(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: As you know high-level meetings will start tomorrow. As Japan attaches great importance to this conference, Prime Minister Hashimoto himself will attend the opening of the high-level segment and deliver a speech, followed by speeches by the foreign minister and the minister of international trade and industry to express Japan's position.

We hope that all parties will forego their small differences and come to grips with this important matter of global warming squarely in order to produce significant results. Now until last night, the Committee of the Whole met until close to midnight working out the details. Chairman Estrada has worked out a document based on this meeting, and we highly appreciate his efforts. The session that starts tomorrow will be at the ministerial level, and therefore we hope that with the ministers' leadership, wisdom, and long-term perspective, the negotiations will produce favorable results.

So much for my opening remarks. Now I'd like to open the floor to questions. Before doing that, I have one request. Please state your name and affiliation before asking your question, and please make certain to go to one of the microphones.

Question: My name is Kikko. I'm from NTV. In the EU briefing that was just held, it was stated that when it comes to numerical targets, at least the EU, U.S. and Japan should have a common flat rate, while there can be differentiation for other parties.

Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: Until now the European Union was saying, like the United States, that there cannot be any differentiation, while allowing significant differentiation internally within the EU. Therefore, we've been pointing out the unfairness of this position. The fact that the EU has started to shift its basic position and has now started to admit some level of differentiation indicates that our views were correct and we hope that the European Union will go further in admitting more differentiation.

Now with regard to differentiation, the EU has been saying that the arguments behind differentiation are legitimate. It is only because of the lack of time that it was difficult to allow differentiation into the process. Now if the EU is still saying that there should be a flat rate between the European Union, Japan, and the United States, then that raises the question of how that is to be reconciled with what they've been saying recently. They were beginning to say they would admit differentiation, and that that included Japan. So I'd like to clarify this point in the ongoing process of negotiations.

Having said that, I believe that if the European Union has ended their intransigence and are willing to accept differentiation, I believe this is something to be welcomed, and I encourage them to go further.

Question: Kato from the Asahi Shimbun. In the previous briefing, the European Union said that they have already made concessions to Japan and the United States and that they would hope for some concessions from Japan and the U.S. What sort of concessions have you made to the European Union?

Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: You say that the EU has made concessions. I'm not aware of any concessions they have made. They're still sticking to 15%. We haven't heard that they're willing to go down to 10% or 7.5%. I don't know what is meant by "concessions."

While not a "concession" per se, Japan, for the purpose the bringing the conference to a conclusion, has floated the idea of getting the cooperation of the developing countries with the Kyoto Initiative. We have appealed to various parties, including the possibility of joint implementation. On these points, we haven't had a favorable response from the United States or the EU. We hope that as many countries as possible, in fact all the major countries, will come to an agreement, and to that end we've floated many new ideas and made significant contributions. And in certain respects, we have become more flexible with regard to emissions trading. That might be termed a concession by Japan, and we've been making active steps in these respects.

Question: Robert Sasson, Orange County U.S.A. Register. The U.N. population division has projected that Europe's population is declining right now because of more deaths than births and that Japan's population will soon be declining because your fertility rate has been less than 1.5 for a number of years. Does the Japanese delegation plan to take into account different population growth and decline rates if you believe in differentiation in emissions for the various countries? Thank you.

Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: No. We have to take various elements into consideration. One could present the argument that population growth is one such element. It may be so, but at the same time, we wonder, to what extent is policy effort involved in population growth? In case of increasing energy efficiency, tremendous effort is necessary, and therefore, when it comes to setting a target, we should take this kind of element into account. When it comes to population growth, however, I wonder what policy element is involved.

Question: During the previous news conference, some of the people were saying that the convention is at somewhat of an impasse now and that they hope Mr. Gore comes with a new position of some sort to generate compromises. Do you have the same opinion?

Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: We have been asking the United States, as we have asked other countries, to become more forthcoming, and we believe that the United States will continue to make every possible effort to make the Kyoto conference successful. I would add that negotiations are proceeding steadily, and that progress is being made.

Question: Shimizu with Energy and Environment. Two questions. To what extent do you think the developed countries should lower their emissions from the 1990 level? Second, I don't think we'll reach a successful conclusion without Japan and the United States making significant contributions to systems for developing countries.

Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: As for your first question, I believe that there are various ways of looking at expectations. As we've been saying, what we need are meaningful, realistic, and equitable targets. And they must be legally binding. Once we adopt these targets, we must be able to achieve them.

With regard to your question about developing countries, in the long-term perspective, the prevention of global warming is a matter of common interest for the entire human race. At the same time we also have to recognize the legitimate interests of the developing countries that they be able to carry on with sustainable development. Having said that, from the viewpoint of undertaking common but differentiated responsibility, we will need to have their participation in the effort to reduce emissions.

Question: My second point was whether Japan and the United States had a card up their sleeves that they could show to the developing countries to achieve a breakthrough.

Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: Not just Japan and the United States, certainly, but the Europeans, too, will have to come up with ideas. What constitute a "card up our sleeves" will differ depending to interpretation, and I believe that the developing countries have their own thoughts as well. Even if we did have such a "card," it would hardly be a good negotiating tactic to reveal it at this forum right now.

Question: Sonoda from the Environment Newspaper. I understand that the New Zealand proposal was received by the secretariat. What's happened to this proposal. Could you also tell us what's happening with the "clean development fund?"

Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: Which New Zealand proposal did you have in mind?

Question: The New Zealand proposal regarding developing country participation. New Zealand presented a proposal that all countries, including the developing parties, enter into a commitment process following 2014 and that this commitment by the developing countries be predicated on Annex 1 parties implementing their commitments through 2002. The developing countries contend that this would go beyond the Berlin Mandate. As such the proposal was presented to the secretariat but has not gone beyond that.

Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: Developing country questions will be discussed further in the coming days. In the informal talks being undertaken by the president, we understand that the question of how to handle developing country participation is being dealt with.

Question: Iida from Kyodo News Agency. There was a report of a comment by a U.S. government official in Washington criticizing the delay by Japan in considering elements of proposals that are made by the United States because of the Japanese bureaucratic system.

Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: Are you saying that there's no response from the Japanese government? Which U.S. proposal are you referring to specifically? I don't understand the question. I don't have an idea of such an instance in the past, and so perhaps I shouldn't go any further. But the question of how much time things take depends on the nature of the problems being discussed. I don't think Japan must always come up with a response quickly. We need to take time to respond, so I don't understand what you're getting at.

Question: Ono from NHK. Earlier, EU said that there should be a three-plus-three approach for gases to be covered by the protocol, that this is something that should be open to negotiation. Japan has maintained the three-gas position. What do you think of the EU position?

Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: As far as the number of gases is concerned, three gases or six gases, Chairman Estrada has talked about targeting the three gases initially -- carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide -- for reduction. And the additional three gases later, to be addressed perhaps at COP4, although the timing and period for the reductions have not of course been decided. The gist of the proposal by Chairman Estrada is that there should be flexibility in the number of gases to be incorporated. Japan supports Chairman Estrada's proposal, and we have already indicated our support for it.

Question: Watanabe with NHK, as was asked by someone else, Brazil has proposed the establishment of a clean development fund or mechanism. What sort of discussion has there been on this proposal, and what sort of stance is Japan taking toward this idea?

Ambassador Toshiaki Tanabe: In certain respects, it's a very interesting proposal. When it comes to functions and other details, I believe they will have to be worked out. From the vantage point of the developed countries, not just Japan, we're all opposed to establishing a new fund, but some sort of mechanism might be worth considering. We still have to consider what sort of functions this clean development mechanism would have. But this is a new proposal and therefore we would like to see, in good faith, what sort of functions it may have.