fairness in energy trading and energy investment;
and (xi) improve jointly energy efficiency,
energy innovation and new energy technologies.
11.3.3 Will the Ideal Energy
Governance Framework
Be G20 + IEA + ……?
And Will It Be Truly
Global?
(1) All organisations, governance and frameworks have the potential to lead global
energy
The G20 focuses on general issues, while the
IEA concentrates on specific ones. The two
organisations do not operate at the same level,
nor do they have substantive competition or
cooperation. However, both have the potential
for global energy governance and display different types of leadership in global social
development and energy security.
First, both organisations comprise member
countries that are independent economies (except
for the EU). They are comprehensive, inclusive
and responsive to the needs of emerging and
developing countries. They have the ability to
build more mature and stable relations between
energy producers (including OPEC countries)
and consumers.
Second, they complement each other in terms
of professionalism, influence and executive
power, but both need to compromise. The G20
should significantly improve its Energy Working
Group, while the IEA needs to reform to become
a global institution. At the same time, the two
organisations should form a closer working
relationship by, for example, enhancing international laws and regulations for investment protection, and by supporting emerging economies
and countries to develop their own low-carbon
strategy.
Third, it is essential that they coordinate the
relationship between oil and gas exporting and
importing countries and balance the interests of
countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia that rely
heavily on oil and gas exports.
Fourth, the path of combining two organisations into one and the position of the successor
organisation is uncertain, so questions like
expanding the number of members still need to be
considered. In addition, it is important to manage
the relationship with other international institutions, such as the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the International Energy Forum, the
Clean Energy Ministerial, the International
Renewable Energy Agency, the International
Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation,
the Energy Charter Treaty, and others in the
energy sector. Institutions outside energy that
have a much broader coverage include the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Bank.
(2) The successor governance organisation
will still need all parties to eliminate differences of interest, political risk and
other uncertainties
The biggest advantage of the successor governance organisation is that it will be inclusive and
representative, which plugs the gap in international cooperation and international market
supervision. The disadvantage is that it requires
long-term and unremitting efforts from multiple
parties.
China’s Energy Research Institute believes
that the G7 and the BRICS countries (Brazil,
Russia, India, China and South Africa) can build
a new energy governance organisation based on
equal participation. This mechanism could provide guidance for existing energy governance
institutions like the IEA, the World Bank and the
WTO, and broaden cooperation with them.
Another option is the G7 + BRIC (Brazil,
Russia, India, and China) + six international
organisations (IEA, OPEC, UNFCCC, WTO, the
International Monetary Fund and the World
Bank).
The G7 (or G20) + BRICS + IEA + another
option has a broad base of participants that cover
682
W. Jigang and P. Webb
and (xi) improve jointly energy efficiency,
energy innovation and new energy technologies.
11.3.3 Will the Ideal Energy
Governance Framework
Be G20 + IEA + ……?
And Will It Be Truly
Global?
(1) All organisations, governance and frameworks have the potential to lead global
energy
The G20 focuses on general issues, while the
IEA concentrates on specific ones. The two
organisations do not operate at the same level,
nor do they have substantive competition or
cooperation. However, both have the potential
for global energy governance and display different types of leadership in global social
development and energy security.
First, both organisations comprise member
countries that are independent economies (except
for the EU). They are comprehensive, inclusive
and responsive to the needs of emerging and
developing countries. They have the ability to
build more mature and stable relations between
energy producers (including OPEC countries)
and consumers.
Second, they complement each other in terms
of professionalism, influence and executive
power, but both need to compromise. The G20
should significantly improve its Energy Working
Group, while the IEA needs to reform to become
a global institution. At the same time, the two
organisations should form a closer working
relationship by, for example, enhancing international laws and regulations for investment protection, and by supporting emerging economies
and countries to develop their own low-carbon
strategy.
Third, it is essential that they coordinate the
relationship between oil and gas exporting and
importing countries and balance the interests of
countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia that rely
heavily on oil and gas exports.
Fourth, the path of combining two organisations into one and the position of the successor
organisation is uncertain, so questions like
expanding the number of members still need to be
considered. In addition, it is important to manage
the relationship with other international institutions, such as the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the International Energy Forum, the
Clean Energy Ministerial, the International
Renewable Energy Agency, the International
Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation,
the Energy Charter Treaty, and others in the
energy sector. Institutions outside energy that
have a much broader coverage include the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Bank.
(2) The successor governance organisation
will still need all parties to eliminate differences of interest, political risk and
other uncertainties
The biggest advantage of the successor governance organisation is that it will be inclusive and
representative, which plugs the gap in international cooperation and international market
supervision. The disadvantage is that it requires
long-term and unremitting efforts from multiple
parties.
China’s Energy Research Institute believes
that the G7 and the BRICS countries (Brazil,
Russia, India, China and South Africa) can build
a new energy governance organisation based on
equal participation. This mechanism could provide guidance for existing energy governance
institutions like the IEA, the World Bank and the
WTO, and broaden cooperation with them.
Another option is the G7 + BRIC (Brazil,
Russia, India, and China) + six international
organisations (IEA, OPEC, UNFCCC, WTO, the
International Monetary Fund and the World
Bank).
The G7 (or G20) + BRICS + IEA + another
option has a broad base of participants that cover
682
W. Jigang and P. Webb