governance be addressed. Inclusiveness means
not only that the IEA framework should cover
more oil and gas consumers, but also that a
higher-level framework should be in place to
manage relations between the IEA and OPEC
and form a new community of energy interests.
(2) The G20 and IEA are the main global
governance institutions—their integration
requires political compromise
At present, the global energy governance framework is divided into three levels. The first level is
the United Nations and G20. They are not energy
governance organisations, but they can deliver
strategic policy orientations that have a broad
consensus and influence energy governance. The
second level is represented by professional energy
governance organisations like the IEA. They are
energy clubs whose members are developed
economies. Non-OECD members that are not part
of OPEC are often partners of the IEA. OPEC, as a
producer organisation, is the IEA’s counterpart,
but its executive power is now declining. Organisations at this level tend to be well run, strongly
executive and professional. The third level is
represented by emerging professional energy
governance organisations like the International
Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), the International Energy Forum (IEF) and the Energy
Charter. They exert vertical governance in most
cases and often cooperate with the G20 and other
organisations at higher levels.
Integrating the first and second levels (the
G20 with the IEA and OECD) requires political
compromise, which means it will be a long-term
process. The willingness of OECD countries to
compromise in the non-energy field will affect
the IEA. Mainstream energy governance organisations like the IEA need to reform and become
more inclusive. Integrating the interests of the
IEA and OPEC is harder than integrating the
interests of energy-consuming countries like
China and India. It can only be achieved through
global governance at the first level, which is a
long-term process.
Integrating global energy governance with
social and economic development is important.
The inclusive Belt and Road Initiative framework
complements the professionalism of IEA energy
governance. They could learn from one another.
Integrating global energy governance into social
and economic development helps broaden consensus on global energy governance.
(3) High-level G20-IEA energy governance
would help coordinate climate control and
lower-level energy governance
Global energy governance within the G20-IEA
framework would be at a higher level and more
inclusive than the current IEA and would be
more professional and executive in terms of
energy governance than the current G20. Global
energy governance under the integrated G20 and
IEA would be similar to global climate control in
terms of level, effectiveness and inclusiveness.
In the short term, the fate of climate control
lies in the energy transition and energy governance, so the G20-IEA framework would help
create a win-win situation. The benefits for oil
and gas importers are obvious, as it subjects
OPEC oil and gas exporters to a system of
checks and balances and encourages them to
transition to cleaner energy.
In the long term, consensus on climate control
helps suppliers and consumers reach agreement
on energy. This agreement goes beyond any of
the previous energy security approaches (sufficient, sustainable and affordable) centred on oil
and gas security in the narrow sense. Instead, it
focuses on the sustainability of energy security
(green, effective, fair, etc.) and helps push supply
and demand towards clean, low-carbon energy.
686
W. Jigang and P. Webb
not only that the IEA framework should cover
more oil and gas consumers, but also that a
higher-level framework should be in place to
manage relations between the IEA and OPEC
and form a new community of energy interests.
(2) The G20 and IEA are the main global
governance institutions—their integration
requires political compromise
At present, the global energy governance framework is divided into three levels. The first level is
the United Nations and G20. They are not energy
governance organisations, but they can deliver
strategic policy orientations that have a broad
consensus and influence energy governance. The
second level is represented by professional energy
governance organisations like the IEA. They are
energy clubs whose members are developed
economies. Non-OECD members that are not part
of OPEC are often partners of the IEA. OPEC, as a
producer organisation, is the IEA’s counterpart,
but its executive power is now declining. Organisations at this level tend to be well run, strongly
executive and professional. The third level is
represented by emerging professional energy
governance organisations like the International
Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), the International Energy Forum (IEF) and the Energy
Charter. They exert vertical governance in most
cases and often cooperate with the G20 and other
organisations at higher levels.
Integrating the first and second levels (the
G20 with the IEA and OECD) requires political
compromise, which means it will be a long-term
process. The willingness of OECD countries to
compromise in the non-energy field will affect
the IEA. Mainstream energy governance organisations like the IEA need to reform and become
more inclusive. Integrating the interests of the
IEA and OPEC is harder than integrating the
interests of energy-consuming countries like
China and India. It can only be achieved through
global governance at the first level, which is a
long-term process.
Integrating global energy governance with
social and economic development is important.
The inclusive Belt and Road Initiative framework
complements the professionalism of IEA energy
governance. They could learn from one another.
Integrating global energy governance into social
and economic development helps broaden consensus on global energy governance.
(3) High-level G20-IEA energy governance
would help coordinate climate control and
lower-level energy governance
Global energy governance within the G20-IEA
framework would be at a higher level and more
inclusive than the current IEA and would be
more professional and executive in terms of
energy governance than the current G20. Global
energy governance under the integrated G20 and
IEA would be similar to global climate control in
terms of level, effectiveness and inclusiveness.
In the short term, the fate of climate control
lies in the energy transition and energy governance, so the G20-IEA framework would help
create a win-win situation. The benefits for oil
and gas importers are obvious, as it subjects
OPEC oil and gas exporters to a system of
checks and balances and encourages them to
transition to cleaner energy.
In the long term, consensus on climate control
helps suppliers and consumers reach agreement
on energy. This agreement goes beyond any of
the previous energy security approaches (sufficient, sustainable and affordable) centred on oil
and gas security in the narrow sense. Instead, it
focuses on the sustainability of energy security
(green, effective, fair, etc.) and helps push supply
and demand towards clean, low-carbon energy.
686
W. Jigang and P. Webb