Russia Wavers on Ratification of Kyoto Protocol

Scientists and environmental ministers from around the world gather in Moscow next Monday with the fate of the emissions-reducing Kyoto Protocol in the hands of their hosts.

On Thursday, Russia, the environmental kingmaker when it comes to getting the landmark treaty off the ground, delayed a decision on ratifying the protocol, saying it needed time to weigh the consequences before it could be persuaded to sign on the dotted line.

"There is no strict timetable at the moment," Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexei Gordeyev told reporters on Thursday. "The government in any country... has an obligation to decide what steps it needs to take after signing (the protocol). Gordeyev further cited scientific reasons for Russia’s wavering stance. "The Russian government looks on the Kyoto protocol positively, but we say that the protocol, especially concerning scientific matters, leaves a lot of questions unanswered," he said.

Russia left with casting vote on Kyoto

The Kyoto Protocol, agreed in the Japanese city of Kyoto in 1997, aims to slash emissions of gases, in particular carbon dioxide, to counter global warming. The treaty sets individual targets for industrialized countries to lower their emissions of carbon gases, the byproduct of burning fossil fuels, on average by 5.2 percent below their 1990 levels over the next 10 years.

Despite the fact that more than 100 mostly developing nations have already ratified the treaty, the environmental pact suffered a serious setback when the United States, which alone accounts for around 35 percent of the world's greenhouse emissions, pulled out of the treaty in 2001. The U.S. argued the treaty would hurt its economy and also rejected the scientific claims of global warming. Other nations, like Australia, followed the Bush adminstration's stance.

Under the treaty’s complex weighting system, countries responsible for producing 55 percent of greenhouse gases, have to approve it before it comes into force. With the U.S., arguably the world’s largest polluter, out of the fray, the onus is now on Russia to ratify Kyoto and ensure it takes effect.

Moscow wary of investment promises

Apart from scientific reasons, Russia is hesitant to sign because of a clause in the treaty allowing for the creation of a "carbon market", potentially worth billions of dollars a year, where industrialized signatory countries can buy and sell emissions "credits" in order to meet their treaty obligations.

The collapse of the Soviet Union cut Russia's emissions levels down from the 17 percent figure it had when the quotas were set in 1990. As a result, the country has a lot of emission "credits" to sell over-polluters.

But President Vladimir Putin's administration is not sure they'll be any buyers.

"We must receive guarantees, where the money will be put every year. If we ratify, it could all go to Ukraine. We must have firm guarantees about the amount," Gordeyev stressed on Thursday.

Expert: "Huge scope for Russian economy"

The EU, which set the ball rolling on the world’s first international emissions trading market earlier this year, has tried to reassure Russia investment will flow in. The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change has also chimed in with words of encouragement for the Putin government.

"There is huge scope for the Russian economy to modernise in such a way that is both economically attractive and at the same time, climate-friendly," the executive secretary of the U.N. agency, Joke-Waller Hunter, told Deutsche Welle.

All may not be lost as yet. Environmentalists and delegates at Moscow’s conference will be hoping Putin, who has said he is broadly in favor of the treaty, will speak at the meeting and yet give the right signal to the State Duma or lower house of parliament to approve the pact.

Next page: Deutsche Welle's John Hay speaks to Joke-Waller Hunter, executive secretary of the UNFCCC about how Russia could profit from adopting the Kyoto Protocol and the impact of global warming.

Here in Europe and in the Northern hemisphere in general people have seen an extremely hot summer. It's been billed as the hottest summer in 2000 years by some. Does this mean that more people now accept the fact that climate change is happening and that it is being caused by human kind?

The scientists have already predicted in their models that we will have more extreme weather events in the years to come. We had the floods in 2002, the heat wave in Europe this year -- these are the type of extreme weather events that climate scientists are predicting. So it certainly raises awareness for the issues. It draws the attention of politicians to the issue. I don't think you would find a scientist who would really say that this is all due to the human impact on the climate, but it certainly helps to get it high on the agenda.

But hasn't it been a sort of wake-up call? Haven't people been coming to you now and saying "We've doubted the science up to now but now it's quite obvious that climate change is taking place"?

People do make those remarks and also many politicians are now aware that this is a very serious issue. The impacts are not only felt in the developing countries, which are the most vulnerable to climate change -- given that their food production is under threat if the climate changes -- but they also feel in European countries that something is happening to the climate and that it has huge economic impacts as well as impacts on daily life.

Now, there are people in Russia who actually welcome climate change, since they say that Russia, as a cold country, can do with a little more warmth, that it can't do any harm if the temperature rises and that it could actually help increase agricultural output. What do you say to this?

Well, I think the Russians are really going through a very elaborate process of cost- benefit analysis, of which agricultural productivity is one element. Others being what it means for energy exports of Russia and energy use in Russia.

Generally speaking, the expectation of scientists with regard to the impact of climate change on agricultural productivity is that it will decrease agricultural productivity. And then our colleagues at the bio-diversity convention argue that if a number of the very valuable ecosystems, including some of the ecosystems in the Soviet Union, were turned into agricultural land -- a possibility due to the change in temperature -- then it would be a very significant loss to the world's bio-diversity.

We are most concerned about the agricultural productivity of developing countries because those economies are really dependant on the export of agricultural products to provide the necessary food for their own population. Climate change, combined with and resulting in less water availability, will really have a huge impact on agricultural productivity in many African and Asian countries. I think that's where we really see a growing concern which can only lead to the farmers and the agricultural research adapting to climate change.

Some climate change will be inevitable. We have come so far that we cannot avoid it. The carbon stays so long in the atmosphere that whatever we do now we will face some climate change because the damage has already been done. Countries do have to adapt and look at other crops that may have a higher productivity with higher concentrations of carbon in the air.

Russia is the third biggest polluter in the world, but in many ways it's a developing country, an emerging economy, especially with regards to the implementation of technology. At the same time, the Russian economy is booming, so there's a large scope for modernizing industries. To what extent could this mean that climate friendly technologies are likely to be installed in the future?

That's again one of the incentives for the Russians to ratify the Kyoto protocol because the Kyoto protocol would allow joint implementation of projects within the "Annex 1" countries- the industrialized countries- including the economies in transition, like Russia and some of the other Eastern European countries. The Kyoto protocol would allow much more joint implementation, which would then mean a transfer of technology.

Generally speaking, if you would like to reduce your emissions, you benefit if you make your production less energy intensive, which is "win-win" because you have to spend less on the costs for energy and, at the same time, you reduce your emissions. That's quite an important element in the overall implementation of climate change measures. Quite a few of them are "win-wins" and not measures that would really harm the economy. Energy intensity of Russian production at the moment is high, compared to other countries, Japan being an example which has taken very early measures to reduce the energy intensity of the industrial production. There is huge scope for the Russian economy to modernize in such a way that it is both economically attractive and, at the same time, climate friendly.

Should the Russians fail to ratify before the Milan summit, what would that mean for the Kyoto process?

Well, the Kyoto protocol would enter into force 90 days after the Russians have ratified it and have made it clear to the United Nations in New York. So, if we count the 90 days, it's unlikely because they should have made their move in New York before the 13th of September. It's unlikely that when we have our conference of the parties in Milan in early December that the protocol will have entered into force. It would be quite important that we know at the time of the Milan meeting when it will enter into force. We are still quite confident that the Russians will move at such a pace that at Milan we will know when the protocol will come into force. That would give an enormously positive signal to the conference, to the parties and to the meeting and would really make people even more aware of the need to implement, what they have agreed in an international context.

And if the Russians fail to ratify altogether, what would that mean?

That's what is normally referred to as the Plan B, which we don’t want to think about, but if the Kyoto protocol does not enter into force in the very near future, I think the risk of climate fatigue may kick in.