온실가스 감축의무 협상동향 및 대응방향 연구 II

Abstract

Climate Change Negotiations for the Post-Kyoto Regime - Key Issues and Implications II The international community has continued efforts to resolve climate change issues since the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. As the first commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol will be coming to an end in 2012, negotiations on the post-Kyoto climate regime are currently in progress. As an OECD member country and one of the major greenhouse gas emitters, Korea is burdened with the possibility of taking on internationally binding mitigation commitments. Moreover, Korea is in a vulnerable position in international regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, as it relies heavily on energy-intensive industries with an import-dependent energy structure. Therefore, understanding the current international negotiations progress on greenhouse gas mitigation commitments and developing appropriate response strategies accordingly is critical. This study aims to analyze the recent developments in climate change negotiations and provide policy recommendations on international greenhouse gas mitigation negotiations based on prospects for climate regime after 2012. In 2010, five UNFCCC Climate Change Conferences, including the 16th Conference of the Parties(COP), were held in order to reach an agreement on the post-Kyoto climate regime. The vast gap in positions between the developed and developing countries continued to cause great difficulties during the negotiation process. However, the COP held in Cancun, Mexico in December managed to derive substantive output, the "Cancun Agreements." The Cancun Agreements are COP decisions which include outputs from both negotiation tracks, the AWG-LCA and AWG-KP, and were fully supported by 193 Parties except Bolivia. The adoption of the Cancun Agreements demonstrated that the UN process is still functioning, overcoming the wide-spread doubt over the unanimity principle of the UN regime since the failure to adopt an agreement in Copenhagen in 2009, due to the objection of a few countries. The Cancun Agreements are significant in that they are based on the core elements of the Copenhagen Accord, the informal document produced during COP 15 in Copenhagen, and succeeded in creating formal COP decisions. Moreover, the Cancun Agreements were able to embrace what remained as a political resolution level agreement and formulate formal documents of UNFCCC which outline the actual implementation basis of the Copenhagen Accord. However, the 16th COP failed to reach any agreement on extending the Kyoto Protocol, concluding the discussions to maintain the AWG-KP track. The Cancun Agreements set a long-term goal of limiting the increase in global temperature within 2°C and present the necessity of transforming the paradigm into low-carbon society. Also, the Agreements promise to establish various mechanisms in detail, i.e., Cancun Adaptation Framework, Registry for developing country's mitigation actions, Green Climate Fund, Technology mechanism, etc. Reconfirming the creation of fast-start finance and long-term finance, which were part of the Copenhagen Agreement, can be assessed as a monumental achievement in the issue of finance. However, they exclude sensitive topics such as additional mitigation targets by Annex I countries and compliance, thereby concluding this year's COP with still no concrete answer to the question of extending the Kyoto regime. The 16th COP has laid the foundation for reaching a consensus on the post-Kyoto climate regime, but the negotiations will continue until the 17th COP to be held in South Africa next year. This means that the two-track approach will be maintained until the 17th COP, striving toward a final agreement. Therefore, negotiation meetings in the following year are expected to focus on technical work to operate various mechanisms established according to the Cancun Agreements. In regard to the possibility of building a foundation for the post-Kyoto regime after 2012 by further building on the Cancun Agreements, three scenarios can be derived. The first scenario is to develop Cancun Agreements into a new international agreement, replacing the Kyoto Protocol and signaling its end. The second scenario is to maintain the Kyoto Protocol, distinct from the newly adopted international agreement. Considering the issues of country reclassification to impose legally binding commitments on major emitting developing countries , this scenario is dependent on two possible ways: maintaining the current country categorization system of the Kyoto Protocol or recategorizing the list of Annex I countries. The last scenario foresees the rise of other multilateral processes such as G20 and MEF in discussing climate change issues, as there are practical difficulties in moving the negotiations forward under the UN process. Perhaps as predicted, keeping the status quo of the country classification system under the second scenario is most preferred by the developing countries, including Korea. However, with the expectation of strong opposition by the current Annex I countries and limited incentives with which to persuade Annex I countries that are Parties to the Kyoto Protocol who will show great resistance, the feasibility of this scenario is slim. For this scenario to be possible, firstly among important factors is the leadership of the EU, who tacitly supports the maintenance of the Kyoto Protocol. Second, the U.S., who is not a Party to the Kyoto Protocol under the AWG-LCA track, needs to take on legally binding mitigation commitments comparable to those imposed on the Parties to the Protocol. Last, measures to ensure participation of non-Annex I countries in taking meaningful mitigation efforts must be prepared. In case of country reclassification, there is a great possibility that Korea will be listed as an Annex I country, considering the size of the Korean economy and its amount of greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, Korea should be most cautious of this scenario. A great collaboration between the developed and developing country groups would produce the best result in negotiations, realized through a compromise between the two issues that are of utmost importance to each group: support to developing countries by developed countries and; participation of developing countries in mitigation actions. Such compromise can be facilitated by small-sized multilateral talks among major emitting countries, such as G20 and MEF instead of a formal meeting such as the UN process. Also, the new partnerships that have emerged for individual issues such as forestry, mitigation, and MRV are expected to play a positive role in fostering international cooperation by taking a step back from the UN's discussion approach with its emphasis on unanimity. Therefore, the most desirable way is to seek progress in the UNFCCC negotiations based on political consensus promoted by the multilateral talks and the political momentum. Building on and analyzing the aforementioned forecast of international climate change negotiations, the following policy advice for Korea can be drawn. First, as a non-Annex I country, continuing the Kyoto Protocol in the climate regime after 2012 is the most desired direction for Korea. Therefore, Korea should align its position with developing countries who strongly assert the adoption of a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol by the Annex I countries. Also, as the Cancun Agreements adopted in Mexico this year will become the cornerstone of the future output on the post-Kyoto regime, a response strategy should be devised accordingly. Korea has already announced, for example, the mid-term mitigation goal and has prepared legally binding measures through domestic law. Therefore, it is important to further develop the Information Documents which Cancun Agreements take note of, which list mitigation commitments and actions proposed by countries, including that of Korea, into a formal document that can be internationally recognized. Considering that the Cancun Agreements are to establish various new mechanisms and prepare their guidelines such as Adaptation Mechanism, Green Climate Fund and relevant Committee, Technology Mechanism, Registry for mitigation actions of developing countries, MRV guidelines, Korea needs to seek ways to actively participate in such process from the onset. Furthermore, the country reclassification issue that had been heatedly discussed in 2010 negotiations but were excluded in the Cancun Agreements can reemerge in future negotiations. If this issue is placed on the table once again in 2011 negotiations, Korea should therefore show its firm stance against the issue. One possible argument is that the issue of the country reclassification is beyond the mandate of the current AWG meetings which Bali Action Plan granted for discussion of a Post-2012 climate regime, attacking the legitimacy of the issue itself. In addition, Korea may argue that it is only fair and appropriate for Non-Annex I county Parties to set national targets voluntarily and to be bounded by their national laws respectively. In this line of the argument, Korea may emphasize the fact that its voluntary target of greenhouse gas reduction by 30 percent from its Business As Usual (BAU) scenario by 2020 is being implemented by its national laws through various policies and measures. It may also want to bring attention to the fact that the national target is comparable to that of many Annex I country Parties, including EU, US, Japan, and Canada, and much higher compared to other major emitting Non-Annex I country Parties such as Mexico, China and India. Finally, it is expected that small-sized multilateral talks, such as G20 and MEF, and partnership among interested parties, such as MRV Partnership and REDD+ Partnership, will continue to be important forums by which to facilitate climate change discussions, complementing big-scaled consensus based UNFCCC meetings. Therefore, the means by which to interconnect these various discussions taking place in different international processes will be an important factor affecting future climate change negotiations. It is also related to the issue of how to build international governance among various processes to tackle climate change. Therefore, as a potential host country of COP18, Korea should consider ways in which to link and create synergy among climate change discussions widely dispersed throughout different international consultation settings. Particularly, it is important to note that the Government of Mexico as Presidency of COP16 maximized its diplomatic power as an advanced developing country in leading global consensus both from the developed and developing countries. Korea is also expected to play a critical role to bridge the gap between the developed and developing countries, based on its unique position as a Non-Annex I party Country and an OECD member country. As a bridging country, Korea also needs to consider how to facilitate and lead the international governance by interlinking diverse international regimes created to cope with climate change.