Dall’Olio, S. (2005). Russia and the Kyoto Protocol: The long road to ratification. Transition Studies Review, 12(2), 349–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dessai, S., Schipper, L. F., Corbera, E., Haxeltine, A., Kjellén, B., & Gutiérrez, M. (2004). Challenges and outcomes at COP-9. Briefing Note No. 11, February. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/. Accessed 16 September 2006.

  • Douma, W. T. (2006). The European Union, Russia and the Kyoto Protocol. In M. Peeters & K. Deketelaere (Eds.), EU climate change policy: The challenge of new regulatory initiatives (pp. 51–66). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earth Negotiations Bulletin. (1997). Report of the third conference of the parties to the United Nations framework convention on climate change: 1–11 December 1997, 12(76), 1–16.

  • Earth Negotiations Bulletin. (2002). Summary of the sixteenth sessions of the subsidiary bodies to the UN framework convention on climate change: 5–14 June 2002, 12(200), 1–13.

  • Earth Negotiations Bulletin. (2004). Summary of the tenth conference of the parties to the UN framework convention on climate change: 6–18 December 2004, 12(260), 1–16.

  • Earth Negotiations Bulletin. (2005). Summary of the eleventh conference of the parties to the UN framework convention on climate change and first conference of the parties serving as the meeting of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol: 28 November–10 December 2005, 12(291), 1–20.

  • Earth Negotiations Bulletin. (2006). Summary of the twelfth conference of the parties to the UN framework convention on climate change and second meeting of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol: 6–17 November 2006, 12(318), 1–22.

  • Earth Negotiations Bulletin. (2007). Summary of the thirteenth conference of parties to the UN framework convention on climate change and third meeting of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol: 3–15 December 2007, 12(354), 1–22.

  • Earth Negotiations Bulletin. (2009). SB 30 and AWG highlights: Monday, 1 June 2009, 12(411), 1–4.

  • ECO. (2001). Gang of four mug Marrakesh accords, 9 November. http://www.climatenetwork.org/eco/ 2001/cop-7-marrakech-morocco-october-2001/Eco11.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2009.

  • Economist. (2001). What next, then? 28 July.

  • Egenhofer, C. (2007). What can the EU do to encourage Russia to ratify the Kyoto Protocol? CEPS Commentary, February. http://www.ceps.be/Article.php?article_id=124. Accessed September 2008.

  • Environmental Policy and Law. (2002a). In Preparation for COP-8, 32(5), 203.

  • Environmental Policy and Law. (2002b). Less than satisfactory results, 33(1), 18–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • EurActiv. (2009). Russia’s climate policy fails to raise hopes. 19 May. http://www.euractiv.com/en/climate-change/russia-climate-policy-fails-raise-hopes/article-182458? Accessed 9 June 2009.

  • Golub, A., & Strukova, E. (2004). Russia and the GHG market. Climatic Change, 63(1–2), 223–243.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Grubb, M. (2003). Meeting report: The Moscow world conference on climate change, Moscow, 30Sept–3 Oct 2003. Climate Policy, 3(4), 475–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grubb, M. (2004). Kyoto and the future of international climate change responses: From here to where? International Review for Environmental Strategies, 5(1), 15–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry, L. A., & Sundstrom, L. M. I. (2007). Russia and the Kyoto Protocol: Seeking an alignment of interests and image. Global Environmental Politics, 7(4), 47–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Höhne, N., Meira Filho, G., Marcovitch, J., Yamin, F., & Moltmann, S. (2007). History and status of the international climate change negotiations on a future climate agreement. BASIC Paper No. 15, September. http://www.basic-project.net. Accessed 12 August 2008.

  • Horowitz, B. (2007). Stemming climate change. St. Petersburg Times, December 18. http://sptimesrussia.com/index.php?action_id=100&story_id=24522. Accessed 23 May 2008.

  • Jacob, T. R. (2002). Report on UNFCCC subsidiary body negotiations 16, Bonn, 5–14 June 2002. Climate Policy, 2(1–2), 255–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacquemont, F. (2003). A Report on the eighth session of the conference of the parties. Environmental Law Network International, 1, 18–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D. W. (2002). Russia and Canada to ratify Kyoto Protocol. IEEE Spectrum, 39(10), 22–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, M. N. (2004). Exploiting rivalries: Putin’s foreign policy. Current History, 103(675), 337–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korppoo, A. (2007). Workshop report: Russian voluntary target proposal. Climate Strategies Briefing Paper, May. http://www.climatestrategies.org/reportfiles/voluntary_targets_workshop_report.pdf. Accessed 23 October 2008.

  • Korppoo, A. (2008). Russia and the Post-2012 climate regime: Foreign rather than environmental policy. Briefing Paper 23, November. The Finnish Institute of International Affairs. http://www.upi-fiia.fi/assets/events/UPI_Briefing_Paper_23_2008.pdf. Accessed 25 March 2009.

  • Korppoo, A. (2009). The Russian debate on climate doctrine: Emerging issues on the road to Copenhagen. FIIA Briefing Paper 33, June. The Finnish Institute of International Affairs. http://www.upi-fiia.fi/en/publication/79. Accessed 24 June 2009.

  • Korppoo, A., & Ikeda, K. (2006). Russia and Japan: Combining energy and climate goals. International Review for Environmental Strategies, 6(1), 117–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korppoo, A., Jakobson, L., Urpelainen, J., Vihma, A., & Luta, A. (2009). Towards a new climate regime? Views of China, India, Japan, Russia and the United States on the road to Copenhagen. FIIA Report 19, May. The Finnish Institute of International Affairs. http://www.upi-fiia.fi/en/publication/72. Accessed 25 June 2009.

  • Korppoo, A., Karas, J., & Grubb, M. (2006). Russia and the Kyoto Protocol: Opportunities and challenges. London: Chatham House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korppoo, A., & Moe, A. (2007). Russian climate politics: Light at the end of the tunnel? Climate Strategies Briefing Paper, April. http://www.climate-strategies.org. Accessed 11 July 2007.

  • Kotov, V. (2004). The EU-Russia ratification deal: The risks and advantages of an informal agreement. International Review for Environmental Strategies, 5(1), 157–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laing, T., Junankar, S., Pollitt, H., & Grubb, M. (2009). Global carbon mechanisms annex II: Emissions and demand projections to 2020. Climate Strategies, March. http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/publications/publicationdetail?productid=CTC748. Accessed 1 July 2009.

  • McLaughlin, D. (2004). Way paved for Russia to join world trade pact. Irish Times, 22 May.

  • Medetsky, A. (2009). Climate doctrine outlined. Moscow Times, 23 April.

  • Morales, A., & Carr, M. (2008). Russia to Stockpile $58 billion of Kyoto CO2 credits. Bloomberg.com, December. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&sid=a9yDyM.TlMUw. Accessed 1 July 2009.

  • Mudeva, A. (2008). Russia may not join global deal on climate change. Reuters, December 12. http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE4BB4YE20081212. Accessed 18 December 2008.

  • Müller, B. (2004). The Kyoto Protocol: Russian opportunities. Briefing Note, March. The Royal Institute of International Affairs. http://www.oxfordenergy.org/pdfs/EV33.pdf. Accessed 21 November 2008.

  • Müller, B. (2007). Bonn 2007: Russian proposals, policy CDM, and ‘CER Put Options’ (CERPOs). Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, June. http://www.oxfordenergy.org/pdfs/comment_0707-1.pdf. Accessed 27 January 2008.

  • Oberthür, S. (1996). The second conference of the parties. Environmental Policy and Law, 26(5), 195–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberthür, S., & Ott, H. E. (1995). UN convention on climate change: The first conference of the parties. Environmental Policy and Law, 25(4–5), 144–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oldfield, J. D., Kouzmina, A., & Shaw, D. J. B. (2003). Russia’s involvement in the international environmental process—A research report. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 44(2), 157–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ott, H. E. (2001). The Bonn agreement to the Kyoto Protocol—Paving the way for ratification. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 1(4), 469–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ott, H. E., & Santarius, T. (2004). Global climate. In G. Ulfstein & J. Werksman (Eds.), Yearbook of international environmental law, 14 (2003). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ott, H. E., Sterk, W., & Watanabe, R. (2008). The Bali roadmap: New horizons for global climate policy. Climate Policy, 8(1), 91–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peake, S. (2004). Delivering the Kyoto baby. Refocus, 5(1), 52–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ria Novosti. (2006). Putin wants more consideration for Russia interests in Kyoto deal, 4 July. http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060704/50885241.html. Accessed 30 June 2009.

  • Ria Novosti. (2008). Russia won’t exceed 1990 level in CO2 emissions until 2020, 14 January. http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080114/96592704-print.html. Accessed 26 June 2009.

  • Roshydromet. (2008). Assessment report on climate change and its consequences in Russian federation. General Summary. Moscow.

  • Schiermeier, Q. (2003). The long road from Kyoto. Nature, 18 December.

  • Schiermeier, Q., & McWilliams, B. (2004). Crunch time for Kyoto. Nature, 2 September.

  • Tipton, J. E. (2008). Why did Russia ratify the Kyoto Protocol? Why the wait? An analysis of the environmental, economic, and political debates. Slovo, 20(2), 67–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNFCCC. (undated). Summary of GHG emissions for Russian federation. http://unfccc.int/files/ghg_emissions_data/application/pdf/rus_ghg_profile.pdf. Accessed 3 April 2008.

  • UNFCCC. (2001). Report of the conference of the parties on the second part of its sixth session, held at Bonn from 16 to 27 July 2001. U.N. Doc. FCCC/CP/2001/5/Add.2. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop6secpart/05a02.pdf. Accessed 13 April 2009.

  • UNFCCC. (2006a). Report of the President on consultations concerning the proposal of the Russian Federation to develop appropriate procedures for the approval of voluntary commitments. U.N. Doc. FCCC/KP/CMP/2006/MISC.4. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2006/cmp2/eng/misc04.pdf. Accessed 13 October 2008.

  • UNFCCC. (2006b). Views regarding Article 3, paragraph 9, of the Kyoto Protocol: Submissions from Parties. U.N. Doc. FCCC/KP/AWG/2006/MISC.1. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2006/awg1/eng/misc01.pdf. Accessed 13 October 2008.

  • UNFCCC. (2007). Workshop on the proposal of the Russian federation to develop appropriate procedures for the approval of voluntary commitments. U.N. Doc.FCCC/KP/CMP/2007/INF.2. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2007/cmp3/eng/inf02.pdf. Accessed 15 April 2009.

  • UNFCCC. (2008). Ideas and proposals on the elements contained in paragraph 1of the Bali Action Plan. U.N. Doc. FCCC/AWGLCA/2008/MISC.5. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2008/awglca4/eng/misc05.pdf. Accessed 12 March 2009.

  • Vogler, J., & Bretherton, C. (2006). The European Union as a protagonist to the United States on climate change. International Studies Perspectives, 7(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H. (2005). Warm welcome—Russia ratifies Kyoto. Harvard International Review, 27(3), 13.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wittneben, B., Sterk, W., Ott, H. E., & Brouns, B. (2006). The Montreal climate summit: Starting the Kyoto business and preparing for post-2012. Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law, 2, 90–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, I. (2002). Russia commits to Ratifying Kyoto Protocol. Chemical Week, 164(20), 13.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Keele University, Keele, UK

    Stavros Afionis

  2. Kolokotroni 43, Zografou, 15772, Athens, Greece

    Ioannis Chatzopoulos

Authors
  1. Stavros Afionis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ioannis Chatzopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stavros Afionis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Afionis, S., Chatzopoulos, I. Russia’s role in UNFCCC negotiations since the exit of the United States in 2001. Int Environ Agreements 10, 45–63 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-009-9106-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-009-9106-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation