Abstract
A wide array of institutions governing climate change has proliferated over the past years, influencing the rule-makings of the regime. One of them is the G20. When G20 leaders around the world convened in London to restore global economies, they stressed the importance of a ‘resilient, sustainable, and green recovery’ and reaffirmed their commitments to address climate change. This was followed by their agreement on phasing out inefficient fossil fuel energy subsidies over the medium term in Pittsburgh. The ‘coexistence of narrow regimes in the same issue-area’ could be described as ‘regime complexes’, which enable countries to adapt more readily, particularly when adaptation requires complex changes in norms and behavior. Given that responses to climate change would require changes in the domestic politics of different countries at different levels, loosely integrated institutions of regime complexes could be more advantageous for countries to adapt and in engaging with developing countries. This paper demonstrates that the G20’s highly informal institutional setup as well as its flexible cooperation tools could enable its members to customize their policies and better engage with third-party countries. In addition, the G20 group could collectively influence other key countries to reach an agreement on some of the key climate change–related issues, thereby facilitating the United Nations process of climate change.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This new international forum of finance ministers and central bank governors represents 19 countries (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Korea, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States), the European Union and the Bretton Woods Institutions [the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank].
In theory, when the interests of all the most powerful actors converge across a broad issue area, the demand by such actors could yield a single institution to achieve their objectives through reducing contracting costs, providing focal points and enhancing information. As a result, credibility and capacity to monitor their compliance could be generated (Keohane 1984). The evolution of the general agreement on tariffs in trade (GATT), followed by the World Trade Organisation (WTO), is a case in point as the creation of a single integrated trade regime provided benefits to all members through the most favoured nation and national treatment principles.
Alter and Meunier (2009) argue that in order to resolve this problem, governments may also try to bundle issues across different forums.
Another concrete achievement at the Cancun meeting was to agree on measures to improve transparency of domestic efforts to reduce emissions. This includes an international review process of countries’ actions by technical experts. The monitoring measure was a key sticking point between China and the US (The Climate Institute 2010).
The WBGU points out that these countries would also be core driving force for ‘green innovation’, leading to a rapid transition to a climate-friendly world economy (WBGU 2010).
The 17 major economies participating in the MEF are: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Denmark, in its capacity as the President of the December 2009 conference of the parties to the UN framework convention on climate change, and the United Nations have also been invited to participate in this dialogue.
Ten key technologies include advanced vehicles, bio-energy, carbon capture, use and storage, buildings sector energy efficiency, high-efficiency, low-emissions coal, marine energy, smart grids, solar energy and wind energy.
Over the past 5 years, the issue of climate change always has been the agenda of the G8 Summit, particularly when G8 leaders met with leaders from the five key developing countries (G8 + 5).
Like the G7, but unlike larger international organizations such as the United Nations, the World Bank and the IMF, the G20 has no permanent secretariat.
Despite such deficiency, Barbier (2010a, b) argues that given its sheer size of population, GDP and GHG emissions, coordinated actions by the G20 for green growth would also have a profound effect on “greening” the world economic recovery and sends a strong message of the importance of revising the world economy and addressing pressing global challenges to the rest of the world.
These countries are Argentina, Canada, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Korea, Mexico, Russia, Spain, Turkey and the United States.
The WEF as well as the MEF also provide to a limited extent a forum that brings the private and the public sectors together.
‘Sherpas’ are the personal representatives of world leaders at the G8/G20 summits, who lead and perform the heavy lifting for governments in shaping the global agenda.
Regarding the energy efficiency, business leaders urged the G20 governments to establish clear and consistent energy standards; develop long-term energy policies; provide new financing solutions to help companies make long-term investments for improved energy efficiency; and support education and R&D. They also emphasized the importance of encouraging substantial use of renewable and low-carbon energy by pursuing market-based carbon pricing, mandating regular meetings of energy-related ministers and strengthening international public–private partnerships. Finally the business leaders made recommendations to the G20 governments on creating green jobs by developing policy measures in relevant sectors such as buildings, power, industries and transportation.
Some propose that the G20 should extend an accountability framework to all G20 commitments and allow the expert groups to solicit and receive outside reports (international civil society statement ahead of the 2010 G20 Leaders Summit in Toronto. Available at: http://www.halifaxinitiative.org/content/towards-a-global-leaders-forum).
Abbreviations
- APP:
-
Asia–Pacific Partnership on clean development and climate
- EU:
-
European Union
- GDP:
-
Gross Domestic Product
- GEF:
-
Global Environment Facility
- GHG:
-
Green House Gases
- G7:
-
Group of 7
- G8:
-
Group of 8
- G20:
-
Group of 20
- IEA:
-
International Energy Agency
- LPG:
-
Liquid Petroleum Gases
- MEF:
-
Major Economies Forum on energy and climate
- MEM:
-
Major Economies Meeting on energy security and climate change
- OECD:
-
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
- PCF:
-
Prototype Carbon Fund
- SEFTA:
-
Sustainable Energy Free Trade Areas
- UNFCCC:
-
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
- WEF:
-
World Economic Forum
- WTO:
-
World Trade Organisation
References
Aldagate Group. (2012). A tale of two cities: From Durban to Rio. January 26, 2012.
Alter, K., & Meunier, S. (2009). The politics of international regime complexity. Symposium. Perspectives on Politics, 7(1), 13–24.
Asia–Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. (2006). Executive summary-task force action plans. http://www.asiapacificpartnership.org/pdf/resources/ExecutiveSummary%20_31%20Oct%2006_%20_2.pdf.
Barbier, E. B. (2009). Rethinking the economic recovery: A global green new deal. Report prepared for the Economics and Trade Branch, Division of Technology, Industry and Economics, UNEP, Geneva, April. http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/portals/30/docs/GGND-Report-April2009.pdf.
Barbier, E. B. (2010a). Global governance: The G20 and a global green new deal. Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, 4, 2010–2012. http://www.economics-ejournal.org/economics/journalarticles/2010-2.
Barbier, E. B. (2010b). A global green recovery, the G20 and international STI cooperation in clean energy. STI Policy Review, 1(3), 1–15.
Biermann, F., Pattberg, P., & van Asselt, H. (2009). The fragmentation of global governance architectures: A framework for analysis. Global Environmental Politics, 9(4), 14–40.
Braithwaite, J., & Drahos, P. (2000). Global business regulation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Buchanan, A., & Keohane, R. (2006). The legitimacy of global governance institutions. Ethics and International Affairs, 20(4), 405–437.
Busch, M. L. (2007). Overlapping institutions, forum shopping and dispute settlement in international trade. International Organisation, 61(4), 735–761.
Canada. (1999). New G20 forum: Backgrounder, Canada, Department of Finance.
E3G (Change Agents for Sustainable Development). (2010). Building the 2°C coalition: European climate diplomacy after Copenhagen. E3G discussion paper 1. E3G: London.
Franck, T. (1990). The power of legitimacy among nations. New York: Oxford University Press.
G20 Climate Finance Experts Group. (2010). Providing public revenue to address global climate change. Pre-decisional and for official use confidential author’s draft.
G-20 Submission. (2010). Report to leaders on the G20 commitment to rationalize and phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. G-20 Toronto Summit, Canada, 26–27 June 2010. http://www.g20.org/Documents2010/expert/Report%20to%20Leaders_G20_Inefficuent%20_Fossil_Fuel_Subsidies.pdf.
Keohane, R. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Keohane, R., & Victor, D. V. (2010). The regime complex for climate change. Harvard project on international climate agreements, discussion paper 10–33. Harvard Kennedy School.
Kirton, J. (2010). The G20 Summit as an international negotiation process: Shaping the systemic Summit club for Toronto and Seoul. In Paper presented at an international conference on ‘G20 Seoul Summit: From crisis to cooperation’ hosted by the Korean Association of Negotiation Studies, Seoul, Republic of Korea, May 19–20, 2010.
London Summit Leaders’ Statement. (2009). http://www.londonsummit.gov.uk/en/summit-aims/summit-communique/.
Major Economies Forum. (2009a). Fact sheet: Executive summary. http://www.majoreconomiesforum.org/images/stories/documents/the%20major%20economies%20forum%20april%202010.pdf.
Major Economies Forum. (2009b). Technology action plan. http://www.majoreconomiesforum.org/images/stories/documents/MEF%20Exec%20Summary%2014Dec2009.pdf.
Pew Centre Global Climate Change. (2010). Sixteenth session of the conference of the parties to the United Nations framework convention on climate change and sixth session of the meeting of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol. http://www.pewclimate.org/…/cancun-climate-conference-cop16-summary.pdf.
St. Andrews Meeting’s Communiqué. (2009). http://www.g20.org/Documents/2009_communique_standrews.pdf.
Seoul G20 Business Summit Joint Statement by Participating Companies. (2010). http://www.seoulg20businesssummit.org/en/media/reportV.asp?cate=PDS&cate2=ENG&page=1&search=&keyword=&boardno=255.
Seoul G20 Business Summit: Findings and Recommendations from Participants. (2010). http://www.seoulg20businesssummit.org/en/media/newsletterV.asp?cate=LETTER&cate2=ENG&page=1&search=&keyword=&boardno=332.
Smith, G., & Heinbecker, P. (2010). The G20 and climate change: The quintessential global governance issue. West Waterlook: Centre pour l’innovation dans la gouvernance internationale.
Suominen, K. (2009). Now that it’s over, next challenges for the G20. Vox: Research-based policy analysis and commentary from leading economists, 3 Oct 2009. http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/4045.
The Climate Institute. (2010). The Cancun Agreement: A preliminary assessment. Policy brief. http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/our-publications/reports/772-the-cancun-agreement-a-preliminary-assessment.
Torney, D., & Greup, A. (2010). Editorial introduction: New directions in climate change policies. St. Antony’s International Review, 5(2), 5–15.
US Department of State’s Bureau of International Information Programmes. (2010). G20 Summit statement on global energy, climate change challenges; G20 members “scaling up” domestic efforts to reduce emissions. The White House Office of the Press Secretary for Immediate Release. http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2010/June/20100627185153SBlebahC3.450739e-02.html.
WBGU. (2010). Climate policy post-Copenhagen: A three-level strategy for success. Policy paper. Berlin: WBGU.
World Economic Forum. (2010). Global redesign initiative. http://www.schwabfound.org/en/events/ArchivedEvents/GlobalRedesignSummit2010/GlobalRedesignInitiativeReport/index.htm.
Acknowledgments
Authors would like to thank the Korea University for its support. This paper is partially supported by the Korea University Research Grant.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kim, J.A., Chung, SY. The role of the G20 in governing the climate change regime. Int Environ Agreements 12, 361–374 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-012-9173-2
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-012-9173-2