Декарбонизация экономики Казахстана: от климатических целей к практическим результатам

Цель исследования – Настоящее исследование посвящено анализу разрыва в реализации декарбонизации в ресурсно-обеспеченном Казахстане, понимаемого как расхождение между официально декларируемыми климатическими целями и фактической динамикой выбросов. Используя Соединённое Королевство в качестве контрастного управленческого ориентира, статья рассматривает, каким образом законодательное закрепление климатических обязательств, согласованность политических инструментов, надёжность системы торговли выбросами, а также институциональный потенциал определяют способность государства трансформировать климатические обязательства в измеримые низкоуглеродные результаты.

Методология – В исследовании применяется сравнительный институциональный анализ, сочетающий изучение программных и нормативно-правовых документов, кейс-ориентированный анализ и вторичные статистические данные. Казахстан и Соединённое Королевство сопоставляются через призму управленческой траектории, связывающей климатические цели, нормативно-правовую архитектуру, инструменты политики, системы мониторинга, отчётности и верификации, механизмы правоприменения и фактическую динамику выбросов.

Оригинальность/ценность исследования Исследование вносит вклад в сравнительные исследования климатического управления, смещая аналитический акцент с формулирования климатических целей на институциональную способность к их реализации. В статье концепция разрыва реализации применяется к декарбонизации как к управленческой задаче, требующей не только стратегических обязательств, но и действенных правовых, регуляторных и институциональных механизмов. Такой подход особенно значим для ресурсно-обеспеченных экономик, характеризующихся высокой углеродоёмкостью экспорта и растущим внешним давлением со стороны климатически ориентированной торговой политики, включая Механизм трансграничного углеродного регулирования Европейского союза (CBAM).

Результаты – Анализ показывает, что разрыв в реализации декарбонизации в Казахстане обусловлен недостаточно прочным законодательным закреплением климатических целей, фрагментарностью политических инструментов, ограниченной результативностью системы торговли выбросами, неравномерным развитием систем мониторинга, отчётности и верификации. Опыт Соединённого Королевства демонстрирует, что юридически обязательные углеродные бюджеты, независимый институциональный надзор, согласованные инструменты политики, надёжное ценообразование на углерод и развитые системы мониторинга, отчётности и верификации позволяют сократить разрыв между заявленными обязательствами и их практическим выполнением.

1. United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2024. New York : United Nations, 2024.

2. World Bank. Kazakhstan: Country Climate and Development Report. Washington, DC : World Bank, 2022.

3. World Bank. Kazakhstan CCDR: Updates and related policy notes. Washington, DC : World Bank, 2024.

4. Office for National Statistics. Net zero and the different official measures of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions. London : ONS, 2019.

5. UNFCCC. Strategy of the Republic of Kazakhstan on achieving carbon neutrality by 2060. Bonn : UNFCCC, 2024.

6. UNEP. Presidential Decree No. 121 validating the Strategy for achieving carbon neutrality of the Republic of Kazakhstan until 2060. UNEP Law and Environment Assistance Platform, 2023.

7. International Energy Agency. Kazakhstan 2022: Energy sector review. Paris : IEA, 2022.

8. Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2025. London : DESNZ, 2025.

9. RenewableUK. Energy bible confirms renewables now provide over half of the UK's electricity generation. RenewableUK, 2025.

10. OECD. Responsible business conduct for sustainable infrastructure in Kazakhstan, Mongolia and Uzbekistan. Paris : OECD Publishing, 2025.

11. Mouraviev N. Renewable energy in Kazakhstan: Challenges to policy and governance // Energy Policy. 2021. Vol. 149. 112051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112051.

12. Poberezhskaya M., Danilova N. Reconciling climate change leadership with resource nationalism and regional vulnerabilities: A case study of Kazakhstan // Environmental Politics. 2021. Vol. 31, No. 3. P. 429–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2021.1920768.

13. ICAP. Kazakhstan Emissions Trading System: Factsheet. International Carbon Action Partnership, 2024.

14. Ross A. It's time to get serious: Why legislation is needed to make sustainable development a reality in the UK // Sustainability. 2010. Vol. 2, No. 4. P. 1101–1127. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2041101.

15. Aldy J. E., Stavins R. N. The promise and problems of pricing carbon: Theory and experience // Journal of Environment & Development. 2012. Vol. 21, No. 2. P. 152–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/1070496512442508.

16. Martin R., de Preux L. B., Wagner U. J. The impact of a carbon tax on manufacturing: Evidence from the UK // Journal of Public Economics. 2014. Vol. 117. P. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.04.016.

17. Dechezleprêtre A., Sato M. The impacts of environmental regulations on competitiveness // Review of Environmental Economics and Policy. 2017. Vol. 11, No. 2. P. 183–206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rex013.

18. Bahar D., Santos M. A. One more resource curse: Dutch disease and export concentration // Journal of Development Economics. 2018. Vol. 132. P. 102–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2018.01.002.

19. Domjan P., Stone M. A comparative study of resource nationalism in Russia and Kazakhstan, 2004–2008 // Europe-Asia Studies. 2009. Vol. 62, No. 1. P. 35–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668130903385374.

20. Tadadjeu S., Njangang H., Woldemichael A. Are resource-rich countries less responsive to global warming? Oil wealth and climate change policy // Energy Policy. 2023. Vol. 182. 113774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113774.

21. Henisz W. J. The institutional environment for economic growth // Economics & Politics. 2000. Vol. 12, No. 1. P. 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0343.00066.

22. Ioannou I., Serafeim G. What drives corporate social performance? The role of nation-level institutions // Journal of International Business Studies. 2012. Vol. 43, No. 9. P. 834–864. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2012.26.

23. Orazalin N. Corporate governance and CSR disclosure in an emerging economy: Evidence from commercial banks of Kazakhstan // Corporate Governance. 2019. Vol. 19, No. 3. P. 490–507. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-09-2018-0290.

24. Benigno G., Fornaro L., Wolf M. The global financial resource curse // American Economic Review. 2025. Vol. 115, No. 1. P. 220–262. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20211792.

25. Mergaliyeva L., Beketova K., Primbetova S. Opportunities of integrating artificial intelligence into the exploitation of renewable energy in Kazakhstan // Central Asian Economic Review. 2024. No. 3. P. 114–131. https://doi.org/10.52821/2789-4401-2024-3-114-131.

26. Böhringer C., Balistreri E. J., Rutherford T. F. The role of border carbon adjustment in unilateral climate policy: Results from a model comparison // Energy Economics. 2012. Vol. 34, Suppl. 2. P. S97–S110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2012.10.003.

27. Branger F., Quirion P. Would border carbon adjustments prevent carbon leakage and heavy industry competitiveness losses? Insights from a meta-analysis of recent economic studies // Ecological Economics. 2014. Vol. 99. P. 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.12.010.

28. Mehling M. A., van Asselt H., Das K., Droege S., Verkuijl C. Designing border carbon adjustments for enhanced climate action // American Journal of International Law. 2019. Vol. 113, No. 3. P. 433–481. https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2019.22.

29. Pressman J. L., Wildavsky A. Implementation. Berkeley : University of California Press, 1973.

30. Meyer J. W., Rowan B. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony // American Journal of Sociology. 1977. Vol. 83, No. 2. P. 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550.

31. Bromley P., Powell W. W. From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world // Academy of Management Annals. 2012. Vol. 6, No. 1. P. 483–530. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2012.684462.

32. UNEP. Emissions Gap Report 2024. Nairobi : United Nations Environment Programme, 2024.

33. Climate Action Tracker. United Kingdom and Kazakhstan country assessments. Berlin : Climate Analytics / NewClimate Institute, 2024.

34. Karatayev M., Clarke M. A review of current energy systems and green energy potential in Kazakhstan // Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2016. Vol. 55. P. 491–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.078.

35. Dyussembekova G., Bayandina G., Sartova R., Kalmenova M. The electric energy sector of Kazakhstan: State and vision given international trends // International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy. 2019. Vol. 9, No. 3. P. 179–186. https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.7741.

36. Temirgaliyeva N., Junussova M. Renewable electricity production and sustainability of national and regional power systems of Kazakhstan // Silk Road: A Journal of Eurasian Development. 2020. Vol. 2, No. 1. P. 35–53. https://doi.org/10.16997/srjed.15.

37. Kerimray A., Baigarin K., Miglio R., Tosato G. Climate change mitigation scenarios and policies and measures: The case of Kazakhstan // Climate Policy. 2015. Vol. 16, No. 3. P. 332–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2014.1003525.

38. Mazina A., Syzdykova D., Myrzhykbayeva A., Raikhanova G., Nurgaliyeva A. Impact of green fiscal policy on investment efficiency of renewable energy enterprises in Kazakhstan // International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy. 2022. Vol. 12, No. 5. P. 491–497. https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.13437.

39. Tlesova A., Mergaliyeva L., Sultanguzhiyeva A., Sharafutdinova A. Improvement of innovative economic policy // Journal of Applied Economic Sciences. 2018. Vol. 13, No. 6. P. 1648–1655.

40. Khanna T., Palepu K. Winning in emerging markets: A roadmap for strategy and execution. Boston, MA : Harvard Business Press, 2010.

41. Cuervo-Cazurra A. Who cares about corruption? // Journal of International Business Studies. 2006. Vol. 37, No. 6. P. 807–822. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400223.

42. Melville A., Mironyuk M. "Bad enough governance": State capacity and quality of institutions in postSoviet autocracies // Post-Soviet Affairs. 2015. Vol. 32, No. 2. P. 132–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586X.2015.1052215.

43. Gereffi G., Lee J., Polaski S. Global supply chains and compliance with labor standards // Governance. 2009. Vol. 22, No. 4. P. 585–608. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2009.01457.x.

44. Locke R. M., Amengual M., Mangla A. Virtue out of necessity? Compliance, commitment, and the improvement of labor conditions in global supply chains // Politics & Society. 2009. Vol. 37, No. 3. P. 319–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329209338922.

45. Toffel M. W., Short J. L., Ouellet M. Codes in context: How states, markets, and civil society shape adherence to global labor standards // Regulation & Governance. 2015. Vol. 9, No. 3. P. 205–223.

46. Duflo E., Greenstone M., Pande R., Ryan N. Truth-telling by third-party auditors and the response to regulation: Evidence from India // Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2013. Vol. 128, No. 4. P. 1499–1545. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjt024.

47. Calel R., Dechezleprêtre A. Environmental policy and directed technological change: Evidence from the European carbon market // Review of Economics and Statistics. 2016. Vol. 98, No. 1. P. 173–191. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00470.

48. Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Contracts for Difference: Policy overview and allocation rounds. London : UK Government, 2024.

49. UK ETS Authority. 2023 review of the UK Emissions Trading Scheme. London : Department for Energy Security and Net Zero; Scottish Government; Welsh Government; DAERA, 2023.

50. Environment Agency. Chief Regulator's report: Evidence annex 2023–24. Bristol, UK : Environment Agency, 2025.

51. Mergaliyeva L., Primbetova S. Sustaining innovation and regulation: The eco-system of decentralized and centralized finance // The Economy: Strategy and Practice. 2025. Vol. 19, No. 4. P. 20–37. https://doi.org/10.51176/1997-9967-2024-4-20-37.

52. Christmann P. Multinational companies and the natural environment: Determinants of global environmental policy standardization // Academy of Management Journal. 2004. Vol. 47, No. 5. P. 747–760. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159616.

53. Locke R. The promise and limits of private power: Promoting labor standards in a global economy. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2013.

54. European Parliament and Council. Regulation (EU) 2025/2083 of 8 October 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2023/956 establishing a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism // Official Journal of the European Union. 2025.

55. UNCTAD. A European Union Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism: Implications for developing countries. Geneva : UNCTAD, 2023.

56. UNITAR/UN PAGE. Assessment of impacts of the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism: Kazakhstan. Geneva : United Nations Institute for Training and Research / Partnership for Action on Green Economy, 2021.

57. European Commission. EU trade relations with Kazakhstan. Brussels : European Commission, 2024.

58. UN Comtrade. European Union imports of aluminum from Kazakhstan, HS 76, 2024. United Nations Comtrade Database, 2025.

59. UNCTAD. Energy sector for green transitioning: Kazakhstan. Geneva : UNCTAD, 2025.

60. DiMaggio P. J., Powell W. W. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields // American Sociological Review. 1983. Vol. 48, No. 2. P. 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101.

61. Oliver C. Strategic responses to institutional processes // Academy of Management Review. 1991. Vol. 16, No. 1. P. 145–179. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1991.4279002.

62. Kostova T., Roth K. Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: Institutional and relational effects // Academy of Management Journal. 2002. Vol. 45, No. 1. P. 215–233. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069293.

63. Eisenhardt K. M. Building theories from case study research // Academy of Management Review. 1989. Vol. 14, No. 4. P. 532–550.

64. UK Parliament. Climate Change Act 2008. London : The Stationery Office, 2008.

65. Government of Kazakhstan. Environmental Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Astana : Government of Kazakhstan / WECOOP, 2021.

66. Friedlingstein P., et al. Global Carbon Budget 2024 // Earth System Science Data. 2024. Vol. 17, No. 3. P. 965–1039. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-965-2025.

67. Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources of Kazakhstan / CAREC. Chapter 20: MRV summary of enactment and entry into force. 2025.