신기후변화체제하에서 한국의 대응전략: 새로운 감축-지원 통합 메커니즘의 모색 (Designing New Climate Change Regime: A Unified Approach for Mitigation and Finance Mechanisms)

2011년 12월 남아프리카공화국 더반에서 개최된 제17차 당사국총회(COP17)에서 2020년 이후의 새로운 기후변화체제 구축에 대한 합의를 도출하였습니다. 따라서 향후 국제기후변화체계는 논의 양상과 방식에 다양하고도 근본적인 변화가 있을 것으로 예상됩니다. 새로운 기후변화체제하에서 모든 국가는 단일한 법적 구속력의 영향을 받게 되며, 각기 다른 트랙으로 진행되던 기후 변화 관련 이슈에 대한 통합적 논의도 가능해질 것입니다. 또한 기존 협상에서 가장 민감하게 다루어진 감축과 지원에 대한 문제도 과거와는 다른 방식으로 접근하게 될 것입니다. 이와 같은 국제기후변화체제의 큰 변화를 맞아 우리나라는 향후 신기후 변화 체제하에서의 주도적인 역할 수행과 새로운 운영체계의 효과적인 활용을 위한 기후변화 정책을 마련해야 합니다. 과거 의무감축국 편입에 대한 대응이라는 수동적인 자세를 벗어나 신체제의 설계과정에 구체적인 의견을 개진 하고 관련 논의에 적극 참여하는 등 보다 능동적인 전략 마련이 필요합니다. 이에 본 연구는 우리나라가 국제사회에 제시할 제안사항들을 발굴하기 위해 기후변화체제의 논의 현황과 이론적 분석틀, 신기후변화체제 도입을 위한 과제들을 살펴보았습니다. 신기후변화체제의 기본적 설계요소인 감축과 지원 메커니즘에 대한 이해를 바탕으로 기후변화체제의 이론모형을 설명하고 감축과 지원의 통합 메커니즘을 위한 쟁점 및 시사점을 도출하고 있습니다. 특히 본 연구는 기후변화체제의 안정적인 운영을 위한 분석틀을 제공하고 메커니즘들의 통합을 모색하는 첫 연구라는 점에 큰 의의가 있습니다. In 2011, COP17, Parties agreed to launch a new process, called Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform (ADP), to negotiate a new climate agreement after 2020. The most distinguishable feature of the expecting new agreement is that it will be ‘applicable to all’ Parties. Though ‘applicable to all’ does not imply applicable to all in a symmetrical fashion, Parties’ positions on legal form will not be fall along developed and developing country lines any more. This critical change asks COP to develop new aspects of operating mechanisms under UNFCCC, accordingly. Especially to Korea which has been non-Annex I member so far, the change requires her to engage more actively in the climate negotiation process with suggesting constructive ideas to design the new regime, rather than simply to express her own position. The purpose of this research is to lay out a basic theoretical and logical foundation which may help to design key mechanisms in new climate regime. To do this, in Chapter III, we first develop a model of a new climate agreement which satisfies key characteristics of Durban Platform. Then, we identify limitations of an old approach which can be summarized into (a) national reduction target and (b) international emission trading. The main result is that when a degree of heterogeneity in benefit from mitigation between countries is high enough, the old approach cannot achieve a social optimal mitigation level, though emission trading contributes to a broad participation. In this sense, relaxing the heterogeneity will be the key for the new regime. And that is the reason financial and/or technology transfer is necessary, besides mitigation efforts. In this study, we focus on a specific issue among possible alternatives in designing the new regime, which is integrating market mechanism and financial mechanism. In Chapter IV, we survey the current and prospecting relevant mechanisms and investigate issues needed to be tackled for each mechanism. In Chapter V, we discuss interactions between two mechanism spheres in general and the importance of an integrating approach. A relationship between two mechanisms can be simplified as follows. The most fundamental element of market mechanisms is the demand for mitigation such as reduction targets and energy security. The demand induces flows of climate finance and they enable mitigation actions to be scaled up. Based on these observations, we qualitatively explore what expecting challenges to overcome will be. For the developing countries in general, lack of voluntary mitigation incentive is the basic problem. Supported NAMA type financial mechanisms, which requires corresponding mitigation actions, may be in a right direction to solve such incentive problems. The developed and the advanced developing countries may have voluntary mitigation incentives with seeking a new economy growth engine. For them, the key question is how to scale up the private resources in mitigation investments. A solution can be found with answering how to connect effectively the mitigation incentive into financial incentive, and vice versa. A necessary condition to construct those incentive schemes is to have transparent and objective MRV systems. In Chapter VI, we present several possible tasks to develop both market and finance mechanisms in an integrated way. First, it needs to expertise best practice of the ‘inter-mechanism’ MRV system which is about coordination between a market mechanism and a financial mechanism. Various mechanisms in each market and finance sphere are expected to appear within and out of UNFCCC in near future. In the short run, more attentions will be paid to develop the ‘intra-mechanism’ MRV system which is about coordination among mechanisms within each sphere. However, having inter-mechanism MRV system will be very effective in the long run. Before a certain system without the integrating consideration becomes status quo, noting its importance and pursuing the best practice of them will be desirable. The other two are about how to provide more incentives toward environmentally more friendly private investments while the developed countries fulfill their financial contribution obligations. Depending on a type of private financial flows, its impacts on recipient country’s mitigation actions are different. Thus, a more environmentally favorable type of private financial flows needs to be more appreciated. To reflect this on incentive mechanisms, a more volatile financial flow can be discounted more in accounting financial contributions by developed countries, besides evaluation on environmental consequences of each investment. Also, we may consider to develop the technology spillover effect index which can differentiate private investments into the degree of mitigation technology spillover. Treating private investments with a higher index as the one with a more marginal contribution can help to create incentives.