Politics and the Life Sciences • September 2002 • vol. 21, no. 2 66 Japan as “best” and “worst” In Japan, the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) appeared in front-page articles in major newspapers almost every day during the meeting. Many people in Japan were aware of the conference and of the two conventions that were signed there: the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). At the conference itself, Japan committed to a substantial increase in its Official Development Assistance (ODA) intended for environ- mental purposes—an increment of around 900 to 1000 billion yen ($7.0–7.7 billion) during a five-year period. This ambitious target was exceeded: after five years, ODA in the environmental field had increased by more than forty percent, to 1440 billion yen (approximately $13.3 billion). 1 Yet while Japanese themselves were confident in their contribution to the global environment, Japan was not widely perceived as a “green” country by oth- ers. Quite the contrary: European environmental non- governmental organizations (NGOs) ranked Japan as the third worst country in terms of contributions made to global environmental protection efforts. 2 One rea- son for this evaluation was that Japan remained silent and indirectly supported the United States (which was ranked as the worst). Japan was unsatisfied with this dishonorable evaluation, as it had thought it was doing its best to save the global environment. This article examines whether Japan’s role in inter- national activity towards a sustainable future has changed in the decade sincthe Earth Summit. What did Japan learn from this experience at Rio? What changes have occurred in the decade since then? How did Japan perform ten years later, at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg? Why the discrepancy in these perceptions of Japan’s role, and has the gap closed over time? What is a “leader”? Much as NGOs rank countries from “best” to “worst,” scholars of international environmental affairs often use the term “leaders” to indicate coun- tries that make the strongest contributions to achieving a greener world. Young defined leadership in terms of three categories: structural, entrepreneurial, and intel- lectual. 3 Underdal uses somewhat different categories, referring to coercive, instrumental, and unilateral types of leadership. 4 Not all of these forms of leadership are recognized by the media or environmental NGOs. Assessing Japan as an environmental leader means ask- ing whether any of these types of leadership have been assumed since Rio. In assessing these forms of leadership, it is necessary to examine Japan’s domestic policies as well as its diplomacy. Has Japan learned lessons from Rio that have moved it in the direction of greater sustainability? The ideal position for a country to be sustainable is to implement such a strategy at both the domestic and international levels. Can Japan be an environmental leader? Japanese environmental diplomacy since the Earth Summit Yasuko Kameyama, Ph.D. National Institute for Environmental Studies Environment Agency of Japan 16-2 Onogawa, Tsukuba 305-8506, Japan ykame@nies.go.jp