(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: Let us begin. There was no plenary session today, but the Committee of the Whole, chaired by Mr. Estrada, held some informal meetings regarding the EU bubble. Australia made a statement concerning this issue yesterday. Australia submitted a proposal for an amendment to Article 4. Japan, today, also submitted another proposal for an amendment to Article 4. The informal meetings were conducted based on the views of many countries. A proposal was made to the chairman to create a draft incorporating these views. These informal consultations are undertaken with participation of a small number of countries.

As for Article 3, there was a discussion about dropping the concept of borrowing. But I believe discussion may continue concerning this issue in relation to compliance measures. As for emissions trading, consultations have been continuous since yesterday. I have not been informed as to whether or not any final conclusions have been reached.

Regarding developing countries, I understand that President Ohki is continuing rigorously with meetings.

This is how it stands, at the moment.

Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: Let us now move to questions and answers.

Question: Kiko from NTV. In the previous briefing given by the EU, the EU delegation mentioned that Japan's proposal for the EU was quite incredible and not something they would expect coming from the host country. What do you think about this?

Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: As you know, as far as the EU bubble is concerned, the transparancy, equity and legal aspects are the areas in which we find some problems in their proposal. So we are asking them to, at least, minimize the problem areas, which not only Japan but other concerned countries have been suggesting need to be resolved.

On the other hand, we have submitted a counter-proposal to Article 4 of the protocol draft, to which the EU has referred. This is the normal procedure. When a party, for example, submits a proposal, the other party might submit a counter proposal. We realize there are some problems in the existing EU proposal, with regard to transparency and equibility. I believe the EU also recognizes these problem areas. In a previous meeting of the AGBM, the EU provided some explanation. But that explanation was insufficient. So, we requested the EU delegation to provide a further explanation. This is a natural procedure. This is not really an issue about the comments of the host country or what the host country proposes or something like that. They might be trying to imply an issue of power or some kind of diplomatic ploy. But we are saying that this is a strictly normal procedure for any negotiation. And that's the way is should be in a diplomatic process, when one party proposes one thing and another party proposes something else, to reach an agreement. This is not an issue of "take it or leave it." Not only Japan but other countries may have comments on the EU proposal. That's why Chairman Estrada tries to have many proposals on the draft, so that we can come up with a solution.

Question: Nick Nuttle, from the Times, in London. Getting back to the EU bubble: The EU is indicating that part of your proposal is that the EU would have to accept a higher target for cutting back emmissions than other industrialized nations, like the U.S.A. or yourselves. They say that this is unacceptable. They say that your proposal says that if we want to keep the bubble in EU, we've got to accept a higher target than everybody else at the agreement next week. How do you justify that?

Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: It is not a question of justification. I understand that what you have mentioned is the position of the EU. It's quite natural that they say that, if they believe so. I have been telling all of you that the question is always how we can maintain the equity in burden-sharing. Everyone recognizes that by taking joint action to reduce emissions, the EU member countries get advantages that are not accorded to non-EU countries. Because of this, we believe that it is natural that EU countries assume a higher degree of responsibility or obligation than other countries. This is the argument presented by the Japanese government and other non-EU countries.

As I said before, one country presents its argument and other countries present different arguments. It does not matter whether the first one is right and the second one is wrong, or vise-versa. We just present our argument believing that this is the way we can find some kind of solution through intensive discussion. I hope that everybody understands that when negotiations are on, it is quite natural that we show one card, another country shows another card, and other countries show other card. Then, on the basis of the merit of each card, we expect and we are confident that we will come to some kind of satisfactory solutions.

Question: Hanoka, from Mainichi Newspaper. You say that advantages are not accorded to non-EU countries. Would you explain to us what you mean by those advantages.

Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: Well if I may be specific, frankly speaking, in the case of the EU, there are 15 member countries. In at least the first budget period, which are the countries that will have a heavier burden? I think that it's going to be Germany and England. Because of the large burden those countries will bear, other EU countries will not have to bear such heavy burdens. To be much more specific, when you talk about energy efficiency and so forth, I think that the cases of France and Japan are quite similar. We are more or less in the same situation -- maybe France has it a bit better. France will be stabilizing at 1990 levels, while Japan is asked to reduce emissions by 15%. So, by acting together, the EU is able to achieve its goals in an easier way than Japan will have to do by itself. We take these factors into consideration. I think it is quite justifiable that we ask that these factors be taken into consideration.

Question: This is the fourth day of the conference. We have only six more days to go. Many people are talking in the halls and corridors about when Japan is actually going to take the leadership. I, too, want to know when Japan is going to start taking the initiative.

Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: As for the leadership question, yes, people are always talking about leadership. Ever since President Ohki assumed presidency of this conference, he has been involved and engaged very vigorously in consultations and informal meetings, under the surface. If people feel that he has not demonstrated leadership yet, we feel quite offended. He may not be sparkling or very visible. Leadership does not mean visibility or sparkling qualities. It means much more than that. So, objectively speaking, Mr. Ohki has been working very intensively under the surface, even though you may not be able to see it, to move this conference to a successful conclusion. The mass media may not notice that, but this is simply because it is not visible. He is taking the leadership.

Question: Hans Halmanett, Netherlands. If I understood the Japanese proposal before this meeting started, the Japanese side wanted differentiation. If this is so, why are the Japanese now, according to the EU, leading the attack against the EU using differentiation?

Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: I'm afraid that you don't understand the EU proposal very well. The EU proposal says that they make differentiation among themselves, only. When it comes to non-EU countries, they propose to apply the flat-rate approach. So the EU says, "Let us have the 15% reduction for all EU-member countries," meaning the EU as a single unit, and also for all non-EU countries, including Japan, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Within the EU, the concept of differentiation is applied. So, countries like Portugal can enjoy a 40% increase above their 1990 levels of emissions. Spain, if my memory is correct, would be allowed an increase of 30%, or something like that.

I mentioned that one element of the problem with the EU proposal is that they apply differentiation only to their member countries, while denying the benefits of differentiation to non-EU countries. And by using the joint undertakings, they can have the advantages that I just explained to all of you. Under the Japanese scheme of differentiation, with my idea of including member countries into three categories, it is natural, in my view, that the EU assume a higher level of commitment.

Question: Iida, from Kyodo News Agency. I would like to ask you about the EU bubble. The Europeans say that having that bubble is not just their privelage, but that they will give the same privelage to other countries or areas, if those parties so wish. What do you think about that?

Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: When the EU talks about the EU bubble, I think they are thinking about it in a more specific way. They talk about "EU bubbles" and "EU-like bubbles." I'm sure you've already read their statement. From their statement you can see the clear distinction between the EU bubble and bubbles in general, as applied to other countries. If you read Article 4, Item 5, for example, you will see that.

Question: I would like to follow up on the same subject. You say that the EU only recognized this schedule within themselves. The way the European proposal was explained to me is that they are saying that any group of countries can do that. And you're saying that other countries cannot do that. Now who is right -- you or the EU?

Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: You remember that the EU always says that they are on the way to political unity. This is quite a unique element, shall we say, that no other countries can have, even if we were to organize some sort of bubble-type organization. Because of the specific characteristics that the EU has, their bubble creates special problems, from our point of view, with regards to legal responsibilities and the question of equity. This is not a matter of what is right and what is wrong. They suggest that others organize similar bubbles. But "similar" and "same" are quite different.

Question: With respect to the EU proposal, the Japanese delegation is currently opposing their bubble idea. What kind of reactions have been received from other countries?

Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: Japan and other non-EU countries are not seeing this for the first time. Japan and other countries have been pointing to the inherent problems in the EU bubble. With respect to the legal problems, we have been saying this for a long time. It was not until the 8th session of AGBM that the EU delegation explained the legal aspects of the EU bubble. At least for Japan and other non-EU members, that explanation was nowhere near complete. Even with regard to the legal aspects, alone, we have not heard sufficient explanation, yet. Also, there are problems in other areas, such as transparency and equity.

Specifically speaking, for example, if non-EU countries are to change the targets -- and that set of targets will be described in the protocol -- that would require the legal procedure called "modification to the protocol." This modification is a very complicated issue. When it comes to the EU, however, because they will have some internal agreement with region, the burden of each country within the EU would be able to be relatively easily modified among the member nations, without having to go through the relatively complex procedure of modifying the protocol. What will be decided in Kyoto will have some legally-binding capacity. I believe that in that respect, we need more consideration.

Anyway, we will have to think about how we can best explore the possibility of a satisfactory agreement, including that particular issue. Comments and opinions will be raised and will continue to be raised among the parties, in order to come up with a better solution or find a compromise among the parties. It is not an issue of which is bad and which is right. The bottom line is that each party should express their opinion, based on their belief, and that is what we are doing right now. We are in the middle of that process.

We have run out of time. Thank you very much.