파리협정 제6조의 협력적 접근에 대한 ‘상응조정’ 이행규칙 논의 현황과 우리나라 입장 연구 (Research on Current Discussion and Our Negotiating Position on Corresponding Adjustment to Cooperative Approaches under Article 6.2 of the Paris Agreement)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국기후변화학회
· 수록지 정보 : 한국기후변화학회지 / 10권 / 2호 / 129 ~ 143페이지
· 저자명 : 오채운, 박순철

초록

Under article 6.2 of the Paris Agreement, parties are given a flexible way to meet their nationally determined contribution (NDC) target by participating voluntarily in cooperative approaches and trading internationally transferred mitigation outcomes (ITMOs) in new climate regimes. Participating parties need to apply corresponding adjustment when accounting for the trading of ITMOs to avoid double counting. In the course of formulating guidance for the implementation of article 6.2 as a part of the Paris rule book, diverse methods for corresponding adjustment were suggested and explored. Korea has preferred a cumulative method by which a singular corresponding adjustment is applied at the end of NDC implementation year for the total amount of ITMOs first transferred and used, or transferred and acquired over the NDC implementation period. However, this method has met opposition from the perspective of lack of representativeness of NDC implementation and achievement.
Furthermore, a phrase on consistency emerged to restrict the Parties participating in cooperative approaches to apply the same method consistently throughout the period for NDC implementation. Under the condition that Korea maintains its intention to utilize the cumulative method of corresponding adjustment with single year NDC targets, this research aims to explore argumentative logics that defend current critiques against the cumulative method. For this, the meaning of representativeness is classified into three interpretive dimensions on the basis of the existing literature and discussions being made at meetings by the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. For each interpretive dimension, defending logics are explored. We conclude by postulating some policy implications for the appropriate paths forward regarding Korea’s position on cooperative approaches in the future.

영어초록

Under article 6.2 of the Paris Agreement, parties are given a flexible way to meet their nationally determined contribution (NDC) target by participating voluntarily in cooperative approaches and trading internationally transferred mitigation outcomes (ITMOs) in new climate regimes. Participating parties need to apply corresponding adjustment when accounting for the trading of ITMOs to avoid double counting. In the course of formulating guidance for the implementation of article 6.2 as a part of the Paris rule book, diverse methods for corresponding adjustment were suggested and explored. Korea has preferred a cumulative method by which a singular corresponding adjustment is applied at the end of NDC implementation year for the total amount of ITMOs first transferred and used, or transferred and acquired over the NDC implementation period. However, this method has met opposition from the perspective of lack of representativeness of NDC implementation and achievement.
Furthermore, a phrase on consistency emerged to restrict the Parties participating in cooperative approaches to apply the same method consistently throughout the period for NDC implementation. Under the condition that Korea maintains its intention to utilize the cumulative method of corresponding adjustment with single year NDC targets, this research aims to explore argumentative logics that defend current critiques against the cumulative method. For this, the meaning of representativeness is classified into three interpretive dimensions on the basis of the existing literature and discussions being made at meetings by the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. For each interpretive dimension, defending logics are explored. We conclude by postulating some policy implications for the appropriate paths forward regarding Korea’s position on cooperative approaches in the future.

참고자료

· 없음