(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 3, 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: Good evening. Let us start the press conference. In the plenary session today, we heard a statement from the delegation of China that the developed countries have not done enough for the technology transfer. In arguing back, Mr. Akasaka from the Japanese delegation announced the Kyoto Initiative that will be taken by the Government of Japan in order to emphasize how much effort is being made by Japan to assist the developing countries in combatting global warming. It is a very effective statement.
In the plenary, we also heard discussions on annex modifications, Yugo's accession, meeting on QELROs, and article 10 of voluntary commitments by developing countries. I understand that discussions on QELROs was largely an extension on past meetings and that there was not much progress.
With regard to sinks, informal meetings have been going on, and with a target time of 10 p.m. this evening, the meeting on sinks will be continued. Any possible outcome on the sinks meeting will be reported to the QELROs meeting.
In informal meetings today, so far it seems that the question of gas coverage has not been discussed as of yet. But it will be discussed some time this evening. President Ohki will continue to hold bilateral discussions and consultations with the delegates of the developing countries. This is the outline of what has taken place today, and this is a simple statement to open the conference. I would now like to open the floor to any questions you may have.
Question: I'm Sheryl Hogue with Daily Environment Report. I'd like the Japanese view on the two~basket or the three~plus~three approach for the greenhouse gases.
Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: Ambassador Estrada proposed this approach. I believe the idea was an initiative taken by Ambassador Estrada to promote and facilitate the discussion for an agreement. Japan has been proposing to use the conventional three gases, and the Japanese government would like to maintain that position. But Ambassador Estrada, as chairman of COW, is interested in pursuing this idea for the sake of facilitating an agreement.
Question: My name is Arata Kei from BNA. Yesterday Japan made a proposal on differentiation that divided countries into three groups. This idea seems to have disappeared today. What happened?
Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: The idea was to divide the Annex 1 countries into three categories as one possibility. This was the proposal made yesterday. And I believe it is being discussed by the participating countries. Furthermore, when I made that proposal, I did not go into any specifics of which countries would go into what group and by what percentage each group would have to reduce their emissions. I did not propose actual figures.
Question: My name is Suwa from Kyodo News Agency. I have two questions. The first is what is the Japanese response to the two~basket initiative as proposed by Chairman Estrada. The second is what parameters or terms will be used to divide countries into three categories.
Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: As for the two~basket idea, I believe Mr. Estrada presented it as a way of facilitating an agreement. I think we still need to consider the substance of the idea much more carefully before we can make a conclusive statement.
As for the standards for dividing the Annex 1 countries, we will be taking various factors into consideration. If this categorization is to be accepted, various factors will have to be considered. But this was just an idea thrown as food for thought. Should it become more specific, it may become an item for negotiation. And so I will refrain from commenting on it in detail at this time.
Question: I'm from Brazil. Sorry to insist on the same point, but what would be the purpose of your categorization?. Could you be more specific?
Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: I said yesterday that the basic philosophy behind differentiation is to ensure the equity of burden sharing and the equivalence of effort. So basically countries will be differentiated according to this yardstick. This is the basic idea. We have to take other elements into consideration if and when this grouping idea is adopted.
Question: With respect to sinks, some people say that the U.S. and some other countries have actually started negotiating on the sinks. Can you explain your position on sinks?
Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: Sinks are essentially forests. The question is to what extent we should include or exclude sinks. How we quantify the sinks is still unclear at this point. At the start of COP3, chairman emeritus of IPCC, professor (Bert) Bolin stated that there are some variations in terms of quantification of sinks, and there are other similar opinons to that effect. So we have to take that into consideration. I believe that the parties concerned are energetically conducting informal discussions on sinks. Japan maintains the gross approach to sinks. This position is unchanged. We would like to see this issue resolved as soon as possible. Our preference remains the gross approach, but we are making efforts for the early resolution of the matter.
Question: I'd like to ask you two questions about differentiation. When you were talking about differentiation, you mentioned per GDP, per capita, and per population growth. Have these factors been thrown out of the basket now? My second question is on dividing the Annex 1 countries into three categories. The United States emits a great deal of gases and it has not really put a great deal of effort into energy conservation. The U.S. also has high per capita emissions. In that case, will the U.S. be obliged to make deeper cuts, while Japan will not be asked to do nearly as much as the United States? Is my understanding correct?
Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: When I made my proposal, I meant for per GDP, per capita, and per population growth to be retained as factors that would have to be taken into consideration for differentiation. This is the proposal of the Japanese government, and it is still alive and well. We have not thrown away that idea. Now as for how we go about categorizing the countries, grouping them into three categories is one idea. But as to what countries should go into what category and so forth, these are matters to be negotiated, and I cannot say anthing at this stage or give any comments that may mislead you and give you a wrong conclusion or prediction.
Question: Peter Lordner with Reuters. It says in your Kyoto Initiative that Japan is willing to offer 40~year loans at 0.75 percent interest rate for developing countries to develop anti~global warming technologies, et cetra. How much is Japan willing to provide in loans?
Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: At the moment we have not decided yet the amount of ODA which will be extended under these terms and conditions.
Question: Suwa from Kyodo News Agency. Regarding the clean government fund that Brazil has proposed, I think America has a counterproposal of sorts that is a slight variation of the Brazilian one. What does Japan think of the clean development fund, and will Japan be putting money into that sort of fund in the future?
Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: When you study it, the Brazilian proposal is very comprehensive and has a variety of elements in it. We're still studying it and have not really decided on whether or not to put any money into it. What sort of official stance we will be taking will be discussed in the days and weeks to come.
Question: I'm from TBS. You mentioned that countries will be categorized into three groups. It's possible, though, that depending on the terms of differentiation, the number of groups may change to two or to four or even five.
Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: The grouping idea is just that. I am expecting to have more discussions on differentiation. Nobody knows how the talks will turn out; I don't have a crystal ball to forecast what direction talks on differentiation will head.
Question: Russel Skelton, Sydney Morning Herald. There've been persisting reports in the Japanese media that the U.S. is prepared to agree to up to 5% cuts on its present proposal. Do you have any indication from the Untied States as to what its final position might be or what its negotiating figures are?
Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: I have not heard from the U.S. delegation on what they are going to do. We have no idea as to their intentions or about the treatment of the U.S. proposal.
Question: Charles Hanley of AP. One of the European Union spokesmen said earlier this evening that he could not imagine the European Union agreeing to commitments stronger than the U.S. commitment on targets. Does it sound possible to you that this conference could end with an agreement in which the United State and the European Union agree to the same target? Does that look doable to you?
Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: I cannot predict the outcome of the negotiations on QELROs. It is literally a matter of negotiation. Nobody knows what will be the outcome of the negotiations on emissions targets. With regard to your first point, the underlying philosophy of differentiation is to ensure the equity of burden sharing, and since each member country of the European Union can get the benefit of a lighter burden by taking joint action to reduce emissions, from this point of view, logically speaking it is quite natural to expect the EU as a whole to assume higher obligations than non~EU countries. This is the logic behind my grouping of Annex 1 countries into three categories.
Question: My name is Omura from Energy Environment Journal. I have two questions. One has to do with what President Ohki said regarding the content of consultations with developing countries. What are those consultations going to be? And what has happened to the legal constraints of policies and measures. When a country violates those policies and measures, what will happen?
Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: Mr. Ohki is the president of COP3 and in this capacity he is trying to meet as many people as possible and to find out what their true intentions and thoughts are so he can coordinate their views. This is our understanding of what he has been doing. That being the case, you can see that the number of developing countries at this conference far exceed that of developed countries. So he is meeting with delegates of developing countries for consultation. For example, he is consulting with [Mark Mwandosya] the Tanzanian chairman of G-77.
As for your question on policies and measures, there are differences even among advanced countries. The U.S., for one thing, says that once we agree on a target, how it is implemented should be left to the discretion of individual countries. But the EU stance is that because they have to coordinate amongst themselves, they feel policies and measures will have to be decided on as obligations to a certain extent. These are the two opposing views. The two sides are trying to come closer in their views, but we have not come to a final agreement yet.
The Japanese stance is that while mandatory obligations are desirable, countries should come up with their own policies and measures, rather than having obligations imposed on them.
Question: Gary Tegler, Mainichi Daily News. Is Japan willing to assume an intermediary role between developing and developed countries, particularly the United States, and bridging the current gap in expectations? Second will Japan attach any conditions to the 1.44 trillion yen in environmental ODA? For example, before you give to certain countries, would they have to meet certain standards?
Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: As for your first quesiton, what we'd like to have here is a joint effort by the international community, including both the developed and developing countries to prevent climate change. So in this respect, the developed and developing countries have to try to cooperate with each other and to coordinate and concilliate with each other to work out a satisfactory solution in Kyoto. And since the president of COP3 comes from Japan, it is quite natural that we should extend our fullest support to Mr. Ohki so he may perform his function as president of the Kyoto conference.
Question: I'm from the Spanish Daily El Mundo. You said Mr. Tanabe that you expect the European Union as a whole should assume higher obligations. Does that mean you're opposing the bubble effect, meaning that Portugal, Spain, and Greece will be allowed higher emissions by 2010?
Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: If we apply the logic behind differentiation, the conclusion is that the EU should assume higher obligations than non~EU countries.
If there are no more questions, I'd like to bring this conference to a close. Thank you very much.
Back to Index