(Unofficial Transcript)
Press Briefing by the Government of Japan
at the Third Session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change
| Date: | December 1, 1997 |
| Speaker: | Mr. Toshiaki Tanabe |
| Title: | Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary for Global Environmental Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs |
| Time: | 18:30 to 19:00 |
| Location: | Room D, Kyoto International Conference Hall |
Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: I would now like to start the press conference. Allow me to speak briefly in Japanese at the outset. This Third Session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is being hosted by Japan under the leadership of Hiroshi Oki, Director General the Environment Agency, who has been elected president of this conference. What we believe is of the utmost importance during COP3 is the establsihment of meaningful, realistic, and equitable reduction targets that are legally binding.
By establishing such targets we will be taking our first step forward toward a goal that we believe is of paramount importance. We believe that many debates and discussions will need to be carried out to attain our ultimate objective. Overcoming the problem of global warming requires long-term planning. It is something we must jointly address.
Global warming is a long-term issue that requires not only the efforts of the developed countries but cooperation from the developing countries, efforts by both need to be reinforced during in this session. Furthermore, unlike the AGBM or unofficial consultations, we must be successful. There is a strong and pure political will among the participants to make this conference a success. The political will be conducive to achieving a fruitful product by the close of this conference on the10th of December. The problem of global warming involves not only climatic issues but must also take into account the interests of the economy. This is a very complex problem that requires strong political will and desire from the parties. If the will is implemented faithfully, I believe this conference in Kyoto will be concluded successfully. In that regard, it is a very difficult negotiation process. The outcome may not come until the very end in the form of a package deal. I am cautiously optimistic about the success of this conference.
Instead of prolonging my unilateral statement, however, I assume it is better to switch now to questions and answers. I will be pleased to accept any questions you may have. I hope that I can answer all of them.
Question: Can you tell us what you think of the EU and U.S. proposals?
Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: Everybody knows that the EU is proposing 15% reductions with certain conditions. But everyone knows that there are differences of views among EU members with regard to the EU policies and measures that member countries must fulfill. And on top of that, the EU has indicated flexibility, and that is the good sign from our point of view. The United States has proposed that emission levels be stabilized at 1990 levels. At the same time, it has made an intervention this morning and indicated some flexibility, which we regard as a good sign. And so, all the major players have begun to indicate their cooperative gestures more strongly and are demonstrating a greater margin of flexibility. I believe this tendency will continue and thus bring out a meeting point for all the major players.
Question: Do you have any indication from the U.S. as to how far they're prepared to go with differentiation. What sort of limits they're prepared to set on it?
Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: That's a very good question. We welcome the U.S. suggestion that they support the differentiation idea. We believe that differentiation is a way to assess the effort that each country has made in achieving efficient uses of energy. It is quite natural that those efforts be duly reflected in our assuming of legally binding objectives.
Question: You have talked about the U.S. proposal. The U.S. has criticized the EU "bubble." What is the Japanese government's stance on this? Second, in setting numerical targets for developing countries, the U.S. proposal allows for evolution in terms of reduction targets.
Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: As the question was asked in Japanese, I would like to answer in Japanese.
There are various points to be mentioned with regard to the Japanese position on the EU bubble. But fundamentally, there are two. The first has to do with legal responsibilities, which have to be cleared out. And the second is equity between EU members and non-members. These issues have to be clearly resolved. This is the Japanese position.
With regard to the U.S. proposal regarding developing counties, I understand that the United States has previously indicated their desire for some sort of cooperation from the developing countries. However, such efforts are not to be made under the same time span or obligation as the developed countries. We understand that developing countries have an urge for development that is ongoing. So to an extent, under the so-called sustainable development concept, they have the right to develop, but at the same time they have to cooperate on environmental issues. So at least in accordance with a certain time frame, they will have to hold down increases in emissions, if not actually reduce them. I believe this is unchanged from what has been proposed previously by the United States.
Question: The European representative, Mr. Pierre Gramegna of Luxembourg, just commented to us on the American position on differentiation, that he saw that as flexibility in the wrong direction. He said that his impression was that the game is to find ever more loopholes. That was a bad omen and that it was not an encouraging beginning to the conference. Would you agree that the EU and the Americans are further apart than ever?
Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: First of all, I dont' believe that the American suggestion on differentiation is going in the wrong way. We believe that differentiation is very important. Up until quite recently, The United States was opposed to differentiation, but now, they have recognized the significance. of differentiating. So I believe they have switched their position.
But at the same time, you will notice that under the EU bubble, EU member countries have in a sense already made tremendous differentiation. And so by adopting the differentiation idea, all Annex 1 countries can be placed on equal footing. Differentiation is very important. This is our position.
Question: I have two questions. This is day one of COP3. Already there has been an upheaval of sorts over the failure of procedural rules 22 and 42 to be adopted. How do you characterize this start of the conference? The second question is about AGBM. How significantly will it be reflected during COP3, as called for in morning's meeting.
Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: As for the procedural rules there was indeed some upheaval on the first day. This has been an ongoing agenda item, though, since the first session in Berlin. It was raised again in Geneva last year. I suppose that for this Kyoto conference, we were successful in selecting officers prior to the meeting, so we have made a good start compared to previous meetings.
The AGBM limits are a recurring agenda item, and the raising of this issue is not a surprise to us. The content of the meeting, I believe, was very much expected. We've made a good start compared to the two previous sessions.
Question: One of the proposals my country Brazil is bringing here is to create a sort of environment fund that would work as a kind of "green tax," if you will. I would like to know whether Japan supports such an idea or not.
Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: We recognize the important role Brazil plays in the field of the environment, and so we will give very careful consideration to the Brazilian proposal. But we have not yet come to any conclusion.
Question: The crucial issue with regard to differentiation is how to actually implement it. The text of the Convention contains about 10 equations in terms of methodology. What is your preferred method for differentiation? The Annex 1 bubble that was proposed by Russia could turn out to be risky, depending on the methodology used.
Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: It becomes an issue of what's the most essential negotiation matter. As for methodology, I will not go any further because this is the very substance of the negotiations being carried out at this moment. I believe that we need to study Russia's proposals a little further. We have to examine the risk element that you mentioned. We'd like to review our considerations to that extent.
Question: Critics both inside and outside of Japan say that it is really impossible to characterize Japan as a world leader in the environment or capable of leading this conference to a meaningful agreement as long as its plan calls only for a functional reduction of 2.5%. I presume that you don't agree with those critics. Could you please respond to their characterizations?
Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: As I mentioned to you at the outset, Japan attaches great importance to realistic and achievable targets. Even if we set lofty targets, they will be of no use if we cannot live up to them. Under the existing Convention, all Annex 1 countries are expected to return their emission levels to 1990 by the year 2000. But there are only a few countries that will achieve this objective. Two countries just happened to be in a position to do so. I won't specify which two countries they are, but you probably know them already. So we believe that we can play a leadership role by proposing achievable, realistic targets that can be implemented 100%.
Question: I am interested in your comments about developing countries. China is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases. I wonder whether you're actually looking for targets to be set for certain developing countries. What exactly do you want to see happen?
Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: Our position on developing countries is that we need to intensify joint efforts by the developing and developed countries to combat climate change. And as you pointed out, China is the second largest emitting country. And it will be a matter of time before it becomes the largest emitter. If this is a fact, the status of the country--whether it's developed or developing--is not so sacrosanct. We must seek due cooperation from those developing countries whose emissions are tremendous. And so as I mentioned, we have to work out some kind of process where the developed and developing countries will study ways and means to intensify our joint efforts to prevent global warming.
Question: With regard to the American proposal, the differentiation concept involves taking into account the efforts made by countries up to now on the energy situation. How will this affect the setting of targets?
Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: I'm looking at the U.S. statement now, but I don't think there was a mention of the energy situation. Are you referring to a different statement?
Question: You earlier noted that consideration should be given to efforts made by the parties so far in improving energy efficiency.
Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: Now I understand. Improving the efficiency of the usage of energy in each country may be gauged in terms of emissions per GDP and per capita. These would be the indices upon which the margin of improvement of the energy efficiency may be assessed. I think this is essentially the differentiation idea in the Japanese proposal.
Question: So may I take it that the U.S. is endorsing and supporting the differentiation proposal of Japan?
Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: No. Japan extensively explained to the United States why we believe differentiation is necessary. So the United States position implicates that our rationale for the differentiation concept has been supported. But this is merely our speculation. What we have asserted so far, I believe, had been effective.
Question: If that's the case, then actual methods of differentiation hasn't been outlined by the United States. Am I right?
Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: What has been specifically put forward in today's session is that the United States is prepared to consider the differentiation option and move in this direction. The details will be discussed in future sessions.
Question: The U.S. proposal mentions the establishment of a working group. What is the Japanese position on this?
Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: It would be established under the Committee of the Whole led by Chairman Estrada. It wouldn't be a bad idea to have a working group.
Question: The EU representative referred to the U.S. proposal as going in the wrong direction. What is your view?
Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: I'd like to refrain from making any comments on either the U.S. or EU positions before we reach a conclusion in our negotiating sessions.
Question: Are you saying the Japanese government is not in a position to make an assessment on the proposal?
Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: We are in the process of negotiation, and we cannot foresee the outcome of the negotiations. Therefore, we must refrain from speculating about the outcome of the negotiations. The direction of the negotiations so far was not what Japan considers ideal. And of course, we can to a certain extent examine what will be the outcome. But I must refrain from making an official statement. What we have been telling the Americans and the EU is that the reduction margins must be meaningful, attainable, and realistic.
Back to Index