Two Countries Key To Progress in 2010

• Author: Robert N. Stavins
• Position: Albert Pratt Professor of Business and Government at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, and Director of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program
• Pages: 16-16

Page 16 ❧ THE ENVIRONMENTAL FORUM Copyright © 2010, Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, D.C. www.eli.org.

Reprinted by permission from The Environmental Forum®, May/June 2010

By Robert N. Stavins

Two Countries Key

To Progress in 2010

My travels over just the past two

years on behalf of the Harvard

Project on International Climate

Agreements have taken me (in alpha-

betical order) to Bali, Beijing, Bonn,

Brussels, Canberra, Copenhagen,

Geneva, London, Mexico City, New

York, Paris, Poznan, Rome, Tokyo,

Seoul, Venice, Warsaw, and Wash-

ington, among many other locations.

Along the way, I have met with senior

government of‌f‌icials, business lead-

ers, academics, and representatives of

green NGOs to talk about opportu-

nities for the design and implemen-

tation of a post-Kyoto international

climate regime that is scientif‌ically

sound, economically rational, and

politically pragmatic.

Of course, over this same time pe-

riod, there have been many ups and

downs for the prospects of establish-

ing a reasonable post-Kyoto interna-

tional climate policy architecture.

Most recently, the 15th Con-

ference of the Parties of the UN

Framework Convention on Climate

Change, which met in Copenhagen

in December, produced two signif‌i-

cant outcomes. e key substantive

outcome, of course, was the Copen-

hagen Accord. e key institutional

outcome was speculation that the

UNFCCC may not be the best venue

going forward for productive nego-

tiations on climate change.

ese dual results point to the

special importance of two nations in

international climate policy develop-

ments, especially this year. I’m not

referring to China and the United

States (despite the fact that they are,

of course, the world’s two leading

emitters of carbon dioxide). Rather,

I am referring to South Korea and

Mexico. Why?

First, these two nations are unique

in being both long-time members

(South Korea since 1996, Mexico

since 1994) of the Organization of

Economic Cooperation and Devel-

opment and members of the group

of non-Annex I countries under the

Kyoto Protocol, which have no direct

commitments under that interna-

tional agreement. e OECD comes

as close as anything to def‌ining the

set of industrialized nations.

us, South Korea and Mexico

have their feet planted f‌irmly both

in the developed world and the de-

veloping world (a fact

that is readily apparent

on even brief visits to

these nations). is

gives them remark-

able credibility with

the two key blocks in

international climate

negotiations. at, on its own, would

be of considerable importance, but

there is another reality that makes

this of even greater signif‌icance (and

opportunity) this year.

Coming out of Copenhagen,

many participants in the interna-

tional climate negotiations (as well

as informed observers) noted that the

UNFCCC has real limitations as the

sole venue for future climate nego-

tiations: too many countries (192),

excessively stringent requirements for

agreement (unanimity), and a distinct

tendency to polarize debates between

developed and developing countries.

Two other, potentially supplemen-

tary venues stand out as promising:

the Major Economies Forum and the

G20.

e MEF, which has hosted pro-

ductive discussions among 17 key

countries and regions that together

account for nearly 90 percent of

global carbon dioxide emissions, may

be somewhat limited by the fact that

is was created by and is chaired by

the United States, a nation with con-

strained credibility on climate issues

among some countries, particularly

in the developing world.

e G20, which brings together

the world’s largest economies, focuses

on economic as well as other global

issues and consists of almost the same

set of nations as the MEF, likewise

accounting for about 90 percent of

global emissions. e G20 could

thus be an exceptionally promising

supplementary venue for meaningful

and realistic climate discussions.

And in November of this year, the

G20 will be hosted by South Korea.

is gives the Seoul government a

special role in setting the agenda for

the discussions and presiding at the

sessions. e meetings there will come

just two weeks before

the 16th Conference of

the Parties of the UN-

FCCC, which will take

place in Cancún, Mex-

ico. us, the Mexican

government is also in a

key position this year.

Add to this the fact that both South

Korea and Mexico have been particu-

larly creative in their domestic climate

policy initiatives and international

proposals over the past year.

Together, South Korea and Mexico,

share credibility in the developing and

developed worlds, and likewise share

unique international legitimacy as the

hosts and presidents of the G20 and

COP-16 in 2010. is is why these

two countries have a remarkable op-

portunity to provide leadership of the

international community and make

real progress on negotiations to address

the threat of global climate change.

South Korea and

Mexico will host

meetings that could

help climate policy

Ro ber t N . St avi ns is the Albert Pratt Profes-

sor of Business and Government at the John

F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvar d

University, and Dir ector of the Har vard En -

vironmental Economics Program. He can b e

reached at rob ert_stavins@har vard.edu.

A E P