(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

Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: Allow me to start. On this second day of the conference, unlike yesterday, we've already embarked on substantive discussions. Most of these meetings are informal discussions, so I don't think you'll to be able to get in and listen. But things are proceeding "business as usual". During the morning, today, under the chairmanship of Ambassador Estrada of the Committee of the Whole, discussions went on with regard to the numerical targets. As you may have already have heard, Canada came up with a new proposal of a 3% reduction by the year 2010 and a further 5% reduction by the year 2015. Compared to 1990, that would mean an 8% reduction, with differentiation. There was no specific announcement in the meeting hall, but New Zealand also proposed a 5% reduction by 2010. That paper was distributed.

At the QELROs meeting during the morning, there was discussion on budget period and differentiation. With regard to budget, various views were prescribed by developing countries and other parties. The chairman asked Brazil to put together one proposal. With regard to differentiation, as one idea, I floated the possibility of categorizing the countries into three groups -- the EU and other countries, and perhaps some additonal other countries. The European Community expressed their opposition to that idea.

With regard to sinks, from the morning until around 1:00 in the afternoon, we conducted discussions. For countries like Japan, which have advocated a "gross," we have stuck to our position that we should go with "gross" and that "net" is something we should discuss in the future. The countries that have been advocating a net, however, feel that not simply for the purposes of forests, but also for the purpose of land use and so on, "net" should be adopted.

Under the chairmanship of the Philippines, various different papers are being drawn up. If at all possible, we would like to come to a conclusion before the day is over. As for the question related to developing countries, in discussions on article 4.1 and things like that, I understand that there was discussion on financial mechanism and other matters related to developing countries. President Oki has been leading very intensive informal discussions. This, I believe, is a fair description of what has been going on today.

Starting today, we've embarked of substantiative negotiations. "Formal-informal" might be a contradiction, by definition, but apart from the formal-informal negotiations, various talks are taking place in parallel, in different places.

That was what happened today. As I just mentioned in Japanese, we have embarked on substantiative negotiations. In addition to the discussions which took place in informal consultations, various different bi-lateral or tri-lateral talks also took place. With regard particularly to matters concerning developing countries, Mr. Oki, president of COP3, continues his informal talks and consultations with the countries concerned. Even though he cannot be, shall I say, "visible," he intensified his effort to bring about a successful conclusion of the Kyoto Conference.

I would like to switch to the question and answer session. Are there any questions?

Question: Charles Hanly of the Associated Press. Mr. Tanabe, could you elaborate, please, on you proposal for differentiation according to three groups -- who the other two groups would be, besides the EU, and roughly what the levels are that you're talking about?

Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: In the informal meeting regarding QELROs, I only floated one idea. Everybody knows that the basic underlying philosophy of differentiation is to secure the equaties of burden-sharing, or to secure the equivalence of effort made by the countries concerned. We could say that in the case of the European countries, because of the joint undertakings, which are not realistically recognized by other countries, each member country of the EU can find it much easier to achieve a certain target than non-EU countries. In order to secure the equivalence of effort, I think it is appropriate to assume a certain level of responsibility. Then, below that, maybe countries whose performance in the field of energy efficiency is not so remarkable. And then the third category might contain countries like Japan, whose performance in energy efficency is excellent. I think that this type of grouping may provide a much simpler formula for solving the question of differentiation. That is the idea behind my suggestion.

Question: Peter Larder of Reuters. This question is along those same lines. I wanted to clarify something. This afternoon, there were Japanese press reports that during discussions between the U.S. and your self, the U.S had in some way accepted a target between 0% and 5%. Was that within the context of differentiation, or does this represent a new target on the part of the United States?

Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: As you are already aware, the U.S. made a proposal yesterday. As far as I know and as you know, the U.S. suggests a limited range of reduction, from stabilization to 5% below the 1990 level, at maximum, with some element of differentiation. I do not know anything more than what the U.S. delegate mentioned yesterday. As I mentioned yesterday, they clearly indicated that they are now inclined to accept the principle of differentiation, which we welcome, as I mentioned to you yesteday.

Question: Suwa, with Kyoto News Service. You mentioned that there will be three groupings -- the EU, Japan, and then other countries. I wondered if you've assigned numbers to those three specific groups. I also understand that you've floated an idea of two groupings. In that case, how would the parties be grouped?

Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: It wasn't a matter of assigning specific numbers. In our meeting, various ideas had been floated, and I thought that grouping would be one idea. Setting a certain range would be one possible way, as well. If we are to group parties, I suggested that perhaps three groups might be one possible idea to work on.

Question: Wada, with the Kagaku Koge Nippo. One question for clarification. Regarding the U.S. proposal yesterday, do you think it was only a diplomatic ploy?

Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: That is not how I see it. The U.S. has studied the matter very carefully, and as a result, they came up with that proposal. I think that it is a very serious proposal that has come out as a result of a process of careful consideration.

Question: Ishii, with the Asahi Shimbum. You mentioned a possibility of range. How much is that range, as far as Japan's proposal is concerned?

Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: Do you mean the U.S. proposal?

Question: No. Japan, I understand, mentioned the idea of range today.

Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: No, Japan has not floated a proposal for range. In the discussions today, there were ideas floated on groupings and ranges. I simply stated the facts. As far as grouping is concerned, we floated the idea that categorizing countries into three might be a possibility.

Question: So, you haven't got any ideas about range?

Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: No, Japan did not state any range.

Question: Dale Curtis, from Greenwire, the daily energy briefing, in the U.S. The Japanese government's goal of reducing emissions in the first decade of the next century is premissed on a great expansion of nuclear power. With the growing opposition to nuclear power in Japan and in other parts of the world, is that a realistic position?

Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: As you noticed in the report prepared by Dr. Kondo, chairman of the Environmental Council, it is better to say that the Japanese effort has taken into account the role to be played by nuclear power plants.

Question: Eric Johnson, with the Japan Times. I'd like to follow up on that last question about nuclear power. Are you talking about traditional uranium plants, or are you planning on build on more plutonium reactors, like Monju?

Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: As far as I know, we have in mind traditional, light-water type nuclear reactors.

Question: Yamaguchi, from the Kyoto News Service. Going back a little to the idea of groupings, etc., which I understand you, Ambassador Tanabe, floated, I wondered sort of reaction you got from other parties. Did you get a lot of support?

Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: The EU representative expressed their opposition to this idea.

Question: Just one confirmation. In the U.S. propsoal made yesterday, did it refer to a maximum of 5%?

Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: Yes, the proposal indicated a range of 0 to 5% reduction.

Question: So, the position is that the U.S. is prepared to accept the range of 0 to 5%.

Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: No, it's not that they're ready to. It's not that they're willing to accept that. The U.S. proposal was to think about targets along the range of 0 to 5%. But, fundementally, I don't think the U.S. has changed its position.

Question: Akimoto, with Sankei Shimbum of Japan. Of the three groups, you mentioned one would be the EU. Amongst the remaining two groups, what sort of countries would be included? Japan and the U.S. would belong to which groups and for which reasons?

Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: Well, I leave it up to your imagination. But as I stated earlier, Japan's principle of differentiation is to ensure the equity fairness of burden-sharing. We believe there should be equitable burden on the basis of past achievements. We believe that we should also take into consideration whether the targets are more easily achieved as single countries or groups. But this grouping of three was floated only as an idea -- I don't think it is really worthwhile to engage in the excercize as to which country would belong to which group. I leave it up to your own imagination, as to which countries would fall into which group.

Thanks very much.