Japan
Japan’s statement
Structured dialogues on tech
I would like to thank the co-moderators and the Secretariat for their respective note and summary. I find both of them quite useful for structuring our dialogue in a constructive and effective way.
Regarding the moderator’s note, I agree with the statement that “the scale of efforts is yet to match the scale of the challenge.” I also fully acknowledge and share the sense of urgency. Indeed, the Government of Japan has been making tremendous efforts in this endeavor. Japan is one of a number of countries who are enthusiastic about sharing our technology as much as we can all over the world. But my question is what kinds of efforts are needed now. We need to have a clear understanding about what kind of efforts are really needed to promote the development, transfer and dissemination of clean and environmentally sound technologies. As we just heard the presentation made by Mr. Guellec, this issue is related to many policy areas, such as education, market regulations.
In this regard, I hesitate to use the word “fragmentation” in a negative sense. All Member States are equally responsible for this fragmentation, if we are indeed interpreting is as some bad thing to overcome. We need to remind ourselves that all initiatives are the result of difficult negotiations engaged in in different fora by most of the Member States here as well. For example, CTCN was the outcome of 17 years of negotiations in UNFCCC. At any rate, we need a clear answer regarding the difference between CTCN and any new mechanism, including what specifically is the added value of the mechanism, and what gaps still need to be addressed after the establishment of CTCN and other initiatives. Without identifying these questions, my delegation is not yet in a position to move on to further discussions on how to establish a new mechanism.
In addition, I agree with the statement that it is generally acknowledged that needs differ at the national, regional and global levels. I believe that needs differ across sectors as well. The various efforts that have been taken at the field level so far are simply attempts to address those different needs.
Regarding the summary presented by the Secretariat, I agree with the approach stated in the first sentence of the summary; namely, that “in order to be able to discuss either the feasibility of a mechanism or the question of how to go about establishing one, it would be useful to start by clarifying what functions such a mechanism might usefully incorporate”. This statement is also responding to my aforementioned questions and observations.
The summary also pointed out several areas, including “information and awareness”, “analysis of needs and gaps”, and “dialogues,” to be considered and discussed further based on bullet points listed in the summary. However, one point I would like to make is that I hesitate to use the word “coordination” because I am not sure what is meant by it. We should rather use a phrase like “how to seek coherence or synergy”.
My last point is that importance of the role of the private sector. It is not merely crucial; rather it is almost the only actor capable of inventing and transferring technologies. All governments can do is ensure the existence of an enabling environment. Japan is famous for its state-of-the-art technologies, but I do not believe any of them were invented and owned by the government of Japan.
In this sense, the most useful things this new mechanism, if it is created, could do is to facilitate Member States in accessing all relevant data and information, including different initiatives and efforts on-going all over the world.
I thank you.
Structured dialogues on tech
I would like to thank the co-moderators and the Secretariat for their respective note and summary. I find both of them quite useful for structuring our dialogue in a constructive and effective way.
Regarding the moderator’s note, I agree with the statement that “the scale of efforts is yet to match the scale of the challenge.” I also fully acknowledge and share the sense of urgency. Indeed, the Government of Japan has been making tremendous efforts in this endeavor. Japan is one of a number of countries who are enthusiastic about sharing our technology as much as we can all over the world. But my question is what kinds of efforts are needed now. We need to have a clear understanding about what kind of efforts are really needed to promote the development, transfer and dissemination of clean and environmentally sound technologies. As we just heard the presentation made by Mr. Guellec, this issue is related to many policy areas, such as education, market regulations.
In this regard, I hesitate to use the word “fragmentation” in a negative sense. All Member States are equally responsible for this fragmentation, if we are indeed interpreting is as some bad thing to overcome. We need to remind ourselves that all initiatives are the result of difficult negotiations engaged in in different fora by most of the Member States here as well. For example, CTCN was the outcome of 17 years of negotiations in UNFCCC. At any rate, we need a clear answer regarding the difference between CTCN and any new mechanism, including what specifically is the added value of the mechanism, and what gaps still need to be addressed after the establishment of CTCN and other initiatives. Without identifying these questions, my delegation is not yet in a position to move on to further discussions on how to establish a new mechanism.
In addition, I agree with the statement that it is generally acknowledged that needs differ at the national, regional and global levels. I believe that needs differ across sectors as well. The various efforts that have been taken at the field level so far are simply attempts to address those different needs.
Regarding the summary presented by the Secretariat, I agree with the approach stated in the first sentence of the summary; namely, that “in order to be able to discuss either the feasibility of a mechanism or the question of how to go about establishing one, it would be useful to start by clarifying what functions such a mechanism might usefully incorporate”. This statement is also responding to my aforementioned questions and observations.
The summary also pointed out several areas, including “information and awareness”, “analysis of needs and gaps”, and “dialogues,” to be considered and discussed further based on bullet points listed in the summary. However, one point I would like to make is that I hesitate to use the word “coordination” because I am not sure what is meant by it. We should rather use a phrase like “how to seek coherence or synergy”.
My last point is that importance of the role of the private sector. It is not merely crucial; rather it is almost the only actor capable of inventing and transferring technologies. All governments can do is ensure the existence of an enabling environment. Japan is famous for its state-of-the-art technologies, but I do not believe any of them were invented and owned by the government of Japan.
In this sense, the most useful things this new mechanism, if it is created, could do is to facilitate Member States in accessing all relevant data and information, including different initiatives and efforts on-going all over the world.
I thank you.
Stakeholders