Climate change - or climate crisis, as some media outlets relabelled it - is increasingly getting attention from governments and civil societies worldwide. The words and actions of high-profile activists such as Greta Thunberg and organisations such as the EU – which launched the Green Deal, an ambitious plan to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030, and embraced a green foreign policy – contributed to this trend. But it was probably the links between climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic that most aroused concerns. While there is still no evidence linking climate change to the spread of COVID-19, scientists stress that climate change alters how humans relate to other species, hence heightening the risks for the emergence of infectious diseases. There is also growing debate around the need to design holistic economic measures to address the rising inequalities caused by climate change and the pandemic.

The post-Soviet region is no stranger to these global discussions about the environment. This dossier does a great job highlighting the major environmental and climate-change-related crises affecting the area and the diverse approaches (or lack thereof) to tackle them. 

All eyes on Russia

When talking about environmental issues in the post-Soviet space, all eyes are on Russia, given its geopolitical and energy importance. The country is one of the biggest energy producers and exporters globally – and one of the biggest polluters, emitting 1,617 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year. Recent disasters in northern Siberia, such as the June 2020 oil spill – with over 21,000 tons of diesel spilt into the Arctic Ocean, making it one of the largest oil spills in Russian history – or the July wildfires burning down an area larger than Greece, made headlines. Meanwhile, the recent release of the HBO series Chernobyl – based on the worst nuclear accident in history – reopened old scars in many Russian citizens and sparked a fierce political debate on both nuclear safety and political freedoms, to the point that Russian state TV decided to make its own version of the series.

Elena Maslova kicks off the discussion by emphasising Russia’s paradox of being an active participant in the global environmental agenda while facing both a severely deteriorating environmental situation at home and economic overreliance on oil&gas exports. Yet, Maslova claims that the status of a “green and a responsible player” may contribute to enhancing Russia’s global status, while a EU-Russia green dialogue has the potential to offer a platform for the normalisation of relations (“win-win strategy”) in areas such as science and technology, as well as civil society and business.

Angelina Davydova also highlights Russia’s need to diversify the economy, including decarbonising its energy sector, as more and more countries decide to follow a zero-emission path. Yet, she argues that political elites and companies, including major fossil fuel producers, still perceive climate change as a distant and long-term risk. Decarbonisation and clean energy strategies are largely insufficient, despite Russia’s huge physical and economic potential in renewable energy. 

Russia’s dependence on its energy exports is a common explanation for the Kremlin’s interest in the Arctic, which hosts an estimated 22% of Earth’s undiscovered oil and natural gas and is projected to be a major driver for geopolitical competition. Maria Morgunova offers a nuanced picture of Russia’s ambitions and actual constraints in the Arctic. She claims that the region will stay among the Kremlin’s top geostrategic priorities but questions the role of oil&gas as a backbone of the Russian strategy. Indeed, Morgunova lists a set of issues hindering Russian ambitions when it comes to resources’ exploration and exploitation: the need for new technical approaches and huge investments is matched by a reality of harsh climate conditions, remoteness, Western sanctions, absence of infrastructure and, most importantly, offshore ice conditions in the Arctic, despite the impact of global climate change on the Arctic’s ice cover. Not to mention the serious environmental concerns that come with an oil&gas-centred approach. Such concerns are taken increasingly seriously by Russia’s civil society. Mariachiara Franceschelli explains that, despite climate change not being a crucial topic in Russian public debate, environmental sentiments are growing within civil society. However, most Russian ecological groups need to compromise with the political power to carry out their activities, hence failing to convert discontent and criticism into sharp actions that can really challenge the government’s strongly resource-oriented model.

Regional crises fostering regional cooperation?

Climate change and environmental degradation affect most post-Soviet states. Some of today’s worst ecological disasters have deep roots and implications transcending state borders. The desertification of the Aral Sea, for instance, was caused by the Soviet heavy industrialisation of the agriculture sector in Central Asia and still has a dramatic impact on all of the five Central Asian republics. As Stefanos Xenarios explains, a regional approach on water conservation, agricultural policy and water priorities is the only possible answer to the mitigation of the Aral Sea desertification. Furthermore, a joint “water-energy-food-climate approach” can spur economic growth and water supplies safety for the whole region.  

Several factors can hinder regional cooperation, though. One of them is external actors. Giulia Sciorati claims that in Central Asia, China's role as the main external economic actor through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) risks aggravating existing environmental challenges. China’s projects in Central Asia imply expanding transport infrastructures by land, while its regional energy projects continue to be mainly based on coal, oil, and gas. Hence, she concludes, China’s aim to build greener societies has not fully travelled along the BRI. 

Another stumbling block for regional cooperation is intra-regional conflicts. This has been the case for Central Asia, though today it applies mainly to the South Caucasus. After reviewing the three South Caucasian countries’ poor record on environmental policies, Nika Chitadze remarks that only the end of hostilities between Azerbaijan and Armenia can lay the foundations for cooperation on environmental protection issues at the regional level. He points at Georgia’s possible role as a mediator and the EU as a driver for change through its Eastern Partnership Programme, which includes all the three South Caucasus countries.   

Notwithstanding the severe environmental challenges facing the post-Soviet region, the time is ripe for the beginning of a serious discussion about climate change. Relevant external actors’ green policies, growing public opinions’ interest in environmental issues, and clear economic drivers for a more sustainable development can lead to a new green momentum and help soothe deep-seated political grievances in the region.